Bush Bellows, "It's Bad In Iraq! [Does that help?]" ©
President Bush repeatedly tells us he understands. He understands that we, as a nation, have a responsibility to lead. Mr. Bush believes that he as a man must guide his "broad" coalition, regardless of its size. The alliance consists mostly of one country, the United Kingdom. Bush tells, his citizens that there is a job to "do" and some his job is to make war in the name of peace.
Prime Minister Blair and I understand that we have a responsibility to lead and to support moderates and reformers who work for change across the broader Middle East.King George W. understands "peace" and how important this prospect is for our children and grandchildren. Does he understand that if "defeat" is part of your vocabulary than peace is not what you are proposing? Tranquility is the understanding that comes with talk. Calm, caring conversation gives birth to peace.We also recognize that meeting this responsibility requires action. It will take concerted efforts to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East.
We stand together because we understand the only way to secure a lasting peace for our children and grandchildren is to defeat the extremist ideologies and help the ideology of hope and democracy prevail.
George W. Bush continually asserts he will not talk to rogue nations. Bush will not come to the table. Yet he states,
But one thing is for certain: When people -- if people come to the table to discuss Iraq, they need to come understanding their responsibilities -- to not fund terrorists, to help this young democracy survive, to help with the economics of the countryRather than approach disagreements diplomatically, this martyr, fights and then, frequently frets, "Yes, it is tough." I consistently wonder, as I listen to his constant whine, "Mr. Bush, perhaps it is too tough for you?" War and peace seem to weigh heavy on your heart.
You speak of these struggles often.
You know, in all due respect, I've been saying it a lot. I understand how tough it is, and I've been telling the American people how tough it is. And they know how tough it is.Oh, yes, it is Mr. Bush. It is tough for me to understand. Why did you choose such a path. Clearly, it causes you such angst. George, there is no reason to take on tasks that are just too tough.And the fundamental question is: Do we have a plan to achieve our objective? Are we willing to change as the enemy has changed?
And what the Baker-Hamilton study has done is it shows good ideas as to how to go forward. What our Pentagon is doing is figuring out ways to go forward -- all aiming to achieve our objective.
Make no mistake about it: I understand how tough it is, sir.
Oh, George W., our "fair" leader I fear for you. You seem to be deeply immersed in cognitive dissonance. You say you understand there's sectarian violence. I wonder. Did you comprehend such a notion before you chose to unilaterally attack? Did the Baby Bush discuss religious wars with his Dad or did he simply decide to surround himself with yes men and women. Boy Bush, my heart bleeds when I think of your family. You know how important families' are.
I talk to the families who die. I understand there's sectarian violence.The President understands we are "hunting down al-Qaida on a regular basis. It seems to me we are strengthening this group and all other "terrorists" enclaves.I also understand that we're hunting down al-Qaida on a regular basis and we're bringing them to justice.
How are we bringing al-Qaida to justice? I do not understand. I know that innocent people are imprisoned at Guantanamo. These individuals rarely if ever have access to an attorney. Is that judicious?
Perchance I do not recognize, realize, or appreciate your benevolent actions President, Bush. It seems to me Mr. Shrub sending the blameless off to jail, to serve indeterminate sentences in detention centers continents away is an odd way of pursuing and imposing decency. When I think of democracy I do not consider what I currently see to be so. Soldiers do not spread freedom. The military is not the messenger for liberty. Yet, you say,
I understand how hard our troops are working. I know how brave the men and women who wear the uniform are.Mr. President, you claim to understand the struggle. You acknowledge that we are not winning an un-winnable war. According to reports, you see the threat. Still, rather than go forward and fight for what you believe is "right" you send our youth. Mr. Bush you put our soldiers in harms way and you ask our troops to slaughter the innocent. I do not understand!And, therefore, they'll have the full support of this government.
I understand what long deployments mean to wives and husbands and mothers and fathers, particularly as we come into a holiday season. I understand. And I have made it abundantly clear how tough it is.
I also believe we're going to succeed. I believe we'll prevail. Not only do I know how important it is to prevail, I believe we will prevail.
"Gentle" George, you say that you read the reports and realize that Americans are loosing their lives, their limbs; however, you continue to choose to ignore the death and destruction. Would the war be different if you were in harm's way. I cannot help but wonder.
Is winning your only vision; is this even possible? Does anyone win in a war? I only see loss and I sigh. I think war is never a solution; However, I hear you. You claim we must triumph. Yet, again this task is hard.
I understand how hard it is to prevail. But I also want the American people to understand that, if we were to fail -- and one way to assure failure is just to quit -- is not to adjust and say it's just not worth it.If we were to fail, that failed policy will come to hurt generations of Americans in the future.
And as I said in my opening statement, I believe we're in an ideological struggle between forces that are reasonable and want to live in peace and radicals and extremists.
And when you throw into the mix a radical Shia and radical Sunni trying to gain power and topple modern governments with energy, which they could use to blackmail Great Britain or America or anybody else who doesn't kowtow to them, and a nuclear weapon in the hands of a government that would be using that nuclear weapon to blackmail to achieve political objectives, historians will look back and say, How come Bush and Blair couldn't see the threat? That's what they'll be asking.
And I want to tell you, I see the threat. And I believe it is up to our governments to help lead the forces of moderation to prevail. It's in our interests.
And one of the things that has changed for American foreign policy is the threat overseas can now come home to hurt us. And September the 11th should be a wake-up call for the American people to understand what happens if there is violence and safe havens in that part of the world.
And what happens is people can die here at home.
Dear George, in my mind, your mission created greater violence. It increases exponentially. People from home are dying. They are killed and maimed far from our shores and farther still from their families. Many breathe their last breath miles away from those they love. It is heartbreaking to consider, worse still to behold. If only you understood this!
I appreciate your question. As you can tell, I feel strongly about making sure you understand that I understand it's tough.Oh my! The bellowing Bush asserts he appreciates the question. He thanks us, his audience for listening to his lengthy answer. George W. Bush avows he understands; however, I must ask, if he did would we have gone to war? Would we as a nation continue to confront a problem that worsened with thanks to the malicious mastermind of our "Commander-In-Chief." I do not understand. It is tough for me. I am truly trying to comprehend. Yet, consistently I conclude, boast as you do Mr. Bush, you understand nothing!But I want you to know, sir, that I believe we'll prevail. I know we have to adjust to prevail, but I wouldn't have our troops in harm's way if I didn't believe that, one, it was important; and, two, we'll succeed.
Thank you.
Bad Boy Bush Understands Iraq. . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on December 7, 2006 at 02:00 PM in Blair/Bush, Bush Press Conference, Iraq War, Military Missions, War and Peace, War is in the Wind, Wars Bush Commanded | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Iraq Study Group Asks, "When Will We Ever Learn To Talk?" ©
Words are bantered about. Definitive statements of opinion are posed as news.
Behold this declaration. It appears on the front page of the New York Times.This pronouncement is the first sentence in the far left column of the periodical. This placement is esteemed; thus, we are implicitly told to trust it as truth. "The military recommendations issued yesterday by the Iraq Study Group are based more on hope than history and run counter to assessments made by some of its own military advisers." The prescription and prognosis are not as the patients prefer or believe is possible.
"By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq," the study group says.Military experts claim to be in the body of the battle. They have intimate knowledge of what is occurring and why. Might we also consider that they too are in the body politics?Jack Keane, the retired acting Army chief of staff who served on the [study] group's panel of military advisers, described that goal as entirely impractical. "Based on where we are now we can't get there," General Keane said in an interview, adding that the report's conclusions say more about "the absence of political will in Washington than the harsh realities in Iraq."
Military experts say there are several difficulties with the panel's recommendation. First, it underestimates the challenge of building a capable Iraqi security force. After several years of desultory efforts, the United States has taken steps to upgrade and better prepare the teams of American advisers who are assigned to Iraqi units. But training the Iraqi Army is more than a matter of teaching combat skills. It requires transforming the character of the force.The Colonel claims that Iraqis must learn from history and ignores that America has not. Grunow defiantly declares the Iraqi people and their government must change their strategy; yet, what of us, the United States."The new Iraqi Army will need years to become equal to the challenge posed by a persistent insurgency and terrorist threat," Lt. Col. Carl D. Grunow, a former military adviser, wrote in a recent issue of Military Review, a journal published by the United States Army.
One big problem, Colonel Grunow notes, is that the Iraqi military is not proficient in counterinsurgency operations or sufficiently sensitive to the risk of civilian casualties.
"They are still fighting their last war, the high-intensity Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, a war with clear battle lines fought with mass military formations, and one in which civilians on the battlefield were a nuisance, and not a center of gravity," he wrote. The Iraqi military, he added, "must learn to fight using strategies and tactics far different than those used in the past."
Lee Hamilton, cochairman of the Iraq Study Group, said few words; yet spoke volumes, "It's a tough sell.'' Former Senator Alan Simpson, a Republican from Wyoming, and member of the Iraq Study Group agrees. Simpson spoke of the partisan divide in Washington. He voiced his concerns for the reception of the commission's recommendations.
"It's a strange place,'' Simpson said of Washington at the study group's Washington press conference yesterday. "But I see the American people, and the sadness to me is the American people see the Congress and the administration as dysfunctional, which is very sad for someone who loves the institution.Strangeness and strain seethe from every entity as we contemplate the situation in Iraq. As we discover in retrospect, or as some [myself included] felt since the beginning, this entanglement was never thoroughly evaluated. Now, there is an effort underway. Will it be advanced? Will the White House, Congress, or we the people ponder the counsel given? Will any of the "concerned parties" allow for options or is war all they want?"And the sad part to me is that, you know, you see people in this who are 'hundred-percenters' in America,'' Simpson said. "A 'hundred-percenter' is a person you don't want to be around. They have gas, ulcers, heartburn, and BO. And they seethe. They're not seekers. They're not seekers, they're seethers. There are a lot of them out there. And we're going to get it from the right, the far right, we're going to get it from the far left, we're going to get bombs away, and everybody will say it can't work.
"Well,'' Simpson said, "we're just sincere enough to believe that it will and that all people with a "D" behind their name did not become a guard at Lenin's tomb, and all people with an "R" behind their name did not crawl out of a cave in the mountains, and that maybe we can do something.
"And that's what we're here for, people of goodwill in good faith,'' he said. "Maybe it's corny, maybe it won't work, but it's sure as hell better than sitting there where we are right now.''
I suspect, from my own reading, listening, and interpretations the committee was essentially endeavoring to find an effective strategy, one that did not deem triumph as the true solution. Granted, I would have wished for more strident measures towards immediate withdrawal, still, I know that is just my preference. It may not be as realistic as I believe it to be. Nevertheless . . .
I, as all others only know what is in my heart, mind, and soul. I have no omniscient powers. I only have my own opinions. For me, war is never a choice. I believe, as members of the committee espouse, communication is the only answer. Without deliberations, convergence is not possible.
Yet, in the world of Washington, London, and likely other venues the "New World Order" is the plan. So many world leaders seem to posture. Nation states long to be the "superpower." Prime Ministers and Presidents ponder and promote their influence; each wishes to spread their version of the "ideal," the ideology. Who will "win"' is the concern, who will lose face, fortune, and a prominent place in history.
Let us look at our personal legacies and forget about the tens of thousands of people dying! Keeping the debate alive is perhaps more "interesting" [the term Bush used to describe the Iraq Study Group report] then establishing an authentic worldwide peace, at least it seems so for those in power. I plead, may we embark on what may interesting to some. Might we explore efforts that truly bring about world peace. May we discuss with intention and ignore our personal desire to "win." When lives are at stake, there is no graceful exit: Our entrance was not divine!
Ponder, peruse, and pursue . . . philosophies presented . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on December 7, 2006 at 11:03 AM in 'Regime Change' , Aggression, Blair/Bush, Bush 43 Administration, Communities and Communication , Current Affairs, Defiant Diplomacy, Discussion, Iraq War, Military Missions, Morality in an Immoral War, Spread Democracy, Success. Failure., The World Can’t Wait, Violence, War and Peace, War is in the Wind, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], Wars Bush Commanded, “When is Enough, Enough?” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Terrorism Taunts United States, United Kingdom, Bush/Blair Alliance ©
The times they are a changing. I ask you, what are your thoughts on terrorism, here, and abroad?
Do you believe that Bush/Blair, their respective Cabinets, Intelligence, and Security agencies are addressing these concerns well?
Might you believe that were it not for policies imposed by the Bush/Blair parallel, wars would not be in the wind, in the air, on planes, trains, and subways?
I offer no opinions of my own in this short treatise. I only ask you to share your thoughts. It may be too early, too late; it may be moot. Nevertheless, I think talk can only better understanding; therefore, I invite you to discuss.
For ample discussion of this topic, you may wish to visit cross-postings at My Left Wing, Daily Kos, and Booman Tribune.
I invite you to broaden the dialogue here. Please share your stories and feelings with Be-Think readers. I thank you for contributing your comments.
The dialogue begins or ends. Dare we discuss? Please do. References for your review . . .
• Security chief: Airline terror plot 'close to execution', Plans reminiscent of an al Qaeda operation, Chertoff says. Cable News Network. Thursday, August 10, 2006; Posted: 9:15 a.m.
• Plot to Bomb Jets Is Thwarted in Britain, By Eric Pfanner. International Herald Tribune. New York Times. August 10, 2006
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on August 10, 2006 at 09:18 AM in Aggression, Blair/Bush, Current Affairs, Discussion, International Security, National Security, Policy, Terrorism, “Red Alert,” August 10, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
President Bush, Prime Minister Blair Come To Visit, Converse With Me ©
Possibly, you, as I, look forward to our meetings with the President, infrequent as they are. Perhaps, that is why we treasure them so. These conferences are rare, though, nevertheless, a treat. When President George W. Bush asks Prime Minister Tony Blair to accompany him, well that is truly a delight. I am overjoyed. I revel in these exchanges. I can hardly wait to invite the two in my parlor for a chat. This Thursday night was such an occasion.
While the hour was late in London, and therefore, few Englishmen and women would be able to join us, I acknowledged that I was fortunate. Two men of such great stature, power, and fame [infamy] were coming to visit me. We would gather in my living room. They stated earlier that they were ready, willing, and of course able to discuss politics, particularly the Iraqi war. This was such a dream come true.
I invited each of my guests to speak first. I requested they share their points of view; I would listen, and then discuss. Blair spoke some, though his words were not as poignant as those of the President. Mr. Bush has a style and finesse that is engaging, thus, he and I conversed.
President Bush proposed, “The United States and Great Britain will work together to help this new democracy succeed.” I inquired, is it not true that a Democracy is a government chosen by the people and not forced upon them through war?
He ignored me and continued, “We'll take advantage of this moment of opportunity and work with Iraq's new government to strengthen this young democracy and achieve victory over our common enemies.” “Common enemies,” I blurted out. Might we the aggressors not be seen as adversaries?
Did we not invade a country without reason or a request? Did America and Great Britain not choose to unilaterally attack a nation of people merely to overthrow their leader? Did the “allies” and “broad coalition” not create turmoil in a land that once entertained at least a sense of stability and could they have not achieved a similar turn without all the killing? President Bush remained placid.
Mr. Bush remained good-natured and composed. His stilted smirk never betrayed him. His monologue, his mantra was steady. The naked Emperor said, “Despite setbacks and missteps, I strongly believe we did and are doing the right thing.”
Mr. President I retorted loudly, “Do you really believe it was correct to enter a country on false and contrived pretenses?” “Do you think killing the young, the innocent, and the unarmed in worthy?” Do you honestly believe, battles such as the ones that you yourself, even in your youth were never willing to engage in are just?” “Mr. President,” I declared, “I think not!”
George W. Bush looked over at me, wincingly, and said, “The decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power was controversial. We did not find the weapons of mass destruction that we all believed were there, and that's raised questions about whether the sacrifice in Iraq has been worth it.”
He repeated, “Despite setbacks and missteps, I strongly believe we did and are doing the right thing.” After all, “Saddam Hussein was a menace to his people. He was a state sponsor of terror. He invaded his neighbors.” “Oh, sir,” I proclaimed with a shrug, “Is it only because there is an ocean and other countries between us that you do not believe that we too, America, invaded one or more of its neighbors?” “Are we not as a state, as a nation, sponsoring terror? Look what we have and are repeatedly creating worldwide. Both before and after our aggressions, I see little evidence of US diplomacy.”
King George II mused for a time and then replied, “We've learned from our mistakes, adjusted our methods, and have built on our successes.” Have we Mr. President?
Smugly George W. acknowledged, “No question that the Iraq war has, you know, created a sense of consternation here in America. I mean, when you turn on your TV screen and see innocent people die day in and day out, it affects the mentality of our country.” Turn on your television see what? Mr. Bush, it has been documented repeated, not since Vietnam has there been so little coverage of a war. Your administration and Pentagon have flown the fallen and wounded in at night so that photographs cannot be taken. Your own personnel have spoken of the Dover Effect and have worked to control against it!
Only recently, since citizens began exposing the truth of this war, has American been given more access. Dear George, is it not true that without citizen activism, this conflict would still be invisible?
Hemming and hawing, King George reluctantly offered, “Listen, I want our troops out, don't get me wrong. I -- you know, I -- I -- I understand what it means to have troops in harm's way, and I -- and I know the -- there's a lot of families making huge sacrifices here in America. I'll be going to a Memorial Day ceremony next Monday, paying tribute to those who've lost their life. I'm sure I will see families of the fallen. I fully understand the pressures being placed upon our military and their families.” He mumbled, “But I also understand that it is vital that we -- that we do the job, that we complete the mission.”
Apologetically, though resolute, the President affirmed, “And it has been tough. It's been tough, because we're fighting an unconventional enemy that is willing to kill innocent people. There are no rules of war for these people. But make no mistake about it. What you're seeing in Iraq could happen all over the world if we don't stand fast and achieve the objective.”
A friend of mine then reflected aloud, “Mr. President, you spoke about missteps and mistakes in Iraq. Could I ask both of you which missteps and mistakes of your own you most regret?”
Bush recounted, “It sounds like kind of a familiar refrain here.” The living room filled with laughter, nervous chuckling. “Saying "Bring it on.” Kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people. That I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner. You know, "Wanted dead or alive," that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted. And so I learned -- I learned from that.” I mumbled inaudibly, “you learned that good ole boy ‘plain speaking’ is unwise; nothing more?”
Perhaps he heard me, for he then suggested there were other lessons. “And, you know, I think the biggest mistake that's happened so far, at least from our country's involvement in Iraq, is Abu Ghraib. We've been paying for that for a long period of time. And it's -- unlike Iraq, however, under Saddam, the people who committed those acts were brought to justice; they've been given a fair trial and tried and convicted.” Were they Mr. President? Did America actually judge all those that were responsible or only the “peons,” the persons that were expendable?
With that, President Bush thanked me for my hospitality and said his good-byes. Would we meet again soon? I suspect the answer is as the one frequently asked, “When will the war end?” No timetable will be given.
For Fun or Fears . . .
• Transcript of Bush-Blair News Conference National Public Radio
• Blair and Bush Are Duo Even in Descent By Glenn Kessler. Washington Post. Friday, May 26, 2006
• President Bush Meets with Prime Minister Blair The White House. January 31, 2003
• President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours The White House. March 17, 2003
• President Addresses the Nation The White House. September 7, 2003
• President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended President George W. Bush, USS Abraham Lincoln, At Sea Off the Coast of San Diego, California. U.S. State Department. May 1, 2003
• Iraq election at-a-glance BBC News Monday, 24 January, 2005
• International Responsibilities Task Force
• Iraq Coalition Casualty Statistics
• Iraq Coalition Casualty Count
• Forces: U.S. & Coalition/Casualties CNN News
• War Tracker/Archive CNN News
• Bush's Guard Service In Question, By Lois Romano. Washington Post Tuesday, February 3, 2004
• Saddam statue toppled in central Baghdad CNN News. Wednesday, April 9, 2003
• The Tragedy of American Diplomacy in Iraq By Carl Mirra. CommonDreams.Org January 30, 2005
• Bush Legitimizes Terrorism, By Robert Fisk. The Independent and CounterPunch. April 16 - 18, 2004
• Administration hides reality of war. Wednesday, By Daniel A. Weiner, Rabbi. Seattlepi.com. February 4, 2004
• Photos of Military Coffins (Battlefield and Astronaut Fatalities) at Dover Air Force Base
• PDF The invisible wounded, By Mark Benjamin. Salon.com or html The invisible wounded
• Camera/Iraq
• Arab Opinions, By Khaled Dawoud. Al-Ahram Weekly, July 30, 2004
• Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
• Bush: 'Bring on' attackers of U.S. troops USA Today July 2, 2003
• Bush: bin Laden 'prime suspect' CNN News. September 17, 2001
• Annals of National Security, The Gray Zone How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib. By Seymour M. Hersh. The New Yorker. May 15, 2004
• Torture at Abu Ghraib. By Seymour M. Hersh. The New Yorker. April 30, 2004
• The Abu Ghraib Prison Photos AntiWar.com
• Defense rests in case of Abu Ghraib dog handler, By Stuart Grudgings. Reuters and Washington Post. Friday, May 26, 2006;
• Bush and Blair turn their backs on exit plans By Michael Gawenda. Fairfax Digital, The Age Company. May 27, 2006
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on May 26, 2006 at 07:30 PM in 'Regime Change' , Afghanistan, Aggression, Blair/Bush, Bush 43 Administration, Bush Press Conference, Discussion, Iraq War, Lies, Politics, Presidential Politics, Propaganda and Politics, Saddam Hussein, Spread Democracy, Terrorism, Violence, War and Peace, War, The Last Option, “Freedom” and “Justice” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Cindy’s Coalition Broadens; The Bush Brigade is Dissolving ©
They buried their son on Monday August 15, 2005; they mourned for a day more. Then, the parents of fallen soldier, Marine Lance Corporal Edward Schroeder II, spoke out. They meet with the press, on Tuesday, August 16. Through the media, Paul Schroeder and his wife Rosemary Palmer pleaded with the President. They said, Please “send more reinforcements to Iraq or withdraw U.S. troops altogether.”
Ms. Palmer spoke tearfully. Irritably she stated, Mr. President "We feel you either have to fight this war right or get out.” The soldier's father expressed his belief; his son and other Marines are “being misused as a stabilizing force in Iraq.” Mr. Schroeder continued, "Our comments are not just those of grieving parents. They are based on anger, Mr. President, not grief. Anger is an honest emotion when someone's family has been violated." His wife added accusingly the idea of “staying the course is” is rigid and not realistic. The mother said the “war has gone bad.” America’s young are dying. She offered "Whether he leads them out by putting more troops on the ground or pulling them out - he can't just let it continue." Nevertheless, the President does.
When asked of the Schroeder-Palmer remarks, the office of our Commander-and-Chief said he declines to comment. The White House reminded the press and the public that the President addressed this issue last week. Allen Abney, administration spokesman offered, Baby Bush stands by his earlier statements. He will do as Rosemary Palmer declared he could not, he will carry on the war effort just as he has.
The Schroeder’s be damned. Cindy Sheehan, the mother of fallen soldier Casey Sheehan be cursed, all those that support a change in strategy, according to the President, know nothing. Yet, these know nothings are growing in numbers. They are building a broad coalition; the Bush alliance is disbanding.
Since August 7, 2005, Mrs. Sheehan has been holding vigil. She is waiting for the President to speak with her, not as he did in June 2004 when she was one of many, merely the “Mom” of a fallen soldier. She wants a genuine meeting, a give and take; she is not interested in obligatory gestures. She stands strong in protest, just outside the Bush Ranch in Crawford, Texas. Support for Cindy Sheehan is growing.
[Tonight, candlelight vigils are being held throughout the country for Cindy and Casey Sheehan.]
In the recent media meet with Paul Schroeder and Rosemary Palmer, the couple spoke of Mrs. Sheehan. They stated, "We consider her the Rosa Parks of the new movement opposing the Iraq war.” Sheehan, the Schroeder-Palmer family, and other military families are uniting. They are joining the activists and the peaceniks. As casualties are mount as American boys and girls come home in body bags, a new coalition gains ground. This one asks for peace, demands action, and does not promote greater aggression.
Families such as the Schroeder and the Sheehan’s want the President and the Pentagon to present an exit strategy, to propose a new plan. For these families and for others, it is clear, the current policy is flawed; it is not working. Daily deaths in Iraq are evidence of this.
The parents of young Edward, young Casey, and the parents, wives, sons, and daughters of other American soldiers believe, the battle was bad; though it was not as awful as victory. The President declared the war a “success” in May 2003. However, since that date, more soldiers have been killed. The slaughter increases each and every day.
Currently, there is greater rebellion, greater strife, and less unity in Iraq. The elections did not bring democracy as the President proclaimed; they brought division. Americans are beginning to realize this. They see the war on their televisions; they read of the rebellion in their newspapers, and, most importantly, as the bodies of their beautiful babies arri