Search Ratttler

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Bush, Maliki, and Levin and Warner

"That said, Mr. Bush last November paid a visit to Vietnam, which is now more politically and economically stable. On that trip, he also made comparisons between the two unpopular wars, saying that Vietnam today served to remind that progress takes time." George W. Bush.

Those two unpopular wars are the current one in Iraq, and Vietnam.

It took over 25 years for our relationship with Vietnam to get to where it is today, and about 58,000 US soldiers died in that war. While still tragic, only several thousand US soldiers have died in Iraq, and we've not really put the all out effort into that campaign that we could, which would lead to more deaths and likely worse global repurcussions. However, one other major difference, just as there are differences between Japanese, other Asia-Pacific, culture and Middle Eastern ones, that's apparently being ignored, despite its major significance, is that we eventually left Vietnam. Argue how you want about why we lost, or how we really didn't lose, as some assert, the fact remains that we left and didn't complete the missions. Vietnam , therefor, came to its improved relations with Washington without having the US there. So my question is this, is Bush comparing these wars in order to say that we should fight at least 5 more years then leave and check in on the region in 25, or that we should risk further animosity with said region and ensure 10+ times the number of our soldiers die over 5 years, and then leave? Since Vietnam is a Communist country, last I heard, is he saying that a possible Islamic theocracy is all right if we wait 25 years?

"The fundamental question is, Will the government respond to the demands of the people? And, if the government doesn't demand _ or respond to the demands of the people, they will replace the government. That's up to the Iraqis to make that decision, not American politicians."

"And it's not up to the politicians in Washington, D.C., to say whether he will remain in his position," Bush said. "It is up to the Iraqi people who now live in a democracy and not a dictatorship." George W. Bush

Actually, Levin and Warner didn't call for a whole new government, they called for the Iraqi Parliament to remove Maliki and his associates, but Bush's exaggeration aside, let's consider two things, 1, even as members of another nation's government, those Senators have the right to express their views and shouldn't be made to have their words distorted into sounding as if they want to remove the democratic process from the hands of another nation's people, 2, "it ( may also remove the Prime Minister in a no-confidence vote," which basically means the Iraqi people don't even have the direct vote to do what the US Senators have called for the Iraqi Parliament to do, something it can. While one could call the Senators recommendations intrusive, perhaps that intrusion, as it were, speaks to what many Iraqis might feel, that Maliki is slow, pandering, and might not have their best interest at heart.

"Tuesday, Bush had offered a tepid endorsement of the Iraqi government, expressing frustration at the lack of progress and saying that it was up to the Iraqi people to decide whether to replace those in power. The remark brought an angry response from al-Maliki, who said: "No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people."

The Hell we don't, Maliki. True, we don't have the right to force time tables via guns, but we have the right and power to make you clean up after we leave, which could be soon if you keep espousing democratic principles in such a conceited way in order to excuse your incompetent ass. Be humble, you arrogant little posturing prick.