Cindy Sheehan throws in the towel

I thought we won the war in Iraq four years ago? I'm still not sure why we still need to be there if we already won, especially when our soldiers keep getting picked off one by one. As for the "War on Terror," John Edwards is right: That's just a bumper sticker phrase made up by the right to start wars anywhere they please. As they say, terrorism is a tactic.

There's a new story out today from Al Qaida warning Bush that they'll hit us again worse than 9/11 if we don't get out of all Muslim lands (i.e. as retaliation for us being in Iraq). If they do attack, could Bush's legacy be saved since presumably everyone would rally around him after such a hit? Or does he take the fall for not "protecting" us better? I bring this up since some were talking about how Bush's legacy is in the toilet for good. I never rallied around him, even the first time, because I believed then and now that he is an idiot. He hid in a school room reading a child's book like a coward, clueless as to what to do or how to lead as we were attacked the first time, so seeing him make some mangled speech after the attacks did not make me feel better. I'm a proud American and I grieved 9/11 like everyone else, but I'm not proud that our country put this moron in power.

 

I won't go as far as calling Bush a terrorist or the devil, and I think it's a bit misguided to even try and make the comparison. That being said, I think whatever his intentions may have been, Bush and his administration has made some incredibly horrible decisions, and decisions which go far beyond what other recent administrations have done.

History to this day still portrays Richard Nixon more as a paranoid individual and less as an international statesman (of which, he accomplished quite a bit), and I'm afraid Bush will be portrayed as a power-grabbing, religiously driven individual instead of even a mediocre president.

 

Oh, OK -- yeah that argument seems reasonable, especially considering, if I am not mistaken Truman ENDED a war, though he used a very unpopular and controversial method to achieve that end. This war was dead on arrival and it has turned into a complete cluster fuck.

And like I said before -- I keep hearing about the United States pulling out of Iraq -- OK, then what? Instead of arguing about funds and creating sound bytes to try and rally the base, both sides need to sit down and figure out how we can get out of this gracefully, in a way that makes sense for both the United States and Iraq.

 

Coach, talk about the fourteen "enduring bases" we're building in Iraq, and how they reflect on our "exit strategy."

 

As usual, Paul Krugman nails it:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/052807D.shtml

The entire column is worth reading, but especially this passage pertaining to the next election:

Someone on another thread asked why I have such disdain for the shit-for-brains Washington press corps. A big reason is because they continue to let politicians get away with such ridiculous comments as those above, while focusing the nightly cable gab fests on such pressing issues as where John Edwards gets his hair cut.

Paul Somerby calls the WPC's performance a "national security issue," and with each passing day, I'm becoming more convinced that it isn't hyperbole.

 

That Krugman column was one nice piece of work. Very nicely told.

 

What about Jim Jones?

 

Sorry, but no.

I don't think, however, that failing to find a comparison figure in history in any way erases what Bush has done. There really aren't a lot of parallels in history with which to compare him, so why even bother?

Better to focus on what he's done than who he compares to, don't you think? And what he's done will speak for itself.

 

Paul Krugman is another one-trick pony -- yes, we know, he thinks GWB is the anti-christ and he doesn't like tax cuts either. I think he needs some new material, really.

 

He is just as evil incarnate as Jim Jones. But you are right in one respect; Jones killed fewer than a thousand people.

If you choose to be fooled by the idiot varnish slathered all over Bush's surface, that's your choice.

Has there ever been a more evil character in the Oval Office?

 

Do you really believe George W. Bush is an evil person in the same vane as Jim Jones and Hitler? I don't think you really believe that deep down.

And while I don't think GWB is overly bright - though he is a little smarter than some people give him credit for -- I just think he's made some horrible decisions and I don't agree with many of his policies.

Sti,, however, I don't think at his core he is an evil person because by all accounts, people who know him and are close to him say he is basically a good guy. And I am convinced he believes this is a righteous war he is fighting.

 

Let's clear this up, Simon. I'm not "fooled" by GWB. But at the same time, evil implies intention, which implies Bush went into the war with the intention of killing American soldiers. Sorry, but in no way do I believe that was his intention.