BuzzFlash Reader Contribution

CONTRIBUTOR ARCHIVES  

Dubya's Bloody Mandate

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by One Citizen

Someone clue me in. Just HOW are we all so much safer now that George Bush has our National Guard strung out all over Iraq?

Try that question out on Bush supporters and see what you get. Every one I've asked has shot back "What would you rather we do? Pull our troops and let the terrorists come over here and attack us instead?"

The eerie thing is that the phrasing hasn't varied from one dittozombie to the next.

I actually am beginning to think that most may seriously believe that keeping terrorists busy in Iraq is somehow our only option. It's the NeoConservative theory that their corporate media machine has apparently programmed them with. We simply need to keep stirring terrorism "over there" so the enemy won't attack us here.

One major problem with their flypaper theory, is the fact that most of the "insurgents" we're fighting in Iraq are nothing more than desperate civilians who we've angered and pushed into a corner.

If you have any doubts about it, then think about this. If you lost your job when mercenaries and the "occupational forces" moved into your town, and then your kid (or your neighbor's kid) was raped in a prison "detainee" camp by the "occupiers" or their mercenary commanders, wouldn't you start thinking differently about your "liberators"?

How about watching kids starve to death while you know there's a wealth of oil under your country?

Heck, the Brit troops didn't even want to relocate and join with our forces because the terrible way Americans had been treating civilians would put their troops at risk.

IF THERE'S ONE THING WE CAN ALL AGREE ON, it's that George W. Bush has very limited military experience. Despite his parading around on warships as Commander Codpiece, Bush's wartime leadership abilities have been, let's say, questionable time and again. Perhaps the sensible thing to do is deploy our National Guard exactly as George W. was deployed back during Vietnam.

Why not let them all come back here and simply guard our borders and ports? That way the Republican Congress can spend your money on their Presidential party barge instead of body armor and ammunition for our troops.

Forget about the 377 tons of missing explosives gone missing since we invaded (there were actually a lot more than that anyway.) Its those 4,000 shoulder-fired missiles are missing in Iraq that we should be worried about.

Our defense intelligence has declared that they really don't know how many missiles are actually missing and, oh, by the way, they've no evidence that the SAMS have actually left Iraq.

So here's the lowdown -- we know that some highly portable anti-aircraft missiles are missing, but we really don't know exactly how many. The good news is that nobody's told us whether or not they've actually left Iraq yet.

Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat (as if he ever was). It turns out that Iraqis have always been far less likely to attack Americans so long as they're not within spitting distance, at least until we stirred them up. The Congressional mandate for invasion was actually only for Bush to use whatever force was necessary to remove Hussein from power. Why not now let the Iraqis have their oil back so they might use revenues from the sale of it to actually hire their own people for rebuilding their own infrastructure? This is a plan might which not only would certainly go far to make more Americans safer, while actually freeing up a few regular troops to hopefully perform some tactical strikes every so often on the real enemy.

You remember him. That tall bearded guy in the funny hat who attacked us a couple of years ago?

Osama bin Laden- who, by the way, never lived in Iraq or Iran, despite strong rumors to the contrary.

Ring a bell??

I admit that it may be a little hard to concentrate on him while all of our battlefield talent is focused on flattening Fallujah and our media on Scott Peterson and all the recent badboy behavior in our sports arenas.

The serious fight stateside is the one that's going on within the CIA. Porter Goss, the Senator from Florida who swore to the Senate that he would avoid being partisan, has decided to clean out anyone left who would dare to speak out against the Bush administration. Which happens to include sacking many of their top agents.

Yet the Republican wing of the House of Representatives derailed legislation to overhaul defence intelligence allegedly because they were "worried that provisions of the bill could interfere with the military chain of command and endanger troops in the field".

Media reports say that House Repubs "defeated Bush" as if he actually wanted Congress to legislate the 911commission's recommendations.

What a crock. Bush just installed Porter Goss as his point man to head the CIA, replacing two other guys over practically as many months. Goss jumped right in to eliminate their most experienced people while Iraqi insurgents are making off with thousands of deadly Surface-to Air missiles. So I ask you. How can legislating someone to oversee the CIA screw up the chain of command any worse than that?

And just how is stringing your kids on guard duty over oil fields and pipelines all across Iraq while slaughtering and torturing civilians in their homeland is making America any stronger or safer?

I personally think that it's just plain stupid.

But it really doesn't matter what we think, because the real question is whether the Iraqis will ever have any faith in any "democratic" elections we (of all people) rig up for them.

Just watch. On January 31, 2005 the Bush Administration will proudly declare yet another "mandate" for their policies, no matter how many voters they've slaughtered.

-One Citizen
Charleston, WV

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION