~ Some quotes by the pretzelnit from Friday's New York Times article:
"He (the pretzelnit) said that in North Korea's case, and in Iran's, he would not be rushed to set deadlines for the countries to disarm, despite his past declaration that he would not "tolerate'' nuclear capability in either nation. (See, it's less scary to invade a country without nuclear weapons, oh say like, Iraq) He (the same pretzelnit ) declined to define what he meant by "tolerate.'' (Yeah, a definition would be nice to have here. Are American lives going to be involved? We need clues on this one.)
"I don't think you give timelines to dictators,'' Mr. Bush said, speaking of North Korea's president, Kim Jong Il, and Iran's mullahs. (He thought timelines were pretty neat when he was dealing with Saddam didn't he?) He said he would continue diplomatic pressure - using China to pressure the North and Europe to pressure Iran - and gave no hint that his patience was limited or that at some point he might consider pre-emptive military action." (Might we finish at least one of the two wars we are involved in before getting into another one or two?)
Too bad he didn't use this method when he was screaming and clawing to invade Iraq, huh? Maybe his decision and timing with Iraq was one of his misunderestimated miscalculations.
~ Speaking of miscalculations and flip flops, this from Bloomberg.com:
"NBC said Bush's interview with Matt Lauer was taped Saturday in Ohio and will be broadcast in segments. In a segment run earlier today, Bush said he doubted the U.S. can win the war against terrorism. (Did he have these doubts when he sent almost 1000 soldiers to die in this war in Iraq?) Asked by Lauer if he can win it during a second four-year term in the White House, the president said, ``I don't think you can win it. (Refer to my last question.) But I think you can create conditions'' so that ``those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.'' (And where exactly might that be?)
Okay, if you don't give timelines to dictators and you don't feel we can win the so called war on terror, then WTF have these last couple of years been all about? Why have so many American soldiers died? I am so hearing echoes of Vietnam, the other war we couldn't win. We gotta get this guy out of office before he causes any more damage at home and around the world. Bush clearly has been a "catastrophic success". He has been overly successful in creating multiple catastrophes.
~ Check out what Paul Krugman says today in the NY Times. This is the last paragraph in his piece:
"Yesterday Mr. Bush, who took a "winning the war on terror" bus tour just a few months ago, conceded that "I don't think you can win" the war on terror. But he hasn't changed the national security adviser, nor has he dismissed even one of the ideologues who got us into this no-win situation. Rather than concede that he made mistakes, he's sticking with people who will, if they get the chance, lead us into two, three, many quagmires. "
Quagmires are not good for the health of our country and they are especially dangerous for our soldiers. So while speakers drone on this week at the Republican convention and the audience chants "four more years", chant back at them, "no more quagmires". War should not be declared as a perk for a president's career, or a financially profitable convenience for big corporations. War is not something you declare, send your military to fight and die for and then tell your country it's something that will not end and cannot be won.
War has been bush's only claim to fame. Had it not been for the attacks of 9-11, he would probably already be gone. Before the attacks, he was looking pretty pathetic and the "war on terror" basically saved his ass from the fire. It worked so well for him that he kept it going by convincing the already edgy public that if he didn't declare war in Iraq we would suffer the same attacks all over again, but this time it would be Saddam calling the shots.
From 9-11 on, the citizens of the US have been so paranoid that they believe anything he tells them if he can work the words "attack", "kill", or "danger" into his reasoning. Nobody cares if the reasons are verifiable. All they seem to care about is that we kill anyone and everyone who could kill us. The insanity of his strategy is evident to most of us, but it seems to elude so many more. I would suggest that we are not experiencing the fog of war. We are experiencing the fallout of the convenience of war, and it is deadly.