Monument to Bush shoe-throwing shines at Iraqi orphanage – CNN.com:
“For the war-beaten orphans of the northern Iraqi city of Tikrit, this big old shoe fits.
A monument to a shoe thrown at former President Bush is unveiled at the Tikrit Orphanage complex.
A huge sculpture of the footwear hurled at President Bush in December during a trip to Iraq has been unveiled in a ceremony at the Tikrit Orphanage complex.
Assisted by children at the home, sculptor Laith al-Amiri erected a brown replica of one of the shoes hurled at Bush and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki by journalist Muntadhir al-Zaidi during a press conference in Baghdad.”
My favorite part of this article was the last line. “By tradition, throwing a shoe is the most insulting act in the Arab world.”
Senior Iraqi backs Obama withdrawal plan – Yahoo! News:
“A senior Iraqi official on Thursday explicitly backed U.S. President-elect Barack Obama’s plans to withdraw combat troops from the country by mid-2010, Baghdad’s clearest endorsement yet of Obama’s exit strategy.”
(Via Yahoo! News.)
This was obvious to me. It seemed like Bush-McCain-Leiberman types all wanted to stay until “victory” could be declared. Whatever that meant. It seems to me that if you are fighting for democracy, you leave because the people say so.
msnbc.com video: Biden on the Iraqi surge:
Now I know why he picked this guy, whoa. Zero hesitation and command of the details. Ideology? Nope.
Palin: Iraq war ‘a task that is from God’ – Yahoo! News:
“ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a ‘task that is from God.’
In an address last June, the Republican vice presidential candidate also urged ministry students to pray for a plan to build a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in the state, calling it ‘God’s will.'”
(Via Yahoo! News.)
I love God too, but last I checked, pipelines and war weren’t among his top priorities.
“In Eugene, Ore., Saturday. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., attempted to change the measure by which anyone might assess who criticized the Iraq war first, her or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by saying those keeping records should start in January 2005, when Obama joined the Senate. (A measure that conveniently avoids her October 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq at a time that Obama was speaking out against the war.) She claimed that using that measure, she criticized the war in Iraq before Obama did.
But Clinton’s claim was false.”
(Via Political Punch.)
Is it me or is Hillary turning into George Bush in Democrat drag? This isn’t even a clever misleading
lie half-truth. It’s an easy fact check call. Wow. Talk about looking desperate.
Heavy Troop Deployments Are Called Major Risk – washingtonpost.com:
“Senior Army and Marine Corps leaders said yesterday that the increase of more than 30,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan has put unsustainable levels of stress on U.S. ground forces and has put their readiness to fight other conflicts at the lowest level in years.”
(Via The Washington Post.)
What are you left with when you kill the goose to get more and more of those golden eggs?
As recent entries indicate, I’m back after a short hiatus. This summer has been an eye opener and a rejuvenator. I was losing my desire to speak or write because I didn’t have much I really wanted to say. I felt I hadn’t really read enough or thought enough about certain issues, but all that has changed.
I’ve become much more impassioned, mostly because of Bush and his neo-con antics. For most of Bush’s presidency, it was about disagreeing with the Republican agenda, but now it’s much more personal. I don’t just disagree with his ideology, I think the the man is wrong.
A recent conversation with a good friend highlighted this for me. He is a staunch Republican whose opinion I respect because he is extremely intelligent and a good person. We talked about Iraq and he gave me a persuasive, reasoned rationale for regime change in Iraq. None of his argument had anything to do with WMD or any subterfuge to execute the American agenda in support of those interests.
I thought to myself, “Why didn’t Bush say this to the American people?” The answer came in short order: too complex and strategic. Gathering the political will would be difficult, but at least it would be based on truth. So the administration’s solution was one of political expediency: to layer a false, surface agenda (the so called “immediate threat”) on top of what I view was the real agenda in Iraq: the neo-con agenda. When spelled out, this agenda doesn’t garner much public support because of its blind ideological support for moneyed power to the exclusion of just about everything else. Hence, the lies, half-truths, and the constantly changing reasons for going into Iraq from the Administration. (See transcript and video of Rumsfeld on Face the Nation getting caught in a lie.)
And this is where Bush broke faith with America. You simply do not lie, dissemble, or distort facts to move a people. You make a persuasive, truthful case like my friend did. This is where I was done with Bush as a person who doesn’t have the integrity to take the hard road, as all great leaders have. That may not make him a bad person, but it does make him a weak one. Too weak for his Office and these trying times.