The Army's hard sell

Who will the blame fall on when a nuclear device or a dirty bomb slips through a load of freight at one of our ports and finds it's way into the heart of a major city hiding in the back of a rig?

Who will be held accountable when a terrorist finally makes it through the border and does some grotesque act of horror?

It seems that's what it will take to wake some of you people up to comprehend that this should have been our primary concern since 9/12.

 

Have you noticed that these insurgents are coming from Syria, Saudi Arabia and other gulf nations in an endless stream? They operate as efficient, well oiled machines. Our troops are giving them the best training they could ever hope for.

Meanwhile we've done almost nothing to create integrity at our borders and ports.

Something bad will happen and yes, Bush will be accountable.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/01/opinion/01krugman.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

July 1, 2005
America Held Hostage
By PAUL KRUGMAN
A majority of Americans now realize that President Bush deliberately misled the nation to promote a war in Iraq. But Mr. Bush's speech on Tuesday contained a chilling message: America has been taken hostage by his martial dreams. According to Mr. Bush, the nation now has no choice except to keep fighting the war he wanted to fight.

Never mind that Iraq posed no threat before we invaded. Now it's a "central front in the war on terror," Mr. Bush says, quoting Osama bin Laden as an authority. And since a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would, Mr. Bush claims, be a victory for Al Qaeda, Americans have to support this war - and that means supporting him. After all, you wage war with the president you have, not the president you want.

But America doesn't have to let itself be taken hostage. The country missed the chance to say no before this war started, but it can still say no to Mr. Bush's open-ended commitment, and demand a timetable for getting out.

I know that this argument will be hard to sell. Despite everything that has happened, many Americans still want to believe that this war can and should be seen through to victory. But it's time to face up to three realities. First, the war is helping, not hurting, the terrorists. Second, the kind of clear victory the hawks promised is no longer possible, if it ever was. Third, a time limit on our commitment will do more good than harm.

Before the war, opponents warned that it would strengthen, not weaken, terrorism. And so it has: a recent C.I.A. report warns that since the U.S. invasion, Iraq has become what Afghanistan was under the Soviet occupation, only more so: a magnet and training ground for Islamic extremists, who will eventually threaten other countries.

And the situation in Iraq isn't improving. "The White House is completely disconnected from reality," said Senator Chuck Hagel, referring to upbeat assessments of progress. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."

Mr. Hagel claims to believe that we can still win, but it's hard to see how.

More troops might help, but pretty much the whole U.S. Army is already in Iraq, on its way back from Iraq or getting ready to go to Iraq. And the coalition of the willing is shrinking.

Helping Iraqis rebuild their country could help win hearts and minds. But for all the talk of newly painted schools, the fact is that reconstruction, originally stalled by incompetence and corruption, is now stalled by the lack of security. When Ibrahim al-Jafaari, the Iraqi prime minister, visited Washington, he was accompanied by Iraqi journalists. One of them asked Mr. Bush, "When will you begin the reconstruction in Iraq?"

Meanwhile, time is running out for America's volunteer military, which is cracking under the strain of a war it was never designed to fight.

So what would happen if the United States gave up its open-ended commitment to Iraq and set a timetable for withdrawal?

Mr. Bush claims that such a step would "send the wrong signal to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission." But what the troops need to know is that their country won't demand more than they can give. He also claims that it would encourage the insurgents, who will "know that all they have to do is to wait us out." But the insurgents don't seem to need encouragement.

It's far more likely that if the Iraqi government knew that our support had an expiration date, it would both look to its own defenses and, more important, try harder to find a political solution to the insurgency.

The Iraq that emerges once U.S. forces are gone won't bear much resemblance to the free-market, pro-American, Israel-friendly democracy the neocons promised. But it will pose less of a terrorist threat than the Iraq we have now.

Remember, Iraq wasn't a breeding ground for terrorists before we went there. All indications are that the foreign terrorists now infesting Iraq are there on the sufferance of a homegrown insurgency that finds them useful for the moment but that, brutal as it is, isn't interested in an apocalyptic confrontation with the Western world. Once we're no longer targets, the foreign terrorists won't be welcome.

The point is that the presence of American forces in Iraq is making our country less safe. So it's time to start winding down the war.

 

Nope, we're the suckers. We fell for an unjust war while laced with fear from 9/11. We've focused our efforts on the wrong target and squandered mountains of money and precious time.

It's time to pinch yourself and wake up to the nightmare. We've created a colossal mess through stupidity and spread a giant welcome mat around the entire country.

 

Slippery slope fallacy. You are connecting a series of unrelated assertions.

Conservatism does not blow billions of dollars on nation building.

Once again, our primary obligation is to the safety of our own citizens.

 

This transcends political affiliation and pierces directly into the heart of common sense.


We are doing virtually nothing to secure this nation while at the same time fighting a hopeless war which does nothing but exponentially multiply religious wackos willing to kill themselves for their cause.

When and if we are attacked on our own soil you will be with the rest of us. We are the majority now you know, yes? It's not liberalism my friend, it's just a natural desire to live and raise a family free from unecessary threats.

 

"You will blame George Bush for any future terrorist act that happens to America."

Hardsheller, the fact that people praise Bush for there being no more terrorist acts since 9/11 gives someone the right to blame Bush if there is another terrorist attack.

 

LadyEagle, I think it would be detrimental to their "cause" to commit a terrorist attack against you on the 4th of July. No...they would never do it.

 

Joseph, yeah I did miss it. Thanks for sharing that. I did see a few senators walk away with no comment when Moore asked why their sons don't join up though. The camera doesn't lie.

As for Moore being at the gravesites, there is nothing wrong with that. It is a movie about the war isn't it? It is no more shameful than Bush repeatedly referring back to an event that happened four years ago in an attempt to manipulate emotions.

I still believe it was a good movie. If he committed slander in it would he have not been charged?

 

1. The camera doesn't lie. The person behind the camera lies when they edit it.

2. It is shameful to portray someone as being antiwar when they are not...granted.