As the need to disarm
Simplistic reasoning… wrong of course, but easily digested by the throngs who want an everyday guy as their commander and chief.
So here we are: countless thousands of Iraqis dead, 2500+ American soldiers dead, 20+ THOUSAND wounded all to help put an Iraqi parliament in power that unanimously resolved to support Hezbollah in their latest conflict with
But wait, both the NYTs and Time Magazine online report that the administration is coming to the realization that the civil war in that country will likely preclude that outcome:
[…]an anonymous “military affairs expert” attended a White House briefing and reported: “Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy. Everybody in the administration is being quite circumspect, but you can sense their own concern that this is drifting away from democracy.
While I actually applaud the administrations nod to reality, it underscores the shear incompetence of our leadership.
(BTW, if you take offense to my use of the term “civil war” please suggest another term for a situation in which more than 3000 people a month are killed in sectarian violence.
Its too much to expect, but a sane leader would realize – since this debacle’s inception – that our presence has made the Middle East less stable; has made Iraq a far more dangerous place – not only for Iraqis but for us (as a breeding ground for anti-Americanism) and has strengthened the influence of terrorist groups around the world.
The icing on the cake is that approx 30-40% of our populace agrees with the stay-the-course mentality… As if ensuring fundamentalist rule in
They'll likely fall in line behind fearless leader like they always do... its the nature of insecure, authoritarian types to run back to an abusive spouse no matter what the crime.