Bush said: "The terrorists have a strategic goal. They want us to leave Iraq before our work is done. They want to shake the will of the civilized world." It seems to me I recall the civilized world warning Washington about invading Iraq in the first place!
Not Afraid to Say We told You So – a view from the States
As public support in the U.S. for the Bush regime’s occupation of Iraq dwindles and the corporate media turns from blind patriotism to actually covering a little criticism of The Empire’s misdeeds in the Gulf region, many people in the anti-war movement here may be tempted to say "we told you so". It is well they should, because prior to the invasion the pleas for reason and sanity that emanated from those quarters,the few lone voices in the U.S. congress, and some courageous government employees, fell mostly on the deaf ears of a highly indoctrinated population in the States. Back when even the CIA was warning congress that an invasion of Iraq could well lead to MORE terrorism as opposed to less, far too many citizens in the USA were glued to the tele having their brains washed by Faux News and stocking up on chips for the big show. Believe me I know, my own sister turned on her libertarian past and dove gung-ho into the breach.
Well….....we told you so! Now the present occupant in the Whitehouse and his corporate handlers want to drag the nation and the world even deeper into this made-to-order quagmire. He has said that we should "pay any price, bear any burden" to carry-on with the so-called War on Terrorism. He said: "The terrorists have a strategic goal. They want us to leave Iraq before our work is done. They want to shake the will of the civilized world." It seems to me I recall the civilized world warning Washington about invading Iraq in the first place! This observer hasn’t seen much in the way of civility coming out of the Whitehouse for a very long time anyway. And, by the way, what does he mean by "our work"? Whose idea was this in the first place?? I wish these guys would get their story straight. Bush went on to say: "We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today, so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.", once again implying that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Those who have handed their minds over to the death machine of neo-conservative programming might buy that, but our own intelligence community here in the U.S. doesn’t.
Soooo, aside from the daily carnage, the loss of more U.S., British, or Italian soldiers and untold "collateral damage" to innocent lives in Iraq, the man in the Whitehouse and his trainers want U.S. taxpayers to foot the ever increasing bill for this madness as well. The price tag is $87 billion for the first full year of occupation and reconstruction, apparently more than the total cost of the last sorry-ass quagmire our nation was dragged into during its ill-advised war on Vietnam, and certainly more than was advertised earlier by the Bush regime. Adding insult to injury, now we have more threats from Al Qaeda just like the CIA said we would. Did I mention that we told them so?
As public support in the U.S. for the Bush regime’s occupation of Iraq dwindles and the corporate media turns from blind patriotism to actually covering a little criticism of The Empire’s misdeeds in the Gulf region, many people in the anti-war movement here may be tempted to say "we told you so". It is well they should, because prior to the invasion the pleas for reason and sanity that emanated from those quarters,the few lone voices in the U.S. congress, and some courageous government employees, fell mostly on the deaf ears of a highly indoctrinated population in the States. Back when even the CIA was warning congress that an invasion of Iraq could well lead to MORE terrorism as opposed to less, far too many citizens in the USA were glued to the tele having their brains washed by Faux News and stocking up on chips for the big show. Believe me I know, my own sister turned on her libertarian past and dove gung-ho into the breach.
Well….....we told you so! Now the present occupant in the Whitehouse and his corporate handlers want to drag the nation and the world even deeper into this made-to-order quagmire. He has said that we should "pay any price, bear any burden" to carry-on with the so-called War on Terrorism. He said: "The terrorists have a strategic goal. They want us to leave Iraq before our work is done. They want to shake the will of the civilized world." It seems to me I recall the civilized world warning Washington about invading Iraq in the first place! This observer hasn’t seen much in the way of civility coming out of the Whitehouse for a very long time anyway. And, by the way, what does he mean by "our work"? Whose idea was this in the first place?? I wish these guys would get their story straight. Bush went on to say: "We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today, so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.", once again implying that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Those who have handed their minds over to the death machine of neo-conservative programming might buy that, but our own intelligence community here in the U.S. doesn’t.
Soooo, aside from the daily carnage, the loss of more U.S., British, or Italian soldiers and untold "collateral damage" to innocent lives in Iraq, the man in the Whitehouse and his trainers want U.S. taxpayers to foot the ever increasing bill for this madness as well. The price tag is $87 billion for the first full year of occupation and reconstruction, apparently more than the total cost of the last sorry-ass quagmire our nation was dragged into during its ill-advised war on Vietnam, and certainly more than was advertised earlier by the Bush regime. Adding insult to injury, now we have more threats from Al Qaeda just like the CIA said we would. Did I mention that we told them so?
Comments
Hide the following 7 comments
Dichotomy
19.11.2003 17:03
Which is it? Are they liberated or been made scapegoats?
Afinkawan
Iraq is being liberated,and it is better to fight wackos on their ground
19.11.2003 17:23
Bilbo Baggins
Pax romana
19.11.2003 17:55
bill hicks
90%, Bill you have to get out more...
19.11.2003 18:06
Bilbo Baggins
a village in texas is missing its idiot
19.11.2003 20:22
one wonders what the next country we will bomb into "freedom" will be? after all - bush's numbers are falling so it's time for another show of "shock & awe". right now the only shock & awe is being felt by the taxpayers. another 87 billion?!?
by the way, Bilbo - you have noticed that those metric tons of WMD ready to strike america on a moments notice are nowhere to be found, haven't you? and perhaps you have missed the cheerful news from afghanistan? the taliban are back in power and opium production is up 35%. oh - but that's right - we've been told "show's over folks, move on now" in afghanistan. now we only see our roaring "success" in iraq.
marianne
WMD?
19.11.2003 21:03
But on the other hand, now that we are there we might try to see something positive in the situation. The people of iraq deserve to decide their own path,and as does all people of the world, they deserve to live in safety. Sad Dam is a wacko,and a ruthless one at that. Now if you can remember 9/11, there are other wacko's out there that wish us harm, so I believe that they must be dealt with. I'm not a fan of bush,in fact I detest his performance, but aside from the political crap(and corporate), there are bad guys out there that must be dealt with,I'm sure those older folks in the UK can remember other bad guys, which men like my father gave their lives to defeat.Love and peace are the true path,but what do you do with the bad guys?
Bilbo Baggins
the "evil ones" who needed to be dealt with were not Iraqis
20.11.2003 15:41
Yes - there are bad people in the world. But the most evil of all is a little hitler named george w bush. bush has created more hatred in the middle east, and provided more incentive for people to turn to taliban and terrorism than anyone in recent history.
i had to laugh when i heard bush state (with a straight face no less) that The duty of leadership "sometimes requires the violent restraint of violent men,".
what i ask is - when will someone restrain bush? there is in my opinion - no one causing more violence in the world today.
marianne