For whatever reason, righties from Mitt Romney and Dick Cheney, to the average blind right wing fool at Hardees in the morning, love telling us that "At least President Bush kept us safe after 911."
I kindly and gently ask you to open your eyes to the total horseshittedness of that statement.
We still mourn the nearly 3,000 innocent people that were killed in the despicable attacks on September 11,2001. We need to feel just as sad and angry about the victims of the aftermath. I'm talking about the nearly 4,300 of our Soldiers, and also all the civilians that lost their lives in the Iraq invasion and occupation.
Dick Cheney just said that he knew of nothing that connected Iraq to 911. Glad he finally told something that was true. Why he didn't tell us that before the Iraq invasion is obvious. He wanted Iraq invaded. That Halliburton made lots of money was just a bonus.
The point is this. Bin Laden and his crew are guilty of 911. The Bush Administration used the THREAT of terrorism as one of the reasons to invade Iraq. A little underhanded connecting of the dots and voila! Pansies on both sides of the aisle, afraid of being labeled soft on terror, allow an invasion of a country that was no threat to our security and 4,300 of our Soldiers are dead. Their families mourn. They were victims of not just terror, but terrible leadership from our government.
The families of victims in the 911 attacks received around 1.5 million dollars. The families of victims of the Iraq invasion and occupation get a flag and nice burial at Arlington National Cemetery.
I know full well our Troops volunteered and knew the risks. We all honor them. The leadership they were given by the former commander in chief is a disgrace.
In conversations about this subject, a few deluded fools have brought up that "There really isn't that many casualties considering how many Troops we have there." They've also said " We lose that many Soldiers from accidents." Both these statements are not just stupid, they make light of the ultimate sacrifice these men and women gave for their Country.
The next time some idiot claims Bush kept us safe, remember the 4,300 that died in a country across the globe that was no threat and ask why those brave men and women could not have been better stationed here keeping our ports and borders safe instead of over there providing easy targets for insurgents and other scumbags that had no way of coming here.
Remember app. 30,000 that served in Iraq that now have missing limbs or eyes. They are victims just as much as the poor victims that lost their lives on 911.
It seems the Bush war on terror has cost more lives than Bin Laden. And while families mourn the loss of their soldier sons and daughters, Bush is living in a nice home in Texas comfortably retired. And Bin laden is still free.
Don't we all feel safer now?
15 comments:
Actually, I do feel a lot safer, thank you. Maybe though you can outline all of the attacks on America we've had since 9-11. It shouldn't take you long, as it'd be a blank post.
My take is that we can't play defense. We must take the fight to the enemy and destroy him in his own territory.
Sort of like...Nazi Germany. Hitler never attacked us, and it's more than plausible that if we hadn't supplied Great Britain with war material he would not have declared war on us after Pearl Harbor (he wasn't required to by the terms of his treaty with Japan, look it up if you don't believe me).
For what it's worth I've met hundreds of the troops and their families who've come back from the wars. It's a terrible business. None I've met anyway have said it wasn't worth it, and they despise war protesters. No doubt some think otherwise.
What's interesting here is the evolution in how the left sees our troops. In Vietnam it was "baby killers!" Today it's "poor victims." Which is typical of the left today; everyone's a victim of the white-patriarchal-military-industrial-complex-imperialist-war-machine... or however it goes.
When I meet them I treat them as heroes and they appreciate it. I rather think they'd be insulted to be thought of as victims.
"The Bush Administration used the THREAT of terrorism as one of the reasons to invade Iraq."
Well yes, because it was a very real threat. See here, here, here, here, here, and here for starters.
Anyway, that's my .02.
truth - You continue to say on your blog the very things that I am thinking.
~that Bush kept us safe after 9/11 (?)
~the unnecessary Iraqi war and the number of fallen troops, not to mention those coming home minus limbs and suffering from stress syndrome
~the lame excuses made by the Bush administration for what they have done
~and much much more
Your writing style and use of the English language is mindboggling!
I've been bothered by the "Bush kept us safe rhetoric" as well. Strikes me as a non sequitur. By the same token, I can see Democrats making the argument that Obama solved the recession because of the stimulus.
I clicked the Andrew McCarthy link Ton. Guess what. He tried to link Iraq with 911. I repeat, CHENEY JUST SAID IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 911. There were no islamofacists in Iraq until we invaded and ran as bad an operation as could be run. The borders were not secured. Never had enough Troops to do it right. Shinsheki got fired for telling Bush we didn't have enough Troops.
To compare the castrated Iraq after the Gulf War to Nazi Germany is a real stretch Tom. Germany was a threat.
I also treat all Veterans, especially combat Veterans with respect and great admiration Tom. As does everyone I know.
I also ask you to reread the post. Every attack on an American Soldier or civilian in the travesty that is Iraq is an attack on America also. An attack that could have been avoided by simply putting our military to work patrolling our borders and keeping the focus on Bin Laden.
Just to answer before anyone on the pro Iraq invasion side thinks he is being clever, When the commander in chief sends you to war, regardless of circumstance, your service is just as honorable and you deserve just as much respect as all Soldiers that served our Nation in wartime. To stay quiet and not excersize the freedom of speech guarenteed by our Constitution, whether or nor we agree on the war being fought, is what dishonors those who choose to serve our Country and ehat it stands for.
Thank you for your visit Tom the Redhunter.
And thank you also Sue.
Tom the Redhunter,
Just after 9/11 we had a terrorist attack--the anthrax letters, which killed Americans. We still don't know if that was domestic or international terrorism.
So we did have another terrorist attack after 9/11 on GWB's watch.
Also, it is a myth on the part of rightwing extremists that the Left is disrespectful of the military.
I come from a family of "lefties" and a majority of the males in it have served their country, and continue to do so--I have a cousin who recently volunteered for the Army and may be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan in the near future.
Not one person in our family ever disrespected anyone in the military. Nor has any Liberal I've been acquainted with.
To imply that the Left called returning vets from Viet Nam "baby killers" is wildly over the top.
Some may have done so, but certainly not a majority. That would be like a lefty declaring that all southerners are racist KKK supporters just because a lot of people who belonged to the Klan lived in the south.
Blanket accusations may make you feel that a point is being made, but they are never accurate nor do they tell the whole story.
Thank you K&G for allowing me to come here and participate in this discussion.
K>,
I was advised upon my return to travel without wearing a uniform. We routinely came back through Travis AFB and San Fran home. I got some very creative comments while I was there (short hair, 70s) you get it. Those people were vermin.
Having said that, I wouldn't generalize that all lefties are anti-military. I never liked the generalizations, like all military people aren't too bright or why would they be there; all teachers want the job so they can have their summers off; all cops just want to shoot people and kick ass. Although I have kicked my share of ass.
I do agree with Tom in that we can't play defense with these people.
Good day sir.
No argument about the prevent defense from me LAOT. I just want to be at least reasonably sure those we attack are indeed the enemy. Not that they look arab so lets bomb em.
And why everyone let's Bush and his crew off the hook for NOT protecting us BEFORE 9/11 is beyond me.
Bush received a briefing in the month BEFORE 9/11 saying, "Bin Laden determined to strike within America by hijacking airplanes." And Clinton briefed Bush about the threat of Osama.
So this b.s. that the Bushies still spew that, "No one could have imagined that terrorists would use commercial airliners to attack America" is CYA at it's best.
Tom Clancy imagined it and I did too and I was just a lowly History undergrad student at the time!!
As for Saddam, he was no Hitler and Iraq wasn't 1930's Germany. Hitler's German forces would have CRUSHED Saddam's forces--even with 1930s weaponry. That's how little a threat Iraq posed to us. They were contained by the no fly zones, under heavy sanctions and under surveillance.
Yes Saddam was a dictator and yes dictators are evil and terrible but if we are going to base our wars on overthrowing dictators then we're in for an eternal series of wars.
Most African countries are lead by brutal dictators. As is much of Asia, most of the Middle-East and South America. If the war was based on ousting a dictator then we better get ready to invade the entire continent of Africa.
Otherwise those who argue that we "Had to invade Iraq because we need to overthrow evil dictators" are disgraceful hypocrites.
There is nothing as sad as a brainwashed fool.
Yes Marian, agreed, so do seek help.
Since we don't know who was behind the anthrax attacks we cannot pin it on al Qaeda. Therefore it is off the table. Therefore there is no proven attack on the US by al Qaeda since 9-11. Therefore it is absurd to say that Bush has not kept us safe.
The truth behind what General Shinseki said is more complicated than "Shinsheki got fired for telling Bush we didn't have enough Troops."
See this article by Mackubin Thomas Owens. An excerpt:
"In fact, Shinseki’s February 2003 statement before Congress suggesting that “several hundred thousand” troops might be necessary in postwar Iraq was far from the example of prescience that Bush’s critics have claimed. As my Naval War College colleague John Garofano wrote in an article for the spring 2008 issue of Orbis, “no extensive analysis has surfaced as supporting Shinseki’s figures, which were dragged out of him by Senator Carl Levin only after repeated questioning.”
Read the whole thing
Shaw Kenawe wrote "To imply that the Left called returning vets from Viet Nam "baby killers" is wildly over the top.
Some may have done so, but certainly not a majority."
Oh please. It was a major theme of the leaders of the anti-war movement. And during Jim Crow many southerners did sympathize with the KKK, even if they weren't outright members
Oops. I forgot to include the URL for the article by Mr Owens. It's here
Truth, you need to reread the McCarthy article. He did not try "to link Iraq with 911" as you say. What he said was that 9-11 woke us to that terrorists from anywhere could hit us hard. The guys who did 9-11 weren't sent by (or known to) Iraq, but the next batch might be.
I also reread your article, and I am sympathetic to your concern for the plight of our troops. I am too. Which is why I visit them Walter Reed monthly.
I just read that McCarthy article. He doesn't quite link al Qaeda to Iraq himself but one of his last points was that Stephen F. Hayes' book "The Connection" is required reading. Well, Hayes' book said there was a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda and Cheney at the time called Hayes' work (I'm working from memory) "the best source of information." McCarthy uses the backdoor to connect the two.
Something else I noticed in all the proof offered by McCarthy is that much of it is speculation. "Reports of," "solid reporting," and "suggest that Baghdad's links to terror will increase." Ambiguities like that wouldn't pass muster in a freshman public speaking class.
McCarthy says there was an Iraqi intelligence official present at the meeting in Malaysia where 9/11 was supposedly planned. If I follow McCarthy's logic correctly, then I have to wonder why we haven't invaded Malaysia because they seem to be a threat since there must be al Qaeda in there too.
It's like the mere presence of a
single terrorist in a particular country or a chance that a particular country might someday house terrorists justifies an invasion anywhere. We need to go after the people that are responsible and no more. Invading Country X because the next batch of terrorists MIGHT be from there means we take the initiative in invading any country in the world. What if somebody else adopted that philosophy? Would they have the right to invade the U.S. because there are probably terrorists here?
One final thought from me if anyone can stomache another one: I've noticed that criticism of war strategy is often conflated into criticism of the troops. Although plenty intentionally make this conflation, we need to be precise in our criticisms. I know the troops are respected at places like Truth Shall Rule and I've tried my best to make sure that my problems with administrations past and present are directed only at the administrations themselves. I'm glad to see that people who frequent this site on both sides of this issue do a good job of keeping that perspective.
Goodnight, everyone.
I read McCarthy's article again Tom. I stand by what I said.
McCarthy said we were in Iraq because of terrorists. AlQueda was in Afghanistan. Not Iraq. As Carl, I;m going from memory also. I thought Saddam hated Bin Laden and vise versa.
Mcarthy's article was from 2005. A time of much anger. His piece is just another pro Iraq invasion work of propaganda as far as I'm concerned.
Post a Comment