Saturday, December 25, 2004

 

Friday Blog Blogging (special Saturday edition)

I was busy yesterday. And I'm teaching you the joy of patience. Anyway...

The great James Wolcott has the guts and integrity never to pull his punches.
Wanted: Less Sorrow, More Anger

I had Fox News on earlier today; two Senators, one Democrat and one Repub, were discussing the Mosul massacre as the camera showed the wounded being deplaned in Germany. The Democrat Senator, whose name I didn't catch, was discussing the lack of post-invasion planning and the resultant miseries, but he felt compelled to inject, "I'm not mad at President Bush, but--"

"I'm not mad at President Bush."

Why the f not?

I recognize that most elected Democrats, stunned by the election results and feeling the need to sound responsible on such a tragic occasion, feel compelled to adopt this more-in-sorrow-than-anger tone that was one of Tom Daschle's less attractive traits. But look what good it did Daschle shaking his head with weary regret over the latest Republican outrage--he was still vilified as some sort of rabid obstructionist.

Republicans belch fire all the time without suffering repercussions, yet Democrats behave like some meek choir.

Couldn't we have at least one irresponsible, intemperate off the reservation loose cannon willing to say he is "mad" at Bush, indeed is furious with the whole lying lot of them (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Wolfowitz...the list goes on and on)? Because this engulfing fiasco is their fault, and the fault of those unwilling to stand up to them in the first place.

As Kos thunders today in a post called Bush's War:
"Bush sends the troops into battle, claiming he had no choice. But Saddam had caved on every Bush demand (inspectors were allowed back in, his long-range missiles were being destroyed).

"No WMDs are found. No ties with Al Qaida are found. No military capable of threatening Iraq's neighbors is found. Saddam's army collapses quickly and the country's defenders retreat into "insurgency" mode.

"Bush declares mission accomplished. Bush taunts the insurgency. The insurgency kills our men and women. The commanders on the ground scream for more troops. They scream for armor. They scream for protected mess halls. Those screams fall on deaf ears.

"More soldiers are killed. 1,320 Americans, 74 Britons, seven Bulgarians, one Dane, two Dutch, two Estonians, one Hungarian, 19 Italians, one Latvian, 16 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and nine Ukrainians. The wounded number in the five figures.

"Never mind the innocent Iraqis who have been "liberated" to death. And while we scream about Saddam's torture chambers, we create new ones of our own.

"So thousands die, for a war built on false justifications, managed poorly, with underequipped, undermanned, and under-armored forces. And to add insult to injury, we've had to pay for this mess, to the tune of $200 billion.

"So who sent our troops into Iraq on false pretenses? Who sent them in unarmored? Who refused to provide enough troops to stabilize the country effectively? Who taunted the Iraqi opposition with "bring 'em on"? Who approved the American-branded torture chambers? Who has rewarded the secretary of defense who has negligently ignored the armor shortage in Iraq?

"And who keeps them there as they continue to die?"
Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush.

(And, to be fair, Blair.)
This is the meme we must spread. We must use all our time and energy and contacts to spread it. It's not about getting Don Rumsfeld fired (necessary as that is). We can't permit Don Rumsfeld to become a distraction from our main goal: getting everyone to realize that everything that goes wrong in Iraq is 100% George W. Bush's fault. We have to have the courage to keep obsessing on this point until it becomes universally known and accepted. Even if there is some short-term cost. We need to have guts, now more than ever.
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home
Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?