Here's one of the stories about Bush comparing Iraq to Vietnam, in which he made sure to use emotionally-charged words like "re-education camps" and "killing fields".
The biggest irony of that: if Bush is talking about the "killing fields" of Cambodia, then maybe it will interest him that the genocide might never have happened, had the people of that country not given the Khmer Rouge so much support following American attacks on Cambodia during the Vietnam War. The Khmer Rouge's rise to power was a direct result of American interventionism in Southeast Asia. Just as we are intervening in the Middle East today with Iraq.
But here's what also bothers me: in this same speech, Bush said that America will stay in Iraq as long as he is President.
In other words, Bush is admitting that the American presence in Iraq is not dependent on achieving "conditions of victory", whatever they happen to be at the moment. No, now Bush is making it clear that American forces being in Iraq are solely there because he wants them there, without that necessarily being in regards to the best interests of this country. This war really is about satisfying one man's ego now: Bush has actually come out and said it.
Meanwhile, 14 American soldiers are dead in a helicopter crash in Iraq. And the mother of one soldier who died in Iraq is asking "I want to know why I'm planning a funeral while George Bush is planning a wedding."
And one California family is mourning the death of their second son in Iraq.
I very strongly doubt that Bush, or any of this war's supporters, have shed any tears of grief for those lost in this conflict of theirs. They really can't look past their own egos and see the very real individuals who are dying for no reason at all in this senseless war.
Yes, I wonder too why Jenna Bush and this beau of hers haven't volunteered to serve in Iraq. I mean, if this war is about freedom, then it seems as though they would want to do their part in securing it, doesn't it?
Hi,
ReplyDeleteIt's your blog, and you can say what you want and that's fine. That's what's great about the blogosphere. War is an emotional subject.
I happen to support the war on terror and don't think that I haven't agonized over the cost of this war. I mourn our soldiers, and the thousands of Iraqi civilians who have died at the hands of terrorists and insane jihadists. I personnally know several combat vets of this war, including one Marine who was critically wounded in Iraq and suffered permanent brain damage. He said that if he was able, the first thing he'd do is get on a plane and go back to join his fellow soldiers. I wish he wasn't scarred for life and unable to work. (The military is giving him a salary for the rest of his life.) It's hard to see. But it's also inspiring to watch him rise above his injuried and sufferings and love life anyway.
Again, you are free to make broad, sweeping statements like, "I very strongly doubt that...any of this war's supporters have shed any tears of grief for those lost in this conflict of theirs." But I think those statements are a bit naive. My support for the war doesn't mean I don't grieve the loss of life.
Thanks for letting me explain.
You and I can and do grieve, Suz... but what about the ones responsible for causing this war to come about to begin with?
ReplyDeleteThere are perhaps two dozen, maybe a few more, people in Washington and elsewhere who are the ones who led the drive to war. Thousands of lives have been lost and no telling how many others ruined because of the selfishness, greed and outright stupidity of these very few men and women.
So much power concentrated with so few. These are people who will never know what it is to have a son or daughter in harms way over there. They can't possibly understand the heartbreak - the REAL heartbreak - that comes with losing a loved one in a war that makes no sense. And it DOESN'T make sense: Iraq had nothing at all to do with 9/11. Bush just played on a lot of people's ignorance about foreign affairs when he pursued this little war of his.
These people are in a whole different world from the rest of us. They think nothing of using us to pursue their dreams of power. Why should then we believe that they would otherwise have our best interests at heart?