Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[tw]

From the NY Times of 19 Mar 2008:

Bush Says Iraq War Was Worth It
President Bush says he has no doubts about launching the unpopular war in Iraq despite the ''high cost in lives and treasure,'' arguing that retreat now would embolden Iran and provide al-Qaida with money for weapons of mass destruction to attack the United States.

Bush is to mark the fifth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq on Wednesday with a speech at the Pentagon. Excerpts of his address were released Tuesday night by the White House.

At least 3,990 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the war in 2003. It has cost taxpayers about $500 billion and estimates of the final tab run far higher. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglizt and Harvard University public finance expert Linda Bilmes have estimated the eventual cost at $3 trillion when all the expenses, including long-term care for veterans, are calculated.

Meanwhile neither Iran, Iraq, or N Korea was a threat. A wacko extremist has a political agenda to serve. Honesty is not George Jr - a problem when told what to do by god. All those 'axis of evil', it turns out, were not until George Jr began threatening them with 'Pearl Harbor' actions justified by a crusader's mentality. Guess who pays.

Curiously, this was also the 40th Anniversary of the My Lai massacre where American soldiers even used babies for target practice. All for the glory of another lying president.

[tw]

From the Washington Post of 2 Apr 2008:

Memo: Laws Didn't Apply to Interrogators
Justice Dept. Official in 2003 Said President's Wartime Authority Trumped Many Statutes

The Justice Department sent a legal memorandum to the Pentagon in 2003 asserting that federal laws prohibiting assault, maiming and other crimes did not apply to military interrogators who questioned al-Qaeda captives because the president's ultimate authority as commander in chief overrode such statutes.

Torture and international kidnapping of any non-American was declared legal by our wacko extremists. Another example of how corrupt one will be when a political agenda justifies action. Another example of why extremists are so dangerous since only an extremist would see nothing wrong here.

"It was legal. Therefore it is not 'evil'."

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

Another example .... since only an extremist would see nothing wrong here.

Where?

[spudcon]

Originally Posted by tw

From the NY Times of 19 Mar 2008: Meanwhile neither Iran, Iraq, or N Korea was a threat. A wacko extremist has a political agenda to serve. Honesty is not George Jr - a problem when told what to do by god. All those 'axis of evil', it turns out, were not until George Jr began threatening them with 'Pearl Harbor' actions justified by a crusader's mentality. Guess who pays.

Curiously, this was also the 40th Anniversary of the My Lai massacre where American soldiers even used babies for target practice. All for the glory of another lying president.

Which lying president would that be?

[tw]

Originally Posted by spudcon

Which lying president would that be?

From ABC News of 19 April 2008:

No Al Qaeda Policy: Congress Wants Answers
Congress plans to press the Bush administration aggressively to justify its policy in Afghanistan following a nonpartisan report that concludes that the administration "lacks a comprehensive plan" to take on al Qaeda in its stronghold. ...

Berman has scheduled a hearing for May 7 to grill administration officials.

His concern follows a report by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, that concludes, "No comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals ... has been developed" in Pakistan's lawless tribal region along the Afghan border.

Such a plan requires a White House that works for America; not for a political agenda. These are mutually exclusive objectives.

There is not and has not been plans to get bin Laden. Those who have long understood this also ask, "When do we go after bin Laden?" Now the GAO says same.

The Bush administration does not have such a plan, even though it was called for by the 9/11 Commission and was mandated under a 2007 law, the GAO report said.

The report pulls no punches. It concludes that six years after President Bush pledged to take Osama bin Laden "dead or alive," al Qaeda has "regenerated its ability to attack the United States and had succeeded in establishing a safe haven" in Pakistan's border region.

Is the GAO some kind of communist conspiracy? Only useful plans to end "Mission Accomplished" also came from the 9/11 Commission. But when the president is even a liar, then keeping a bogeyman alive is good politics.

Which is good for America? A political agenda or getting bin Laden? Keeping bin Laden alive is good for wacko extremist politics. But the patriot asks, "When do we go after bin Laden?" GAO has finally moved Congress to work for America? How many Cellar Dwellers also feared to ask what only a patriotic Congressman (or presidential candidate) would ask. When DO we go after bin Laden? A lying president will not.