Friday, September 23, 2005

We started a war against people who had not attacked us to reverse the pattern of inaction when attacked?

The following two paragraphs are quoted from the Los Angeles Times of Sept. 23, 2005, and were reported by Warren Vieth.

"President Bush said Thursday that mistakes made by three of his predecessors, including the Reagan administration's restraint after the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, had emboldened terrorists and helped set the stage for the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Bush said he was determined not to repeat the pattern by pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq before the insurgency there is contained and Iraqi forces are able to provide adequate security."

Read it again.

The first statement about terrorists becoming emboldened by the inaction of Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, and Clinton may have some truth to it, though it might be hard for this Bush to prove.

President Bush's second statement, however, is so boggling that it is hard to know where to begin the analysis. He says the U.S. forces must now stay in Iraq until the insurgency is contained in order not to "repeat the pattern" of inaction against terrorists by the three former administrations.

Given the facts of the Bush Iraq war, the statement simply does not compute. How is staying in Iraq, where few if any terrorists were before our invasion, fit with Reagan's inaction after the bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon?

There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Saddam had no ties to the 9/11 terrorists. Iraq posed no threat to the United States at the time of our invasion.

We invaded anyway.

Since then, Bush's Iraq war has served as a highly effective recruitment argument by Al Quaeda. That organization has attracted terrorists, and recruits who want to become terrorists, from around the world to Iraq. Those radical muslims see our very presence as desecration of their holy land.

So the Bush League has created a magnet for terrorists who are killing our military personnel, Iraqi securirty forcces, and Iraqi civilians by the hundreds. And he now seems to be calling that blunder a decisive blow that contrasts favorably with his predecessor's "pattern of inaction."

I think that is what the statements say. Maybe not. Review: The situation in Iraq has developed because of the Bush League's invasion, based on lies, but never mind that for now. Yet Bush says we must stay in Iraq until the situation that he created is controlled. And get this: He says if we don't stay with the war which we started, it would be the same as his three predesessors not responding to earlier attacks on us. Does that seem like the same thing to you?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

You got it right. The bozo can't reason well.

9/24/2005 11:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe it would be better to just let anyone attack us on our own land so no one could complain.

9/24/2005 12:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Someone else doesn't get what you wrote! What an idiotic idea. Probably another supporter of Bush, no matter what. Like invading Iraq was the only answer. That "answer" was as far from the question as the "answer" by the one who wrote about letting them attack...

9/24/2005 1:17 PM  
Anonymous Jenny said...

Your headline question says it all. I don't think the one who suggests letting opthers attack read or understood that.

9/24/2005 1:54 PM  
Anonymous Racerman said...

I agree that your headline question sums it up. Sure shows how the "Christian" Bushies have rewritten the Golden Rule. "Due unto others before they can do unto you."

9/24/2005 3:33 PM  
Blogger darrelprice11129895 said...

i thought your blog was cool and i think you may like this cool Website. now just Click Here

9/25/2005 6:05 PM  
Anonymous hardrock said...

I am glad to find your blog. You are right on about the Bushies. Do you think the president even understands what he says? He doesn't understand what it means to be a Christian, for sure.

9/25/2005 7:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

— President Theodore Roosevelt

9/26/2005 4:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9/28/2005 5:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Their noble cause changes every time there is substantial criticism, and it is never noble at all.

10/14/2005 11:08 AM  
Anonymous Ogden Smapp said...

"Comment Deleted
This post has been removed by the blog administrator.

9/28/2005 5:47 AM "

When we endorse censorship, we have given up the battle for freedom and have admitted the riteousness of the opposition.

10/15/2005 6:05 PM  
Blogger Dana said...

Your mother and your 12-year-old daughter wanted to read the comment. I didn't want to read the one to them; so you do it.

10/15/2005 11:45 PM  
Anonymous Ogden Smapp said...

I am particularly amused by your vacuous response along the lines of "So's yer old man." My mother is dead and my daughter is old enough to make up her own mind about what and what not to read. Strawman retorts do little to demonstrate your verbal acumen.

It is your blog and you may make the rules, of course, but I would have hoped for a more articulate and poignant response.

10/25/2005 2:56 PM  
Blogger Dana said...

Ogden, you are quite right on all counts of your latest critique. I don't know whether or not you are the one who posted the profane and inane response revealing a bankrupt mind and vocabulary, but I did leave it on the blog for several weeks. I also have left advertisements disguised as comments, though I have seriously thought of deleting them as simply inappropriate. Why should I give space to those seeking to sell their products to my readers? I suppose you would notice their absense and conclude that I was also guilty of censorship were I to eliminate ads from my log. Anyway, I apologize for the flippant response, but agree that it is my blog. So, profanity, inanity, comments exibiting bankrupt thinking or vocabulary, as well as advertisements on my site, may get removed in the future, as well. Thanks for revisiting and commenting. Cheers.

10/25/2005 3:19 PM  
Anonymous Ogden Smapp said...


Thank you for your response. It was more along the lines I had expected, considering your normal writing.

To set your mind at ease, no, I am not the one who made the deleted post. I am a relatively new reader to your blog, having been alerted to it by a person of mutual aquaintence.

I generally try to show a little decorum when visiting another person's domain and seldom resort to profanity unless no other words can express the same thought.

I enjoy reading your thoughts, but you may find me challenging your assumptions from time-to-time, if you don't object.

Go well,


10/27/2005 12:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a great site Compare+cell+phone+plans+and+rates buy didrex dvd windows media player government online payment Sheetmetal 1700 ford tractor Which kind of basketball bounces higher Information drug fluoxetine con ferr roof rack Free milf vidio patio furniture adderall xr

4/23/2007 12:09 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home