From the washington post article
It seems the Bush administration is going back to an old favorite, thoroughly field tested between 2001 and 2005. When all else fails and people aren't buying the Iraq war anymore just conjure up images of those two towers falling again and try to scare the people back into submission.
"One of the lessons of September the 11th is what happens overseas matters to the security of the United States of America, and we must not forget that lesson,"
"The consequences of failure would be death and destruction in the Middle East and here in America.
Apparently "what happens overseas" does not include the torture and murder of innocent people, the saber-rattling with Iran, or the complete destruction of infrastructure in Iraq. Because if it did, I'm guessing such acts would further fund a terrorist recruiter's dreams
Yes Mr. President, let us ignore the fact that our presence in Iraq is providing on-the-job training to Al Qaeda who are getting increasingly effective at killing our troops, defeating our armor, and shooting down our helicopters. Let us ignore the fact that violence against our troops is the physical manifestation of 4 years of bitterness at the occupation of their nation by a foreign army.
"Congress needs to put partisanship on hold, needs to get rid of all the politics right now, and send me an emergency war spending bill that I can sign..."
They did. It passed both the House and Senate. You can sign it.
"...that gets our troops the support they need and gives our commanders the flexibility they need to complete this mission,"
Oh. That's your problem with it. Well since in provides everything necessary for the troops I'm guessing you think it's unflexible for the commanders to "complete [their] mission". And what mission would that be? Does anyone know what the goal is in Iraq? Other than "defeat the terrists"?
Your newest General who has achieved "loyal Bushie" status has a plan:
It's a plan that aims to place bands of US soldiers with Iraqi forces in Baghdad, a high-risk strategy that will put more Americans in daily contact with Iraqis, providing both opportunities to win hearts and minds and more occasions for casualties.
Well we've seen more casualties so the plan is partially working! How's the 'winning hearts and minds' part working?
Of course, "Loyal Bushies" who are also military commanders are hard to come by these days:
From AllDemsOnBoard's diary:
Just ask General Casey or General Abizaid, who warned that more US troops would not solve Iraq's security problem - and could actually slow the process of getting Iraqi security forces to assume more responsibility -- and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who unanimously opposed this escalation. What happened to them? General Abizaid was replaced. General Casey was re-assigned. The Joint Chiefs were over-ruled.
Returning to the WaPo article, once again he attempts to use the boogeyman defense:
In his speech to the military families, Bush sought to link the Iraq war to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and he repeatedly warned that failure to resolve the four-year-old Iraq conflict will jeopardize the safety of people in the United States.
"If we do not defeat the terrorists and extremists in Iraq, they won't leave us alone," he said. "They will follow us to the United States of America. That's what makes this battle in the war on terror so incredibly important."
Fear. Mr. President, we're not buying it anymore. Here's a quote you might find relevant in more ways than one, sir:
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.