Bad news, bad news, bad news
Top News Article | Reuters.com
Let's see.
First we have 380 tons of high explosives looted from under our noses - perhaps.
Then we have the Washington Post saying that Bush will be looking for another $70 billion to fund the war in Iraq.
Then we have the president's good buddy, the guy who head up the Interim Iraqi government, saying that it was "major neglect" by us that led to the slaughter of the 49 Iraqi Army recruits.
On top of that there is an intelligence report indicating the Saudis are funding the insurgents.
Can the voters connect the dots? Let's see - we pay higher prices at the gas tank. That money goes into the hands of the Bush Royal Family - oh, excuse me - the Saudi Royal family. Some of those folks then send it to their soul brothers in Iraq who use it to buy some of the 380 tons of looted, super-high explosives we neglected to guard so they can use it to blow up our troops. The Bush solution. Give me $70 billion more to mess things up really good.
I saw some dip from the administration of CNN lastnight - or at least fellow traveller - defending this mess by saying World Waii didn;t go well in the first year or three.
Eh. . . wasn't that just a tad different? We were fighting major military powers in Asia and Europe at the same time. They had attacked us. In the case of Iraq we were fighting a country whose Army had been beaten to a pulp a decade before, whose air force and air defences were non existent, who had no Navy, and who could offer next to no serious resistance. That's why we cruised over them. So stop taking us for idiots by drawing comparisons with World War II. And don;t say things go bad in the beginning - the beginning was tsupposed to be the ending here - Bush thought the mission had been accomplished when the real war was just starting.
