Oh dear, Saturday's column takes on the situation in Iraq.
Here are two excerpts from Weaver's 12.9.06 article and my feelings about them:
"Not to downplay the divisiveness of the War in Iraq — all wars are divisive, but the left's/Democrats' abstract hatred of George W. Bush is by far the most divisive element in this nation today."For six years, Bush and Rove have used every wedge issue they could to divide the country and drive their base to the polls. Abortion? Check. Same-sex marriage? Check. Stem cell research? Check. School vouchers? Check. Right to die? Check. And there's doubt about why Bush lacks support? A bit like the playground bully wondering why no one wants to play with him after punching them all in the face.
The Republican political machine made a calculated strategy to use divisive politics to win and hold power. It was win at all costs. In 2000, Bush didn't even get 50% of the popular vote and barely eeked by in 2004 but he declared he'd received a mandate and was going to govern accordingly. In other words, I won, I'm doing what I want, get over it. He only has himself to thank for his lack of national support. Unfortunately, we're all suffering because of it.
It also escapes Mr. Weaver that six years after Bill Clinton left office, he's bashed him with zeal and clear hatred in nearly every column since. How could anyone hate a President? Look in the mirror, Ed, and ask the question. Don't look to your readers for an answer to this because it lies within you. You've made a career out of it.
"Baker and most Democrats...don't know who our enemies are and that we're fighting the same people who killed 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11 — radical Islamic jihadists who want to kill us."Is it that they don't know who the enemy is, or that they recognize who they are but how we're dealing with them isn't working. If President Bush's policies were graded on effectiveness and results, he'd get an F. If he were an employee of mine, he'd have been written up three times and fired long ago.
And don't you love how Mr. Weaver, a sports reporter from Troy, NY thinks he's more informed about the situation in Iraq than a former Secretary of State that has met with advisers, the top military brass, and has even been to the battlefield? What a megalomaniac!
From what I understand, the majority of the violence is occurring in Baghdad. It seems as though we are trying to hold Baghdad with a high number of our military, and where the more military presence we have, the higher the level of violence. With a level of U.S. military at less than required strength, they root out insurgents in a locations but when they move on to the next hot spot, the scumbags simply come back.
If there is going to be a civil war, maybe the objective should be to contain it to a single city. Move our troops out of Baghdad and use them to win and hold the remaining parts of the country. Let the militias bash each other's heads in. They won't win a country, or even the glory of defeating the U.S., rather the gang left standing will control of pile of rubble.
Ed Weaver's column appears every Saturday in The Record newspaper in Troy, NY. I'd say he's a right-wing conservative, but all indications are that he's even whackier than that. His views are so skewed, and based in a reality that I don't even recognize, that I think he sees the world through fun house mirrors‚ only it isn't funny. He's proof of the theory that hindsight is 20/20, only his vision is 20/100...20 for those things that support his views, 100 for those that don't.
Previous Posts:
12.2.06 || 11.25.06 || 11.18.06 || 11.11.06 || 11.4.06
10.28.06 || 10.17.06 || 10.10.06 || 10.3.06 || 9.26.06 || 9.19.06
No comments:
Post a Comment