Monday, May 2, 2011

Mission Accomplished!


Last night, after exactly eight years to the day that President George W. Bush stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared, “Mission Accomplished,” the real mission of hunting down and killing Osama bin Laden has been accomplished.

Now, can we bring the troops home?


Anonymous said...

Bringing up W's mission accomplished is a sad reminder that our best and brightest are not calling the shots.

Didn't W say after 9-11, that you are either with us or against us? Didn't he also say that no nation would be allowed to harbor terrorists?

Yet, let's review some history of the past decade. Nineteen of the hijackers were Saudis, and Saudi Wahhabism and financial support have been instrumental in the growth of militant islam and Al Qaeda. Yet, no military or economic action has been taken against Saudi Arabia.

The 9-11 hijackers trained in Germany and a few US states. Yet no military or economic action has been taken against Germany or those states.

Pakistan has been caught red handed harboring Bin Laden near the inner circle of their military apparatus. Although some military action has been taken in Pakistan, none has been taken against Pakistan. In addition, Pakistan has been on the receiving end of generous American economic support totaling billions. To my knowledge American aid will continue, and there will be no request for a refund despite the the recent news of Osama's long term living arrangements there.

Iraq under Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, and harbored no Al-Qaeda terrorists in areas under their control. Some AQ operatives were inside Iraq in the so-called no fly zones where the Kurds, or allies, exercised control Yet Iraq is invaded by W and Saddam is deposed and executed.

I just don't see how this makes sense. We seem to ignore the nations or places that harbor the real terrorists and go after those who don't. To add to the sense of confusion, we don't seem to coordinate our immigration policy with our war on terror either. 9-11 was the result of immigration failure and not due to the existence of terrorists camps in Afghanistan. Yet, we still gladly accept tens of thousands of permanent residents annually from the muslim world, and allow others to freely travel to our shores. The average American has to put up with lengthy and intrusive security measures and calls to curb their First Amendment rights so as not to inflame the sensibilities of our new residents.

It is times like this where I doubt our side is playing the varsity.

Anonymous said...

Saddam failed to announce he would set up a democratic government and step down in five years. This announcement was to be made 48hrs after the signing of the cease fire agreed to in 1991. Failing to do so on Saddam's part was a violation of the agreement, giving any coalition force the right to "open fire " at the time or their choosing. Bush said Saddam would never have w.m.d.'s and it looks like he told the truth, Saddam never will have w.m.d.'s. To some, the way the U.S. went into Iraq, and reasons (There was more than one reason.) presented by the Bush administration were lies. (I call this the "Bush lied crowd") They generally fail to see the truth in the following: In Saddam's reign he attacked to the east (Iran) {truth} to the north (Kurds) {truth again} south (Kuwait) {truth some more} west (Israel) {truth yet again}. How would you stop this activity? .... (You must answer this question, or their would be no point in continuing this discussion.) Don't tell me it is the U.S. fault for this. Saddam is responsible for his weapons and actions. Or that it is none of Americas business who he kills, that no one should hold him to account, they should stay out. { possibly your truth}...Would you say it is Saddam's right to kill as many that oppose him, as long as he doesn't kill you? Yes___ or No___? check one. {possibly your truth}.....Or will you say that Saddam had no w.m.d.'s so don't stop him. {possibly your truth} So your only complaint would be that the weapons Saddam was using, weren't "big enough"? Yes ___or No ___? check one. I will trust truth, based on the definitions of the words, in my previous posts, and look at the topic post as a "yes or no question" and say to you this question: "2003 Iraq Invasion Justified?" Yes ___ or No ___ ? check one. I will check Yes. (and many others will choose a truth that serves them and their agenda or motive and select No.) {and to them i will ask "Do you like the outcome?" yes ___ or no ___? check one.}