Thursday, January 11, 2007
Bush Endorses "Cut & Run"
In his speech to a fed up nation last night, George W. Bush fully endorsed a "cut and run" policy in Iraq. Yeah, yeah, I know it sounded like he was dragging the nation deeper into this extremely unpopular war, but that's only if you listened to the words he said. However... If you actually paid attention to what he meant, it was quite clear. And it only took one sentence.
WTF? Is he serious? What about stay the course? What about finish the mission? What about honoring the sacrifices of those... aw screw it! Old GW said we're leaving if shit don't get better. Because that can be the only interpretation of "America's commitment is not open-ended."
In those short six words, Georgieboy essentially said "We will cut and run if we have to." Basically, it looks as though the administration is escalating the war by injecting 20,000 more troops into the situation in a last ditch effort to bring peace and stability to the region. However, they know full well that it isn't going to happen. Why, you ask? Because adding 20,000 more troops puts us at approximately 150,000 to 160,000 troops, the same number of troops we had as late as last year when things were already going to shit. And what of the plans to do house-to-house searches? Well we tried that twice already and it hasn't worked worth a damn either time.
So the way I see it is this: Bush and the other fuckwits are sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq knowing damn-well that it won't help the situation. We've agreed to help the Iraqis achieve their "benchmarks" knowing full well that they won't be able to because of the continuing violence and sectarian strife that we will still be unable to control. Then six or eight months from now when the shit's really hitting the fan, we're going to hear "America's commitment is not open-ended" again and we're going to bug out because the Iraqis didn't uphold their end of the bargain at which point we can push all of the blame onto the Iraqis for not being grateful that we fucked up their country. Now that, to me, sounds like a true "cut and run" strategy.
I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended.
WTF? Is he serious? What about stay the course? What about finish the mission? What about honoring the sacrifices of those... aw screw it! Old GW said we're leaving if shit don't get better. Because that can be the only interpretation of "America's commitment is not open-ended."
In those short six words, Georgieboy essentially said "We will cut and run if we have to." Basically, it looks as though the administration is escalating the war by injecting 20,000 more troops into the situation in a last ditch effort to bring peace and stability to the region. However, they know full well that it isn't going to happen. Why, you ask? Because adding 20,000 more troops puts us at approximately 150,000 to 160,000 troops, the same number of troops we had as late as last year when things were already going to shit. And what of the plans to do house-to-house searches? Well we tried that twice already and it hasn't worked worth a damn either time.
So the way I see it is this: Bush and the other fuckwits are sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq knowing damn-well that it won't help the situation. We've agreed to help the Iraqis achieve their "benchmarks" knowing full well that they won't be able to because of the continuing violence and sectarian strife that we will still be unable to control. Then six or eight months from now when the shit's really hitting the fan, we're going to hear "America's commitment is not open-ended" again and we're going to bug out because the Iraqis didn't uphold their end of the bargain at which point we can push all of the blame onto the Iraqis for not being grateful that we fucked up their country. Now that, to me, sounds like a true "cut and run" strategy.
