A Dumb War After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again. I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history… …I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.That was a speech given by Obama back in 2002 when America was discussing for what would be over a year whether or not to invade Iraq. A time when Bush got congressional approval and a time when Iraq had been issued up to 18 U.N. resolutions. None of which happened in Libya and yet the collective is painfully quiet. I am a little sick about it. In fact my hatred for the collective has turned into, ummm, more hatred. If there is anyone from the collective that will finally sympathize with Bush it will only be Obama, but in quiet and behind closed doors.
Monday, March 28, 2011
I Do Not Disagree With Obama's Libya Decision
I thought it a bit late, but that doesn't seem to matter anymore since the rebels are starting to turn it around. What I take exception to is the total double standard. Apparently the collective doesn't hate war or policing the world or war abuses (like the latest kill team in afghanistan which is getting 1/10 the coverage as Abu Graib) at all. They hate conservatives. Namely christian conservatives. It was bad enough that Bush was a Republican, but a bible thumper too?
Posted by Unknown at 11:07 AM