Ruben Navarette on Iraq: Making More Sense Than GWB
Ruben Navarette, a liberal compared to me, has (what seems to me to be) a very sensible* column on public opinion on Iraq.
He makes it clear that the majority of (American) people don't want the US to cut and run in Iraq. (Senator Chuck Hagel, call your office.)
On the other hand, Navarette makes it clear that the majority of folks are NOT satisfied with meaningless nostrums of "staying the course" without any specifics attached.
People don't think the Administration has a good vision or a good plan.
We don't want a pull-out: We want clearheaded thinking and results.
Memo to Karl Rove: Time to tell Bush to fire Rummy and a few generals and to start KICKING TAIL in Iraq -- and Syria and Iran, if need be.
Why all the damned timidity?
*Unlike Navarette, I think the Abu Ghraib "scandal" was much ado about nothing. I say: vivent les panties sur les tetes des terrorists.
He makes it clear that the majority of (American) people don't want the US to cut and run in Iraq. (Senator Chuck Hagel, call your office.)
On the other hand, Navarette makes it clear that the majority of folks are NOT satisfied with meaningless nostrums of "staying the course" without any specifics attached.
People don't think the Administration has a good vision or a good plan.
We don't want a pull-out: We want clearheaded thinking and results.
Memo to Karl Rove: Time to tell Bush to fire Rummy and a few generals and to start KICKING TAIL in Iraq -- and Syria and Iran, if need be.
Why all the damned timidity?
*Unlike Navarette, I think the Abu Ghraib "scandal" was much ado about nothing. I say: vivent les panties sur les tetes des terrorists.
posted by GunJam at 7:32 PM
2 Comments:
What your post really points up is that GWB should have been careful what he wished for, as he just might get it. We got Saddam out of power and as Colin Powell pointed out, we broke so we bought it.
How does one get tough on Syria and Iran with over 2/3 of the Army's comabt brigades going to Iraq or already there? Would it not be a good idea to finish one war before starting another one?
Worthy questions. I think we must get tough with Syria, as it is currently a "free zone" for the terrorists "underground railroad." I would start with some targeted bombing, rather than with ground troops. We already have fighters near the border, as it is. Regarding Iran, like Michael Savage, I think we should begin 'black ops', meaning that we begin doing things to Iran that cannot be directly attributed to us, like setting off a bomb in a harbor here or crippling a tanker somewhere else. The SEALs or the CIA could possibly do this. These actions would not be directly attributable to us. As I see it, we are ALREADY at war with Iran in this mess -- only they aren't losing any men or assets, yet. (They are supplying the SUNNIS(!) with shaped charges to kill our men with in their IEDs -- and we are doing NOTHING in return to them, as far as I know, although I hope I am wrong about this.) Meanwhile, we should be working overtime to help, encourage, train, and supply the already-existing resistance to the Iranian and Syrian regimes.
Post a Comment
<< Home