Five Years Later
Posted by Michael Link on May 1, 2008 at 10:00 AM
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."
- President George W. Bush, May 1, 2003
"The war will be over soon."
- Senator John McCain, February 25, 2008
And not only is the mission not "accomplished." There's no clear mission to begin with. The White House says one thing, John McCain says another. Except he's in favor of staying there for 100 years, which completely changes that mission.
It'd be nice to elect a president whose vision of finally getting out of Iraq doesn't occur at a time of robots and flying cars. So on this Mission Accomplished Day, my own personal question to McCain is what mission does he see for our troops for the next 100 years? What goal would he give them? And how, exactly, is it going to be just like Germany, Japan, or South Korean like he claims?
There are a lot of lessons. But one you should certainly take away is that just because somebody declares that we're going to stay in Iraq with an open-ended commitment and no combat doesn't make it so. It didn't make it so for Bush, and it won't make it so for McCain's vision of 100 years in Iraq.
Of course, McCain used to know this. But flip-flopped on it so many times I'm not sure he remembers what he has said. Asked by Charlie Rose if he thought the South Korean model would serve as an analogy, even if there were no casualties, he said "No..."
But times have changed; namely, he had to win a Republican primary.
Comments (2) «
USMCGrandma:
What kind of "secret deals are you talking about? Are you talking about something real? Or more of the usual Republican lies???
The "War of Lies" has destroyed many lives and left so many vets kicked to the wall, abandoned by the government which promised to care for them if they put their lives on the line for it, quite real abuse of our military personnel, the kids whose dreams have been betrayed by a lying callous, uncaring, administration, and I include the Republicans and Republi-lite legislators who supported going into Iraq and have never admitted they were wrong.
Don't slap us vets, who oppose this destructive "war" in the face with charges of "false" compassion. Even those of us who never were in combat, at least stepped up and were ready if called. For those of us, who didn't go into a combat zone, it's "but for the grace of God go I". For the rest of us it's "Been there done that". Our compassion is not false.
We didn't dodge our country's call and then flaunt it and thumb our noses at those who served.
Look instead at the failed "leadership" of the self-serving Republicans who have lied to start a war, treated these kids like disposable trash, and have no end nor any plan other that to continue to destroy our country, our reputation in the world, and many thousands of lives for self-serving interests which are yet to be revealed entirely, but the glimpses we have caught are covered in oil and greed.
If you mean that you are suporting McCain, he has proven that he will say anything he feels necessary, including contradicting himself, to get elected and continue this degrading fiasco.
He may have served honorably at one time, but he has turned his back on his honor and our military, his fellow GIs.
I do not disrespect his service, but I have every reason to disrespect him for his current actions.
I will vote straight ticket Democrat, no matter who is nominated, I will support all Democrat populist candidates for Congress, and I continue to oppose both this war, this administration, and McCain's candidacy.
"Wink, wink" with Canada? From the Canadian memo about the meeting between the Chicago counsel and Prof Goosbee, that was published. The Canadians were gathering information about Obama's position on NAFTA. Tjhe Canadians presented the facts that Canada does more trade with the Midwestern US than with either EU or Mexico. Goolsbee assured them that Obama was concerned with labor issues, and not with damaging the bi-national trade in the Great Lakes region.
As for Hillary and NAFTA, she came out as a strong supporter of NAFTA during her husband's administration, on Meet the Press in 2004, she said "I think, on balance, that NAFTA has been good for New York and America".
Recently, the Toronto Globe and Mail came out with an article about Clinton also talking to the Canadians about NAFTA, and telling them to take her campaign remarks "with a grain of salt".
So this NAFTA thing is a no-win for Hillary, in fact it throws the suspicion of distorting facts on her shoulders.
Either way, we need to support good populist Democrats in our Congressional elections, to ensure that the will of the People is carried out and not allow whoever is president to rampantly pander to Big Business, whoever wins.
« Hide Comments
Comments are now closed for this entry.
