Because we acted, Saddam Hussein no longer fills fields with the remains of innocent men, women and children.
Saddam's dead, sure. But we have been responsible for putting a lot of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children in the ground too.
Because we acted, Saddam's torture chambers and rape rooms and children's prisons have been closed for good.
Sure, Saddam is dead and cannot open the McFrancise version of his "torture" chambers, but this claim is hollow because Bush and his cronies still allow torture anyway, and by our own hands (Waterboards for Every One).
Because we acted, Saddam's regime is no longer invading its neighbors or attacking them with chemical weapons and ballistic missiles.
But with all the saber rattling toward Iran, it's looking a lot like we may invade that neighbor. Or is all the threatening rhetoric about Iran getting the nuke just a lot of hot air?
Because we acted, Saddam's regime is no longer paying the families of suicide bombers in the Holy Land.
But the suicide bombers keep coming, and the IEDs, which are more threatening are still exploding. It could be argued that our presence in Iraq has led the recruiting drive for the Jihadists making it substantially easier for the terrorists to recruit more terrorists because we acted in Iraq.
Because we acted, Saddam's regime is no longer shooting at American and British aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones and defying the will of the United Nations.
I may be quibbling about grammar here, but regimes don't act. People do. And last I checked our troops are still in harms way getting shot at. Does it matter that it's not a "regime" but a reconstituted army of believers who used to follow Saddam?
Because we acted, the world is better and United States of America is safer.(Applause.)
Well, that's most certainly debatable, and in the face of the threatening language George Bush used yesterday when talking about Iran, it doesn't pass muster. You can't spur fear and simultaneously say we are safe. Bush continues to dance the fine line between foolishness and faith preferring to lead via faith over fact, and all I know is I most certainly don't feel safer for it.
4 comments:
Bush writing history
The US supported Iraq in its war with Iran, peevish over Iranian hostage taking no doubt, but support Saddam we did.
I may be quibbling about grammar here, but regimes don't act. People do. And last I checked our troops are still in harms way getting shot at. Does it matter that it's not a "regime" but a reconstituted army of believers who used to follow Saddam?
Exactly, when British and American planes were being shot at in the no-fly zone, not one American or Brit was killed. Since then, when Bush decided to foolishly go into Iraq, we have almost 4,000 dead American troops alone. I'm not sure how many British troops have died in this war, but even one is enough as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah, it's such a relief knowing that Sadaam Hussein is out of the picture. Look at all that peace in the Middle East!
Ugh. I'd like to bitch slap Bush from here to kingdom come.
Who said this?
"Part of the problem is that it's very hard for people to trust the Iranian government because they haven't told the full truth, and that's why the people of Iran have got to understand there are great suspicions right now, not only in the United States, but around the world. . . .
"Once a nation hasn't told the truth, it requires a lot of work to convince people that they'll be telling the truth in the future."
"Because we acted, Saddam's torture chambers and rape rooms and children's prisons have been closed for good."
...they're under new management--our's.
Post a Comment