BUSH STARTED THE WAR THAT DESTABILIZED IRAQ! This isn't even ancient history! This is RECENT HISTORY! I still have magazines talking about the rush to war--DATING FROM 2003!!! (No, my apartment isn't very clean.) We should make Bush President again, just to impeach him for THE MASSIVE WAR THAT HE STARTED!!! Is this possible? Can we do this, Constitutionally speaking?
The police that Bush trained (after dismissing Iraq's ACTUAL SOLDIERS) promptly surrendered the weapons that Bush gave them when confronted by a heavily armed invasion force. Now ISIS has American arms that we gave to the Iraqis so they can shoot more Iraqis. BRILLIANT!
You know what? Before Bush, there was a guy who kept Iraq sable and (yes) a terrible place to live. There was a guy--whose name escapes me, something to do with a hole--and Bush had him killed. Bush threw a match on a pile of garbage, and the only thing worse than a pile of garbage is a flaming pile of garbage. (Bush also fired the firefighters--the Iraq army--for reasons unknown.) The flaming pile of garbage will destroy everything that its embers come into contact with. And now future Presidents will have to deal with these fires of genocidal freedom, peace and prosperity.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Saturday, August 9, 2014
Saturday, March 8, 2014
How great is it that Repubs are rallying to support Vladimar Putin?
Maybe the giant crying bear at the Sochi closing events was a cry for help?
First George W. Bush looked into Putin's soul and declared he was a good guy. America can trust him. Now that Putin is showing himself as the real-life Bond villain that he is, Republicans are in the awkward position of having to ally themselves with a man who does very bad things against Americans to illustrate their opposition to the Democratic President. (They also became concerned about Islamic terrorists' civil rights and the national debt around 2009.) Obama's attempts to prevent the US from being entangled in another foreign conflict--or "leading from behind"--are thus a sign of his weakness, not a sign of PAYING ATTENTION.
Maybe Obama should send 100,000 America troops into a foreign country, then stay there for ten years (after first disbanding the local army--we don't need those guys, right?), losing hundreds of billions due to incompetence and graft while American infrastructure collapses? Oops. Been done!
You know what's great about "leading from behind"? You don't get shot. Obama is attempting to prevent Americans from getting shot, as near as I can tell. Republicans are living in a weird, 1984-style society where the shutdown was a good idea and America should invade other countries with no thought as to how it will effect either our short-term or long-term foreign policy. Sending drones into Pakistan is terrible--send some troops in there, right? The drone strikes are endangering our relationship with Islamic allies--unlike declaring war unilaterally, which is just common sense.
Oh, and why are we even listening to Dick Cheney or Con Rice on this matter? It feels like they should fade away, and never offer any additional wisdom on global political events again. Feels like they should be working harder to redeem their legacy, not reminding us all that they still exist. Try to become irrelevant, neocons--that's something you should be aiming for!
If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. When you're a fuckin' dumbass, stand aside and let someone with some grasp of recent American history to take the wheel, even if it means "leading from behind."
First George W. Bush looked into Putin's soul and declared he was a good guy. America can trust him. Now that Putin is showing himself as the real-life Bond villain that he is, Republicans are in the awkward position of having to ally themselves with a man who does very bad things against Americans to illustrate their opposition to the Democratic President. (They also became concerned about Islamic terrorists' civil rights and the national debt around 2009.) Obama's attempts to prevent the US from being entangled in another foreign conflict--or "leading from behind"--are thus a sign of his weakness, not a sign of PAYING ATTENTION.
Maybe Obama should send 100,000 America troops into a foreign country, then stay there for ten years (after first disbanding the local army--we don't need those guys, right?), losing hundreds of billions due to incompetence and graft while American infrastructure collapses? Oops. Been done!
You know what's great about "leading from behind"? You don't get shot. Obama is attempting to prevent Americans from getting shot, as near as I can tell. Republicans are living in a weird, 1984-style society where the shutdown was a good idea and America should invade other countries with no thought as to how it will effect either our short-term or long-term foreign policy. Sending drones into Pakistan is terrible--send some troops in there, right? The drone strikes are endangering our relationship with Islamic allies--unlike declaring war unilaterally, which is just common sense.
Oh, and why are we even listening to Dick Cheney or Con Rice on this matter? It feels like they should fade away, and never offer any additional wisdom on global political events again. Feels like they should be working harder to redeem their legacy, not reminding us all that they still exist. Try to become irrelevant, neocons--that's something you should be aiming for!
If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. When you're a fuckin' dumbass, stand aside and let someone with some grasp of recent American history to take the wheel, even if it means "leading from behind."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)