Senator Hutchison says we are in Iraq because of 9/11. What??!! OK, one more time. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. There were no WMD's. Al-Quaeda in Iraq did not exist before we invaded. She also fails to state that much of the terrorist activity of the last two years was sectarian violence, a civil war, between the Shiites and Sunnis. Of course there was no mention of the many generals who have publicly criticized the strategy, or lack thereof, in Iraq and have said that there is no military solution to the problem of Iraq. And oh yeah, Kay, don't forget to use that oldie but goodie cliche' that some are calling for "surrender" and that good 'ol "we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" cliche'. I'm surprised she didn't throw in a "cut and run" reference.
Kay has one thing right. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have sacrificed greatly. That's why we should do everything in our power to end this nightmare. But, pleeeease tell me how what they are doing is keeping me safe and free. My freedoms and rights have taken quite a hit since all this started. (Remember habeas corpus and private phone calls?) And yes, we should support them as they complete their mission. So let them complete their mission already! This president has instated a de facto draft by forcing them to stay on for multiple tours of duty! The best way to support our troops is to bring them home and respect them and care for them when they do come home. This president has done neither. When they finally do come home they find that what benefits they thought they had have all but disappeared. And how about respecting the troops over there while they are still serving? How do you think it makes the troops feel to see all those private contractors getting rich doing much of the same kind of work they do without hardly getting paid at all.
Why is it that the only tool in the neo-con tool box is military aggression? Does anyone remember diplomacy? True negotiations? Or that nasty "c" word, compromise? And yes, those things can be accomplished without losing face. And Kay, we will win the "war on terror" when we win the "war on drugs". That would be...NEVER! Are these really wars in the true sense of the word? As the constitution meant it to be used? How about "ongoing operations"? Oh, yeah, I forgot, then the president couldn't claim he can use constitutional war powers. The only ones winning these wars are the corporations and corrupt officials who profit from them and then in turn line the pockets of the politicians who perpetuate them. Kay, you and your buds have never defined "win". Maybe that's part of the problem. You'll never eliminate terrorism any more than you'll eliminate illegal drug use. All that those in power want to accomplish is to perpetuate this system of creating enemies and making us very afraid of them so we'll agree to any freedom-limiting legislation or funding program they come up with to keep us "safe" by fighting these "wars" and thus keeping themselves in power and their bottom lines big.
This is like deja' vu all over again. We've been hearing this kind of rhetoric for six plus years now. If you fool me once, shame on you, if you fool me twice....whatever.
Now, let us pray the neo-con prayer... War without end...Amen.