This is normal?
So today is the day that the findings of the Iraq Study Group come out. As expected, the results suck. We're doing a shitty job in Iraq. I think that's a direct quote.
But does anybody else have a problem with this?
Let me take a step back. Watching the Daily Show last night, they showed a clip of the nominee for Secretary of Defense in his Senate hearings or whatever. When asked if we thought we were losing, he said yes! Honesty! I couldn't believe it. Not even a 'Well it depends on what you define losing is.' I like his style.
But anyways, back to the topic. So, this bipartisan committee tells Bush that everyone around him has done a terrible job, and he's just supposed to change his mind? He's been telling us for months that things are going well (lie) and that leaving is a mistake (possible truth) and that he's the decider (most likely lie).
Bush has been against altering the plan in Iraq basically since it started going downhill.
So if Bush agrees to alter the plans (which he basically already has), what does that say about him? He kept Rumsfeld in too long? As the "Decider" he couldn't take the time to assess the situation in Iraq to decide if things were going well or not?
And now he's telling Congress to pay attention to what the study finds?
And through this whole thing, he has not admitted any wrongdoing. At least, in my consideration he hasn't admitted to making any mistakes. Somehow he comes off looking like he made a wise decision (if you're a close-minded conservative) in having this group assess the situation, and nominating a decent (from the sound of it) Secretary of the Defense while also having Rumsfeld step down.
Also, this study suggests talks with Syria, which the Bush administration has resisted. In addition to that, it says troops should be removed by 2008. Or if it doesn't call for trooops out in 2008, it at least suggests a plan for getting troops out by 2008, which is more than anything the Bush administration has done.
Why do we even need Bush to be President? He doesn't really do anything for himself. Most of his mistakes get filtered down until someone can be accused, and some of the decisions he makes really really suck. I'm just going to assume that until 2008, we don't really have a president. Which is probably about 2 years after most of the people in Washington decided that.
But does anybody else have a problem with this?
Let me take a step back. Watching the Daily Show last night, they showed a clip of the nominee for Secretary of Defense in his Senate hearings or whatever. When asked if we thought we were losing, he said yes! Honesty! I couldn't believe it. Not even a 'Well it depends on what you define losing is.' I like his style.
But anyways, back to the topic. So, this bipartisan committee tells Bush that everyone around him has done a terrible job, and he's just supposed to change his mind? He's been telling us for months that things are going well (lie) and that leaving is a mistake (possible truth) and that he's the decider (most likely lie).
Bush has been against altering the plan in Iraq basically since it started going downhill.
So if Bush agrees to alter the plans (which he basically already has), what does that say about him? He kept Rumsfeld in too long? As the "Decider" he couldn't take the time to assess the situation in Iraq to decide if things were going well or not?
And now he's telling Congress to pay attention to what the study finds?
And through this whole thing, he has not admitted any wrongdoing. At least, in my consideration he hasn't admitted to making any mistakes. Somehow he comes off looking like he made a wise decision (if you're a close-minded conservative) in having this group assess the situation, and nominating a decent (from the sound of it) Secretary of the Defense while also having Rumsfeld step down.
Also, this study suggests talks with Syria, which the Bush administration has resisted. In addition to that, it says troops should be removed by 2008. Or if it doesn't call for trooops out in 2008, it at least suggests a plan for getting troops out by 2008, which is more than anything the Bush administration has done.
Why do we even need Bush to be President? He doesn't really do anything for himself. Most of his mistakes get filtered down until someone can be accused, and some of the decisions he makes really really suck. I'm just going to assume that until 2008, we don't really have a president. Which is probably about 2 years after most of the people in Washington decided that.
posted by Jtrouble at 9:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home