Bush Should Explain Why He Invaded IraqShe has a way with words, doesn't she?
As the nation marks the fourth anniversary of the war against Iraq, we still await an explanation from President Bush about why he invaded that oil-rich Middle Eastern country.
Every reason he cited for launching of the war on March 19, 2003, has proved to be fictitious. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to the al-Qaida terrorist network and no threat from that third-world country against the U.S., the world's only military superpower.
Doesn't he owe an apology to the country or at least an explanation, particularly to the families of loved ones who made the ultimate sacrifice for reasons he seems incapable of explaining?
Under international law, the only reason to go to war is when a nation is attacked or when it has a treaty with a nation under attack. Those weren't the circumstances four years ago when this president made the decision to take the nation into war, with the backing of a rubber-stamp Republican-led Congress.
Nearly 3,200 Americans have died in the war so far. The Pentagon says it has no idea how many Iraqis have been killed. A Pentagon spokesman says: "We don't track them."How much would be enough? Could they possibly show this idiot enough gratitude for all the death and destruction he has caused?
According to a survey published in the British medical Journal The Lancet, more than 650,000 Iraqis have been killed during the war.
The four years of "Operation Iraq Freedom" have been expensive, costing the United States close to $500 billion, with costs expected to run up to $1 trillion or more.
And yet Bush persists in this inhumane misadventure, pouring more troops and money into the occupation of Iraq which he, incidentally, claims has not shown us enough gratitude.
The Iraqis are being warned that American patience may run out. They should be so lucky.It's true, isn't it? They should be so lucky!!
And what about us?? We should be so lucky, too!! Get this woman a front-row seat!
In his weekly radio address Saturday, Bush said "Congress has no greater obligation than funding our war fighters." He also threatened to veto any legislation setting a timetable for a pullout from that benighted country.Well, exactly! Forget the front row seat; Helen Thomas should be running the five-sided madhouse!
I think the president has no greater obligation than to explain to the American people why they should kill and be killed in U.S-occupied Iraq.
The fallout from the war has been devastating for the White House.Yes, and ...
The administration is circling the wagons ...Ummm... I'm sorry to disagree -- on this one point -- but what wagons? Do you mean this one wagons over here?
It's just a minor quibble; more a joke opportunity than anything else, and I still want you to read the whole column, but I know you probably won't, so I'll cut to the chase. Helen talks about how the Bush White House is more isolated than ever, runs the list of developing scandals which threaten to burst the chimperor's bubble once and for all, and winds up on a bittersweet refrain:
The Republican Party knows it could face a devastating election defeat in 2008 unless Bush calls a halt to the Iraqi debacle.As regular readers of this page will attest, I heartily approve of the "leave now" sentiment, and I'm happy to see it in all the papers the Hearst chain represents.
To give voters a choice, the Democrats better forget about timetables and benchmarks. The time to leave is now, before more have to give up their lives.
But I love her closing bit even more; did you catch what she said?
To give voters a choice!!
It would be good to have a choice, wouldn't it?
Some people have been saying the same thing for decades, and they've been thought of as lunatics.
Now it's right out in the open. Lunatics my foot!
If Helen Thomas writes it, and Hearst Newspapers publishes it, and the Falls Church News-Press goes with it, it can't be a big secret anymore, can it?
But that's an easy question; here's a hard one:
What are we gonna do about it?