<
|
2007 January 19
Copyright © Brian Wright
Ann Coulter 2:
Remaining unhinged for the Bushoviks
Recall I've complimented St. Ann in a past editorial regarding her assessment of the proper treatment for some threatening Islamic holy men traveling on airplanes. What's the old saying, "Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every once in a while."
But lately in my local paper, The Queen of Demean returns to form. In her recent two masterpieces, she makes the following assertions, respectively:
1) We're winning in Iraq—since American deaths have
stayed relatively constant for the last three years ~850/yr.
she claims if American soldiers stay in Iraq through 2010,
only 6,000 total will die. A small price to pay to prevent
another 911, she maintains.
2) Democrats are forcing defeat
in Iraq—drawing a parallel
to Vietnam, which she asserts the Democrats caused us to
lose to the commies, today's Dems will be responsible for
the humiliating loss that looms in Iraq.
On number 1, aside from our deaths, what are some other trends? According to IraqiBodyCount.or, Iraqi civilian deaths were substantially higher in 2006 than in 2005 (approx. 25,000 vs. 15,000). If we're winning in Iraq, the overwhelming percentage of these newly dead men, women, and children must be bad guys.
Then switching gears in the second column, Ann concedes we're about to "lose" in Iraq. Naturally, those responsible for giving up are not the Neocon cabal that launched the war and managed its aftermath, rather they're the people who were inclined to oppose the war to begin with.
Note: Bushoviks constantly bring up that virtually every member of Congress agreed with the resolution that took the US to war. They neglect to mention that it was a conditional resolution requiring a formal presidential determination of the need for war—Bush's determination document simply reasserted his (specious) reasons for the resolution... instead attributing them to Congress![1]
A couple of nights ago, I was listening to impartial journalist Sean Hannity. He stated, practically verbatim, "The only reason we're losing this war is the people aren't 100% behind it." Wide popular support would have prevented Cheney, Bush, Rummy, and fiends from dictating this unique foreign-policy, military, and humanitarian holocaust.
I don't think so, Sean. Does the number of people agreeing with you make your opinions any less yours or any less "error prone."
Also, why does everyone keep referring to current Iraq as a war? The war is over, we won, it's now an occupation. Consider Thom Hartmann's piece in Common Dreams: the US Military has been occupying Iraq since May of 2003. The only conceivable reason for this continued presence is to serve interests of the oil junta—though the Bushoviks are botching that, too.
For everyone else, except perhaps for Islamic terrorists, the occupation has been an unqualified bust.
The solution now, despite the ravings of Miss Sensitivity,
is to declare victory and leave. In order to do that without giving up all the black gold, the Neocon junta has to cut some other dogs in on the deal... like Syria, Iran, the Saudis, Iraqi oil customers, Iraqi people, the humanitarian community, etc.
Sounds like a reasonable exit strategy to me.
[1] Probably the best work describing the key crimes and coverups of the current administration—including impeachable lies for war—is John Dean's Worse than Watergate. [return]
|
|
