Who's "Slow-Walking" whom
Today was the highly anticipated Senate hearings with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker coming before the Senate Armed Services and also the Foreign Relations committees. This was the promised appearance to review the effects of the "SURGE". I listened for hours, missed some but not much because of a medical appointment mid-day at Mayo.
There was a lot of the usual, dancing around the issue of what precisely is to be achieved in order for the U.S. to withdraw. No answer really and my impression is they don't know, expect to know when it bites them, and then there was ignoring the elephant in the room. Two men obliged to support - by virtue of their positions - the flawed decisions of a lame duck president.
I do not view Iraq as being significant to U.S. security. And another definition that is never detailed is - what exactly are the national interests of the U.S. over there? There has never been any acknowledgement only allegations, a multiple choice of those. Al Queda? Middle East stability? Power demo? Israeli survival? Fight there so we don't have to here, the WOT excuse?
Dare one mention, OIL?
I try my best to be informed. So here is what I see. The U.S. is being played as a sucker, courteous of the "W" neocon war fevers.
Al Queda has us exactly where they want us --- pinned down in Iraq while they reconstitute in remote areas of Afghanistan/Pakistan and continue working on their next nefarious plans. They have accomplished bankrupting the U.S. - So here we are crippled militarily and monetarily.
The out of power Sunnis are trying to slow walk the Shia. Then there is the "reverse" slow walk, meaning Iran and Maliki.
None of the regional Muslim countries want to touch peacemaking roles. So we are getting slow walked there too.
Basra was supposedly "secured" by the British coalition force.......that farce is over now with the events of the last week or so there.
And worst of all, the American public is being "slow walked" by the Bush administration and that statergy is going to continue right through the rest of this administration.
graysmoke
There was a lot of the usual, dancing around the issue of what precisely is to be achieved in order for the U.S. to withdraw. No answer really and my impression is they don't know, expect to know when it bites them, and then there was ignoring the elephant in the room. Two men obliged to support - by virtue of their positions - the flawed decisions of a lame duck president.
I do not view Iraq as being significant to U.S. security. And another definition that is never detailed is - what exactly are the national interests of the U.S. over there? There has never been any acknowledgement only allegations, a multiple choice of those. Al Queda? Middle East stability? Power demo? Israeli survival? Fight there so we don't have to here, the WOT excuse?
Dare one mention, OIL?
I try my best to be informed. So here is what I see. The U.S. is being played as a sucker, courteous of the "W" neocon war fevers.
Al Queda has us exactly where they want us --- pinned down in Iraq while they reconstitute in remote areas of Afghanistan/Pakistan and continue working on their next nefarious plans. They have accomplished bankrupting the U.S. - So here we are crippled militarily and monetarily.
The out of power Sunnis are trying to slow walk the Shia. Then there is the "reverse" slow walk, meaning Iran and Maliki.
None of the regional Muslim countries want to touch peacemaking roles. So we are getting slow walked there too.
Basra was supposedly "secured" by the British coalition force.......that farce is over now with the events of the last week or so there.
And worst of all, the American public is being "slow walked" by the Bush administration and that statergy is going to continue right through the rest of this administration.
graysmoke
posted by graysmoke @ 4:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home