Before Clinton left office, he told the Bush administration that Osama bin Laden was our biggest threat. Since the info came from Bill Clinton, whom they hated with a passion, they ignored it.
Then 9/11 happened - on Bush's watch, remember. But, the world came together and America's support was never greater.
When the talk came of invading Iraq, liberals protested. Dubya was pulling a fast one on the general public, and along with the mainstream media, they were falling for it.
I kept thinking of those teenagers in NY that enlisted right after 9/11. They were attacked in their own backyard and joined the army to go after bin Laden. Bush betrayed them in the worst possible way. Yes, Saddam was a bad man, but according to every General that was interviewed at that time, he was contained and not a threat. Even Daddy Bush agreed.
But, W had something to prove...and that oil was there for the taking. However, there was a problem. Saddam didn't attack us. Dubya needed an actual reason to go there, so he had to come up with one. He tried many. Remember these? 1) He tried to kill my daddy. 2) Saddam tried to buy uranium in Niger. 3) Saddam was involved with bin Laden. 4) Rape Rooms!
And the one that worked... 5) Saddam has WMDs!
Unbelievably, the general public bought it and off we went.
All during this time, we (liberals) didn't buy it. And when they tried & tried to blur the line between al Qaeda and Saddam, we knew it was all a pile of shit.
Oh, and let's not forget that when they didn't find WMDs, he changed the reason again! Now we are "spreading democracy" Can't ya tell? I always find that bullets and bombs are the best way to spread democracy. (Yes, I am being sarcastic.)
The righties support the troops as long as they keep their mouths shut. Last week, a brave soldier got the guts up to confront Rumsfeld about the lack of armored vehicles. Instead of applauding this young man's courage, the righties investigated who put him up to it! Nevermind that asking the question brought the situation into the light and made changes happen. How dare a soldier ask a question like that! (um, is that what you guys mean by support?)
Next time you see one of those Bush people with a flag or ribbon magnet, remember this:
Bush cut veterans benefits.
Bush opposed a supplemental bill that would have added $1.3 billion to veterans' health care.
Bush cut millions from military children's education funding.
Among those whose families are left out of the Bush tax cut are soldiers serving in combat zones.
Some children of soldiers in Iraq rely on charity.
Bush has yet to attend one soldiers funeral.
I support the troops. I define my support for them by speaking the truth and hoping that they come home alive and well. Bush is lying, people are dying. Now THAT should be plastered on cars.
PS. To the blogger who calls himself "True American." How can you have such an impenetrable loyalty to Bush & Company? Do you think that if you look beyond the flag-waving hype that you won't be a true American anymore? There is nothing more American than questioning your leaders, free speech and dissent. Maybe if we can turn you around, there is hope for the rest. It has to start somewhere. It has to.
Who knows, maybe it already has.
You know, I was driving on the freeway yesterday looking at one of those ribbons and having thoughts very similiar to yours. I know these folks mean well but every time I see one it just reminds me of that sheeple mindset that Bush uses so effectively.
My wife and I have no problem displaying yellow ribbon magnets on our cars... alongside liberal bumper stickers. I want the troops in Iraq to effectively finish what they need to do, as soon as they can, so they can come home.
Someone around here had a great bumper sticker that read "Support our troops. Bring them home alive."
I don't think the administration is doing much more than a half-assed job supporting our troops in Iraq. I don't think they'll really be supporting them until they stop cutting veterans' benefits, until they give the troops better armor, until they end their back-door drafts, and until they stop putting our troops in dangerous situations (like Iraq) where there are not enough of them to get the job done effectively or more quickly... and until they stop using our troops in a ridicululous neoconservative-generated attempt to build a world empire (Pax Americana). Using our military for world dominion is an abuse of power on the part of Bush and his friends, as far as I'm concerned.
Danger is part of their job, but I don't think putting the troops in this kind of danger is right because I don't think it was necessary. I think they are in Iraq by a matter of Bush's choice.
The rest of the world hates us more than ever, we're stuck in Iraq for who knows how long, and the administration uses these things to keep the public in a general state of fear. The cabal of turds running our country should be ashamed of its collective self.
I totally agree with your sentiment here. I have a picture on my truck that says "Fight the War at Home" and people ask me what it means all the time. But that's off the subject. My main concern is that congress, and you can't let Democrats off the hook, laid down for Bush in letting him go to war. There's no way to spin it, all those Congressmen who voted to authorize Bush to go to war knew that he was planning on going to war. They said that they weren't willing to sacrifice re-election to stand up against the war. So while I'm in agreement with your disgust over the Bush sticker - support troops problem, in my view it's almost as bad for those Kerry supporters with the support troop stickers.
like your site alot...there's much to your post here and i'm having power supply problems so i'll be brief...if Clinton thought bin Laden was our biggest threat, what did he do about it during the preceding 8 years? i believe the USS Cole, the first WTC bombing, two US embassy bombings and at least one other al Qaeda connected bombing took place while he was Prez...also, i believe the 9/11 commission concluded that the attacks on 9/11 were at least three years in the planning...since Bush had been Prez roughly 8 out of those 36 months, couldn't you more correctly say that the damage was done on Clinton's "watch" since apparently his administration had no clue about this plan? i don't necessarily blame Clinton since our intelligence failures in this regard would probably have been the same if a Republican had been president during Bill's second term, but it's a bit intellectually dishonest to say that because it happend on his "watch" it was the Bush administration's fault..would your positin be the same if 9/11 occurred on 1/31?
Post a Comment