Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Another vital issue

But, what is the Collegians take on the missing weapons, you wonder.

"The Pentagon made a mistake — a big one."

Weapons, confirmed as being intact when U.S. troops arrived in Iraq in March 2003, are now missing. About 377 tons of conventional explosives from an Iraqi military installation have disappeared.
Really? Because according to a CBS News story filed at the time this all happened, (link via CQ), the troops didn’t arrive at the al QaQaa depot until April 4. So, I'm thinking it would have been kind of difficult for them to confirm the weapons intactyness in March. Plus, when they did get there, all that was found was a bunch of suspicious powder.

"And although there are no reports of actual weapons being found, there are constant finds of suspicious material," Martin said. "It obviously will take laboratory testing to find out exactly what that powder is."
But don’t let that stop you Collegian, you guys have an election to win. Do continue.

The Bush administration and Pentagon officials used the threat of weapons of mass destruction as the reason to go to war. [emphasis added]
Okay, a minor, quibble. Really, I’m sorry to interrupt, but WMD weren't the reason to go to war. It was one of a few reasons. It was the most hyped of all the reasons, and the most grave, but their were other reasons. I must commend your subtle attempts to de-legitimize the war, though. Sneaky.

Instead, military strategy seems to be focused on killing insurgents and protecting oil fields. The war seems to have become only a means for political and economic gain.
Wow, a high nice swan dive into the fever swamp. 4.5, 4.5, 5. Yeah, the war in Iraq has been a real political asset. Bush could've used his post 9/11 political capital anyway he wanted. Do you think a foreign war is a surefire way to win votes in the post 'Nam era? And economic gain? How many billions have we spent there again? Just asking, you know, because I fail to see the big bucks here.

Oh wait, I get it. I mean, really, just say “war for oil.” You’ll feel a lot better, I promise.

And, anyway, what’s the problem with focusing on "killing insurgents," i.e. the enemy, and "protecting oil," the Iraqi people’s most important natural resource and a vital source of income to help them rebuild? If we don’t, stuff like this happens:

Before Sunday's sabotage attack, southern oil exports had fallen from around 1.8 million barrels per day to 800,000 bpd.

Disruption to Iraqi exports and frequent sabotage cost the government millions of dollars of lost revenue every day when infrastructure operates below par.

But I guess as long as Halliburton doesn't see a penny, its all alright to leave the Iraqi's to suffer under a brutal dictatorship. Thanks for that moral equivalency. I feel all fuzzy now.
We trust the government [ha!] to protect us, yet each day we are left wondering whose interests are really at stake.
Bushalliburton’s, my pretty. We invaded to steal the oil. That’s why gas prices are at an all time low.

But, anyway, thanks for the editorial. That was a lot better than the “Vital Issues are Vital” column. Seriously, I'll take flawed logic and specious conclusions over pointless drivel anyday.

Which reminds me, when are you guys going to endorse a candidate? I’m holding my breath in anticipation.

2 Comments:

Blogger millersam said...

Did Bush get Bin Laden?

Did he bring the mastermind of 9/11 to justice?

He had 3 years and a freaking good reason to get him.

He didn't.

He failed us.

5:03 AM  
Blogger Grant said...

"Did Bush get Bin Laden?

Did he bring the mastermind of 9/11 to justice?"

Bin Laden is wormfood. Think about it; would a man that released a tape every three days because he was such a publicity hound, really not speak up in forever? Especially at the time when his words would have the most impact in these tumultuous times?

Plus, Zarqawi, the beheader in Iraq, has just pledged allegiance to al Qaeda. This appears to me to be a bid for power to take over leadership of the group.

Even if you heard tomorrow that Bin Laden was killed, would you feel that much safer? We face a threat like none other. It can not by symbolized by one man, or even one group. It is a shadowy, amorphous threat. Bin Laden should (and, I think, has been) brought to justice. But it is important to remember that he is not the sole aim of the war, and focusing too much of the spotlight on him only hinders the war effort.

10:43 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home