We are sitting in deep muck!
By teresa simon-noble
We are sitting in deep muck-no doubt about it! What with the occupation and invasion of Iraq, with Bush the father stepping in to bring "order" to said occupation, with his so called "Iraq Study Group" being composed of Bush I retreads and a few of Clinton's appointees who might turn out to be "corporatists" and friendlier towards the military industrial complex than one would have thought, and with Bush the son saying that he will not leave Iraq ... we are sitting in deep muck-there is no doubt about it!
In addition, there are these little men, already thinking about vying for the post of president of the United States in 2008,. launching exploratory committees that will tell them, I presume, how successful their run might be, or not.
Senator McCain, being one of these little men who is already thinking and talking about launching a bid for the presidency in 2008, refuses to lay blame on George W. Bush for the tragedy that Iraq has turned out to be, as evidenced by his line of questioning of General John Abizaid on Wednesday, Nov. 15th, 2006 during the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing.
McCain chose instead to get into a verbal rat-tat-tat with General Abizaid over the number of troops in Iraq, over just exactly where these troops have been placed, whether their numbers should be greater in Baghdad rather than a split between the number of troops between Baghdad and El Ambar Province as Abizaid has done, and whether or not this would a surer way to garner "victory" for the United States. They also sparred over whether there is the need to increase the number of troops in Iraq, with Abizaid that there is no need for that and McCain, who advocates for an increase in the number of troops in Iraq, telling Abizaid, "I regret deeply that you seem to think that the status quo and the rate of progress we're making is acceptable. I think most Americans do not."
Of course, McCain is right in part-Americans do not think the status quo, nor the rate of progress in Iraq, are acceptable but, neither do Americans want to see an increase in the number of troops going to Iraq, for clearly, what the majority of the American people have said, is, "Out of Iraq. Bring the troops home, now!"
As a result of the exchange between McCain and Abizaid, one ponders a multiplicity of things:
First, does the title, "Commander-in-Chief", mean anything to McCain? Isn't the Commander in Chief the one who gets to decide how the invasion and occupation of any country should proceed? Aren't the Generals supposedly there to follow orders from the Commander in Chief-doesn't the Commander in Chief have the ultimate say so in what Generals do? Hasn't George Walker Bush, the current Commander in Chief, called himself, "The Decider", meaning that he is the, "One Who Decides"-even when his deciding takes him in some sort of role reversal, on the road to letting the Generals on the ground be the ultimate deciders on how to run the invasion and occupation of Iraq while he is free to prance around the country bleating to the four winds about killers killing in Iraq and the need to stay the course.
Alas! Isn't this role reversal a road map pointing to George Bush's ingrained life pattern of, "no responsibility assumed here by me?"
Secondly, and at the risk of sounding repetitive, isn't the job of the Generals, under a more normal circumstance, to give orders to their subordinates after receiving them from their Commander in Chief? Are the Generals who have been let loose on the chicken coup, without receiving orders from their Decider in Chief, themselves running like chicken with their heads cut-off knowing not where they go and whence they come?
Is what McCain perceives as Abizaid's incompetence, and the reason why he castigated him so during the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing, a ripple of the incompetence of George W. BUSH?
Isn't it George W. Bush's job to figure out and decide whether a General's recommendation is an appropriate and competent one?
Is George W. Bush's incompetence the thing which prompted McCain to act like a castigating emperor towards Abizaid during the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on Wednesday, Nov. 15th? In other words, was McCain triangling any anger he may have for Bush by letting the steam of that anger blow like hot air directly into Abizaid's face rather than on to George's face?
Or, is it that the hearing was for McCain more of a chance to show himself as a competent, strong military leader, so as to advance the cause of his own presidential bid for the 2008 campaign?
Thirdly, how can this showing off of McCain's sparring with General Abizaid advance his bid for the presidency of the United States in 2008 when the voice of the people, as reflected in the recent November 7th elections, clamors for the cessation of American occupation in Iraq and for the return home of our troops?
Fourthly, is General Abizaid a pawn of the Bush administration whose role is to carry out, in some schizophrenogenic way, the will of George Bush to stay in Iraq for the unstated purposes of occupation and oil domination? What a horrendous possibility-but a possibility nonetheless, that the American Armed Services, contaminated by some cesspool of Bush greed, has been sold, by Abizaid and McCain like minded souls, to the highest bidder: The Bush Family Dominion Empire.
By teresa simon-noble
We are sitting in deep muck-no doubt about it! What with the occupation and invasion of Iraq, with Bush the father stepping in to bring "order" to said occupation, with his so called "Iraq Study Group" being composed of Bush I retreads and a few of Clinton's appointees who might turn out to be "corporatists" and friendlier towards the military industrial complex than one would have thought, and with Bush the son saying that he will not leave Iraq ... we are sitting in deep muck-there is no doubt about it!
In addition, there are these little men, already thinking about vying for the post of president of the United States in 2008,. launching exploratory committees that will tell them, I presume, how successful their run might be, or not.
Senator McCain, being one of these little men who is already thinking and talking about launching a bid for the presidency in 2008, refuses to lay blame on George W. Bush for the tragedy that Iraq has turned out to be, as evidenced by his line of questioning of General John Abizaid on Wednesday, Nov. 15th, 2006 during the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing.
McCain chose instead to get into a verbal rat-tat-tat with General Abizaid over the number of troops in Iraq, over just exactly where these troops have been placed, whether their numbers should be greater in Baghdad rather than a split between the number of troops between Baghdad and El Ambar Province as Abizaid has done, and whether or not this would a surer way to garner "victory" for the United States. They also sparred over whether there is the need to increase the number of troops in Iraq, with Abizaid that there is no need for that and McCain, who advocates for an increase in the number of troops in Iraq, telling Abizaid, "I regret deeply that you seem to think that the status quo and the rate of progress we're making is acceptable. I think most Americans do not."
Of course, McCain is right in part-Americans do not think the status quo, nor the rate of progress in Iraq, are acceptable but, neither do Americans want to see an increase in the number of troops going to Iraq, for clearly, what the majority of the American people have said, is, "Out of Iraq. Bring the troops home, now!"
As a result of the exchange between McCain and Abizaid, one ponders a multiplicity of things:
First, does the title, "Commander-in-Chief", mean anything to McCain? Isn't the Commander in Chief the one who gets to decide how the invasion and occupation of any country should proceed? Aren't the Generals supposedly there to follow orders from the Commander in Chief-doesn't the Commander in Chief have the ultimate say so in what Generals do? Hasn't George Walker Bush, the current Commander in Chief, called himself, "The Decider", meaning that he is the, "One Who Decides"-even when his deciding takes him in some sort of role reversal, on the road to letting the Generals on the ground be the ultimate deciders on how to run the invasion and occupation of Iraq while he is free to prance around the country bleating to the four winds about killers killing in Iraq and the need to stay the course.
Alas! Isn't this role reversal a road map pointing to George Bush's ingrained life pattern of, "no responsibility assumed here by me?"
Secondly, and at the risk of sounding repetitive, isn't the job of the Generals, under a more normal circumstance, to give orders to their subordinates after receiving them from their Commander in Chief? Are the Generals who have been let loose on the chicken coup, without receiving orders from their Decider in Chief, themselves running like chicken with their heads cut-off knowing not where they go and whence they come?
Is what McCain perceives as Abizaid's incompetence, and the reason why he castigated him so during the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing, a ripple of the incompetence of George W. BUSH?
Isn't it George W. Bush's job to figure out and decide whether a General's recommendation is an appropriate and competent one?
Is George W. Bush's incompetence the thing which prompted McCain to act like a castigating emperor towards Abizaid during the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on Wednesday, Nov. 15th? In other words, was McCain triangling any anger he may have for Bush by letting the steam of that anger blow like hot air directly into Abizaid's face rather than on to George's face?
Or, is it that the hearing was for McCain more of a chance to show himself as a competent, strong military leader, so as to advance the cause of his own presidential bid for the 2008 campaign?
Thirdly, how can this showing off of McCain's sparring with General Abizaid advance his bid for the presidency of the United States in 2008 when the voice of the people, as reflected in the recent November 7th elections, clamors for the cessation of American occupation in Iraq and for the return home of our troops?
Fourthly, is General Abizaid a pawn of the Bush administration whose role is to carry out, in some schizophrenogenic way, the will of George Bush to stay in Iraq for the unstated purposes of occupation and oil domination? What a horrendous possibility-but a possibility nonetheless, that the American Armed Services, contaminated by some cesspool of Bush greed, has been sold, by Abizaid and McCain like minded souls, to the highest bidder: The Bush Family Dominion Empire.
