What has become clear already is that the "loyalty uber alles" mentality has infected a wide swath of the Bush administration. Simple notions like right and wrong are, in their eyes, matters of allegiance, not conscience.
It's an ethically slippery slope that is greased with leadership by faith over fact that is a matter of deeply rooted practice in the W, Rove and Co.
In an email, a friend of mine sent along another article with another interesting slice:
In contrast, he said, U.S. operations in 2004 and 2005 "had the unintended consequence of killing off Iraqis who supported us. We would clear an area, encourage people to sign up for government programs, but then we would have to leave and those people would be left exposed and would get killed."To which, my friend stipulates:
No animal that learns in one trial will trust us again. There's nothing _now_ that we can do right.Yes, indeed. Iraq is one of the biggest, if not the largest, sunk costs witnessed in our history. But as every business leaders would recognize - well, those that have run successful businesses - that when a sunk cost proves to be an unwise investment, you don't repeat the same mistake or else you risk your whole agency for it.
Meanwhile, the President continues to trumpet the OBL message for political gain.
Some in our country question whether the battle in Iraq is part of the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there's no doubt. Hear the words of Osama bin Laden: He calls the struggle in Iraq a "war of destiny." He proclaimed "the war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever."It's obvious as to why W likes to be a spokesmodel for the terrorist message. It's becuase in combination with the fear he pedels here at home, it may acutally persuade people that his way is the right way. If you count the number of times W slaps the 9/11 monkey during the Coast Guard speechifying from today, you would think that there is no stronger fixture to their strategy to gain political support for their agenda. Reason seems to have a failed as a strategy to develop support for this war, no?
2 comments:
Reason?
Never heard that discussed by the administration or even in the media.
Bush develops software, takes fight to bugs, wins.
To strike our country, the terrorists only have to be right once; to protect our country, we have to be right 100 percent of the time. That means the best way to protect our people is to take the fight to the enemy.
Bush worries about bin Laden's fading competence.
Bin Laden is matching his words with action. He attempted to send a new commander to Iraq, ... was captured last year, and he was recently he was transferred to the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay.
Bush's plan to overthrow government in the region, impose 'democracy' on millions, etc..
Our intelligence community believes that, "al Qaeda leaders see victory in Iraq -- the heart of the caliphate and currently the most active front in their war -- as a religious and strategic imperative." If al Qaeda succeeds in Iraq, they would pursue their stated goals of turning that nation into a base from which to overthrow moderate governments in the region, impose their hateful ideology on millions, and launch new attacks on America and other nations.
How did that work out for Bush in Iraq?
Post a Comment