black…MYstory

You know what gets old? Republican double-standards. Do you remember when Republicans would harp on something called “personal responsibility?” It’s a simple and sound concept, each person is responsible for his/her own condition. On a certain level, even a person as liberal as myself can agree with it. However, especially over the last 6+ years, I have noticed that it’s no more than a cynical game played by those on the right. It looks good on bumper stickers and campaign literature but, is sorely lacking in their day-to-day political (and, in some cases, personal) lives.

That brings me to the Iraq War Occupation. This was started, and subsequently mismanaged, by a Republican administration. Though too many Democrats went along with the stupidity initially, it was a Republican-led Congress that allowed this mess to proceed with no oversight, despite that being their duty.

Now, into the 5th year of a quagmire that we were initially told would not last more than 6 months, would not result in significant U.S. casualties and would cost hundreds of billions less than it has, Republican leadership and their mouthpieces are calling for personal responsibility. Oh, it’s not a call for Bush and his apologists who misled the public and ineptly handled their prosecution of a war to accept the blame for their actions. Instead they blame people who they really think are responsible — critics.

So, what to they do? They have lapdogs like Thomas Sowell who will write hit pieces, basically saying that oversight of Bush’s actions in Iraq is harming our efforts there.

Sowell, and his ilk, forget that there are people who actually remember things like:

• The mission keeps changing. Remember when it was to find weapons of mass destruction or to make Iraq the shining example of democracy in the Middle East or the liberate the people of Iraq? What’s the mission now? I believe it is supposedly to fight al Qaeda, which brings me to…

• Bush and Co. ignored the threat of an insurgency and failed to anticipate the possibility of al Qaeda in Iraq. The Bush war planners were told by General Eric Shinseki that they would need about 500,000 troops to be successful in Iraq. Just look at this excerpt exchange between Senator Carl Levin and General Shinseki during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on February 25, 2003:

Sen. CARL LEVIN (D), Michigan: General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army’s force requirement for an occupation of Iraq, following a successful completion of the war?

Gen. ERIC SHINSEKI, Army Chief of Staff, ‘98-’03: In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commander’s exact requirements. But I think–

Sen. CARL LEVIN: How about a range?

Gen. ERIC SHINSEKI: I would say that what’s been mobilized to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, a– you know, figure that would be required. We’re talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that’s fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes significant ground force presence.

So, what we saw was someone saying the troops numbers being proposed by the Bush group were insufficient. They would need a half-million troops to secure Iraq, internally, from an insurgency. But, here’s where the failure on the al Qaeda part kicks in. Shinseki said “(w)e’re talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that’s fairly significant”. This meant being able to secure Iraq and its borders. Because there were not enough troops, al Qaeda fighters, mostly from Saudi Arabia, have made their way into Iraq. This is part of the reason that I fight the whole “threat from Iran” argument so hollow. al Qaeda is made up of Sunni Muslims. Iran’s Muslim population is primarily Shia. As you know, the two factions violently oppose one another in Iraq. So, tying al Qaeda and Iran is ridiculous.

• The surge is too little, too late. Remember the old phrase “study long, study wrong?” It refers to missed opportunity. This is what this surge is. The increased troop levels were needed when we first went in. Because they were initially lacking, munitions warehouses were raided which allowed insurgents to get hold of all kinds of weapons and, with the borders open, foreign fighters poured into Iraq with their own weapons, as well. So, let me make a bad analogy. They are trying to put a lid on a pot after it has boiled over but, the lid is too small. The troops they are putting in are to secure one city - Baghdad. But, this is just one city in a country that is about the size of California. So, this means that other regions of Iraq and most importantly, the country’s borders, still can’t be secured.

• We simply can’t afford this war any longer. First of all, as a human cost, we are rapidly approached the 4,000 dead U.S. troop mark in Iraq and closing in on 30,000 wounded. Estimates in excess of a 650,000 Iraqi civilian dead exists and countless thousands wounded. We now have lost our great standing in the international community over this war. Some might say, “who cares?”. Trust me, when you need help in the form of financial assistance or intelligence information, you’d better have friends ready to lend a hand. As a financial cost, we are above a half-trillion dollars for this war. Now, think about that — $500,000,000,000. Who’s paying for it? Bush cut taxes for the rich so, where’s the money coming from? It’s being borrowed. As a result, the Republican-led Congress raised the debt ceiling 5 times. The debt ceiling, as the name implies, is the limit on the amount of debt the government is allowed to have. What this means is that, when this ceiling is reached, the government is not allowed to issue things like treasury bonds and even some government functions could shut down if this limit is reached. Because of wild spending, the Bushies have increased the National Debt by approximately 3 trillion dollars since he took office. If that doesn’t grab you, think about this. Our foreign debt, before Bush took office, was about $1 trillion. That was for all 42 previous presidents combined. Since Bush has been in office, this debt has more than doubled. We are above $2 trillion dollars in foreign debt. What does this mean to those average folks who defends Bush’s rampant spending, while giving tax cuts, during a time of war? I use this analogy. Imagine giving your kid your credit card to buy Christmas gifts. Now, you kid buys you a shirt or a book but, they buy their friends things like IPods, laptops and big-screen LCD TVs. Then, the next month, you get the bill and…whoa! This is what the average American will see when the debt is called in.

So, Sowell, and Bush apologists like him, need to stop trying to spin (lie to) us about the mess that this occupation really is. The fault does not like with the critics of the war. The fault lies with the Administration and their enablers that are keeping us in Iraq.

Popularity: 10% [?]