StatCounter

Thursday, June 19, 2008

State of the Onion

Photo of the Yesterday: A Patriotic Fireplug on 161st Street & Jewel Avenue in Queens.


As I'm sure many of you have seen by now, moveon.org has put forth a video attacking John McCain titled Not Alex. The video shows an actress and "her" baby, Alex. The woman spends most of the video telling John McCain how much she loves her baby, but jeez, the scum-sucking warmonger wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years, and well, he just can't have cute little Alex to sacrifice to the evil Republican War Machine.

What unbelievable horse-hockey. First of all, What McCain actually said was:

Questioner: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years…

McCain: Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.


Hardly a promise of a hundred years of war. How many times have we heard since 9/11 that the Republicans are going to reinstate the draft? Hasn't happened, sorry. (Neither have the CIA planted WMDs, for that matter.) And it's very doubtful that John McCain is "counting" on little Alex, because Alex won't be able to serve in the military until (if McCain was elected for two terms) ten years after McCain left office. And what if he did? God forbid that when little Alex grows up, he decides to serve and try to make a difference in the world, rather than making fear-mongering propaganda videos like his "mother." (Not that the military is the only way to make a difference - I have the highest regard for teachers, doctors, the police, soup-kitchen workers, firefighters, first-responders, outreach volunteers, counselors - you get my drift.)

But wait, I'm not done ranting yet.

While I understood the decision to invade Iraq, I had the silly idea that our government knew what to do with it once they kicked out Saddam. Ever since 2003, it seems like they never had a clue. But what the hell is this 50 (or 100) years, crap? There wasn't any word of this when we shocked and awed, nor when the mission was "accomplished." But if the plan is to stay for decades, then obviously, they always did have a clue. The exit strategy seems to have always been to get a foot in the door in the middle east, creating a U.S. presence such as the one we had in Germany since World War II. Then there's the report that Bush is trying to secretly push through a treaty to ensure that we will remain in Iraq indefinitely. (I'm personally taking this story with a grain of salt as I haven't been able to find any verification or other source than this report, but it wouldn't surprise me.)

Senator Obama's entire campaign is based on the promise that he will get us out of Iraq. That would be great, if done in a way that stabilizes the country. My question to him is, exactly how and when are you planning to do this, or are you just as full of shit as Bill Clinton was when he campaigned on allowing gays in the military? (Sort of different from "don't ask, don't tell," isn't it?) Are you prepared for the probable retaliation against the Iraqis who helped us and stood up for their own freedom? How about a possible increase in terrorism as our military will be perceived upon retreat as a paper tiger? Yes, Iraq is a misadventure that has pissed our economy down the drain, cost thousands of lives, and ruined America's standing in the world community. But as much as we've screwed up, the question remains, what do we do now, and what will the consequences be? I don't want us to stay there another day, but don't we have an obligation to fix up what we messed up?

TTFN
-Tony

PS. Happy Birthday, Amanda Jean. I love you so much.

No comments: