Tuesday, August 03, 2004

A Plan of Any Kind Formulated; Footage of Bush Falling Off Bicycle (Again) at 11

The incumbent also has a secret plan for reducing the number of troops in Iraq by 2008 - it's called WINNING THE WAR.

Dude, where's your plan? Am I alone in remembering the hawks saying that they would have this wrapped up lickety-split? Have they not been wrong on how long the war would take, how many troops would be required, and how we would be accepted there and abroad? Forget the WMD issue for a second — they didn't get anything else right!

I'm not gonna go with my ABB stance, but I think that even I could do a better job than Bush is doing. No one in the executive branch wants to tell the Emperors (because I don't attribute all of the screw ups to Bush) that they have no clothes — largely because they don't want to end up friendless, hopeless, unemployed, in Greenland!

Sheer arrogance? My money's on Bush. Watch him smirk. He never has a serious moment. Why? Because he thinks that he's the best person in any room. If he's not the smartest person, then he's the truest hearted. He has some keen insight into what makes people tick, hence his pledge to jawbone OPEC nations to keep gas prices under $2.00. Way to go, Prez!

Let's see, a "secret" plan to bring in other nations. What could be the components?

{Begin Shawn Dream Sequence}
"Here at Kerry Policy Labs, we are feverishly working on reducing the troops in Iraq. How do we do it? The secret ingredient is humilty! While avoiding mentioning that we saved the world in the 40s, we ask other countries to commit troops to saving the world this century. In return, we will open the bidding process on contracts to reconstruct the country in question. Additionally, we employ a secret technique learned by John Kerry during his 20 years of service in the Senate. We ask the other countries what might be important to them and promise to act on those issues. Lastly, we employ John Kerry's extensive experience from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. For the benefit of George Bush (or rather, whoever might be reading this to him) and other Republicans in general, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee works with other governments to make progress on world issues in a way that best meets the needs of the United States."
{End Shawn Dream Sequence}

Playing your cards close to your vest is a pretty well regarded method — why, just ask Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, two of the many Supreme Court Justices who ruled that Vice President Dick Cheney essentially didn't have to answer (yet!) as to who leads him around on his dog collar. As I recall, the Bush/Cheney team addressed the issue of the California energy crisis by saying that, as former energy industry execs, they knew just what to do, but really couldn't go into it.

It's true that we didn't used to have "exit strategies." There was no exit strategy for the Civil War, the Spanish American War, WWI, or WWII, all of which went well. United States troops have always been greeted as liberators, whether in Grenada, the Phillipines, Birmingham, or Iraq. We're the toast of the world!

Willy and Joe were fighting to the death. WWII saw us destroy places more thoroughly than ever previously imagined. We only need exit strategies for wars that aren't the life or death of this country: Kuwait, Grenada, Beirut, Iraq, Mogadishu, and yes, Vietnam. All because we don't want to keep throwing good lives after bad.

We didn't go into Somalia with an exit strategy. One of the things I hated about Clinton was that he let polls determine policy to a certain extent. Because of that, he pulled us out of Somalia, and it remains a blight today. Because of that, he never committed us to Rwanda, and we still bear shame for that to this day. Exit strategies don't prepare for or predict an outcome of violence. All they do is help us determine when it's time for us to leave.

I appreciate your acknowledgement that Bush, despite his pledge of being a unifier, is, in fact, "uber-partisan". Taking that into account, what do you suggest as a remedy? I have no party affiliation. Should I be allowed to vote in the primaries? Because, if I'd had my way, Edwards would be at the top of the ticket.


Post a Comment

<< Home