Surge Protection
I don't normally cite wholesale, but I could not top this argument by Jim Hightower(Hightower Lowdown, February 2007.)
"I don't know about you, but I'm with George W on this one: It's time for a surge!
Yes, let's surge into Iraq with another 20,000 American troops. Put 'em out there in the hot spots, sweating sniper fire, praying that the car that just pulled up doesn't explode in hellish fury, fretting that anyone (everyone!) could be a suicide bomber.
The only proviso I attach to my gung-ho endorsement of your surge strategy, Mr. President, is none of the 20,000 additional troops that you're committing should come from the ranks of people who've already been there, many on their fourth, fifth, and even sixth rotation. Excuse me, but it's the stuff of tortuous war crimes to keep recycling the same people through that shooting gallery.
Instead, here's my plan: Draft young Republicans! Yes, they've been your most ardent cheerleaders for invading, occupying, and staying the course in Iraq; they've been on the front lines jeering and sneering at war protesters, they've bravely attached those yellow Support Our Troops magnets to their SUVs, they've consistently voted for you and your war. So I say give it to 'em!
It's nice that your own daughters, Jenna and Barbara, have supported your Iraq policy rhetorically--but c'mon, why not out their boots on the ground? Give 'em a chance to prove what they're made of. Those Halliburton executives, too--draft all of their twenty-somethings. And don't forget Cheney's young relatives.
Any young Republican who says "Support Our Troops" should become one. Surely, George, you can find a mere 20,000 youthful supporters willing to sign up for your "noble cause." The least you can do is ask them."
posted by rangeragainstwar at 1:05 PM
5 Comments:
The fact that what you quote is pretty damn funny is a reflection of the pathetic hypocrisy of most Republicans, who would never sweat a drop of their own carrying out the occupation they so vociferously cheer for.
Spot on, Mike.
I usually don't use French words like "vociferously," but I do think it fits the situation. The only V word I know is "vicious," which describes the Bush policy towards the lower and middle economic strata. Definitely not Churchill's "V".
I agree with the sentiment, but it only gets criticized by those who are being asked to serve (a haughty, "Why me? I have to be able to prognosticate from afar,"). The Iraq invasion was clearly a mistake. The surge is a mistake. I find it interesting that the president feels this is essentially a struggle for the ages, yet he thinks sending in 20-30,000 troops is the solution. It was clear from the start that more than 300,000 troops would be necessary. Since I think that most agree about that number (many say even more), how does it make sense to surge to no more than 170,000?
Well, it doesn't, does it?
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd say the show must go on, and the only way to ensure that does, well, is to ensure that the curtain doesn't come down. You lose money when the show closes too early.
We'll let Jim comment later.
Lisa
anonymous,
Trying to apply logic to GWB policies is a cat's cradle you won't get out of. As many have pointed out, he is a recovering alcoholic and possible substance abuser (eating too many pork rinds?) Addictive personalities seem to run in that family, and these types often defy logic.
Post a Comment
<< Home