So, if you're tired of the warmongering chickenhawk Republicans getting your kids killed, squandering your money by the mega-bale, and slaughtering and torturing anyone who gets in the way, you should be grateful that there's a Democratic alternative:
Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh said Sunday in New Hampshire.Yes, you hear Little Evan correctly. He's lusting after an emphasis on Iran.
“Iraq is taking the focus away from Afghanistan and Iran,” Bayh said. [Emphasis added.]
Or at least those are the words that emerged from his youthful lips. About what he really thinks -- if anything -- we have not that first clue. Because:
Bayh is exploring a possible run for the Democratic presidential nomination. He was making the rounds of receptions honoring Democratic candidates Sunday and today.Ah, yes. Apparently that's the calibrated "position" given him by his own low-priced version of Karl Rove. Not "stop the wars;" just "better-managed and bigger and other" wars.
But, of course, Little Evan is foursquare in favor of leaving Iraq, at some indefinite time. But not to go home. Oh, no, no, no, silly blogger!
The United States needs to begin the process of leaving Iraq by stabilizing the country so more focus can be placed on Afghanistan and Iran, he said.So, there are your alternatives -- your contestants in the race to see who's more satisfactory to Likud. Your elephants: "Stay the course! We'll get to Iran soon enough!" Or your jackasses: "Change course -- we want to get to Iran right now!"
“We’ve diverted so many resources to Iraq,” he said. Bayh said the U.S. should apply pressure to the Iraq government to control warring factions in the country.
Don't forget to vote. Your vote counts! Your vote is your power! Your vote changes things!
Yeah.
2 comments:
It would be interesting to see what Bayh (or any other "change course Democrat) might do to the current flavor of the nation. We all support the troops, of course of course of course,but the exam form and expression, beyond those silly magnets, varies widley.
Would expanding the War on Terror to include Iran (and why not North Korea, while we're at it) increase support for the troops? Make us look any braver to the rest of the world? Force the war mongers on the right to retool their arguments in favor of war in Afganistan and Iraq to be more sensible, if not more honest?
I don't think that any of these battlefronts are getting anywhere - it truly seems that the war fought on thr ground and the war fought in strategic sessions are light years apart. Short of forcing Cheney and/or Rumsfield to accompany the troops on daily raids and skirmishes I don't know that we can close the gap.... hence my half-sincere argument for broadening it.
So, who will fight these additional wars? Why, we'll bring back the draft. THAT, more than anything else, will FORCE Americans to ponder exactly what "support the troops" truly means, and it's not just sending them baby wipes and Tang mix.
So, who will fight these additional wars? Why, we'll bring back the draft. THAT, more than anything else, will FORCE Americans to ponder exactly what "support the troops" truly means, and it's not just sending them baby wipes and Tang mix.
Hear, hear! And your comment suggests to me another reason for (half-sincerely) advocating an expansion of the wars by invading Iran: gas prices will truly go through the freakin' roof. And for those Americans who aren't draft age (whatever that might mean in these broken-Army days), or draft gender (ditto), or have any loved ones who are, there's another way to drive home the cost of supportin' them troops. After all, we're Americans, and our cars are objects of religious devotion. $6 gas would get many people's attention, quite promptly. Might even take their minds off a Lee Greenwood song.
Post a Comment