Outrageous

Frank Gaffney has a lot of gall.

In an article in Canada's National Post, he claims that by criticizing President Bush's decision-making process and handling of the war in Iraq, we're only serving to - get this - make Saddam happy, and thus stronger. I know I usually try to avoid foul language in the blog - not so much because I have any personal objection to it, but because I consider it to be somewhat inappropriate to the kinds of things I'm writing about, but fuck it. This is complete and total bullshit. Absolute crap, and infuriating as well.

Here's the infamous opening to his article (which I'd seen parts of, but after having read a longer exceprt, I finally became angry enough to go read the whole damn thing. My blood is rushing through my ears right now, and I can feel the veins pulsing on my forehead. It's that bad):

Somewhere, probably in Iraq, Saddam Hussein is gloating. He can only be gratified by the feeding frenzy of recriminations, second-guessing and political power-plays that are currently assailing his nemeses: U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

The hysteria surrounding charges that faulty British intelligence about one aspect of Saddam's nuclear weapons program -- and a Bush 2003 State of the Union allusion thereto -- may even be emboldening Saddam to believe the unimaginable: He might yet survive (physically and perhaps politically) the current pair of U.S. and British leaders, just as he did their predecessors in the wake of Operation Desert Storm.

If anything is giving Saddam encouragement, it's not that people are pointing out how badly Bush screwed the pooch on this whole mess - it's the fucking mess itself! Saddam doesn't need to hear a word from anyone on this side of the world to know that the Iraqi people are pissed as all getout at the Americans occupying their country and want us the hell gone. If he is still in Iraq, all he has to do is have those who are still loyal to him look around and find those who are beginning to think life was better when he was in charge, or at least no worse.

It was pointed out a few weeks back - and I'm sorry, but I forget exactly where - that some areas where our troops are being attacked are Shi'ite controlled area. Now remember that Saddam and his Ba'athists are Sunni, and the Sunni's and the Shi'ites don't like each other at all. If, as the government alleges, the attacks on our forces are mainly by Ba'athists, it means that the Shi'ites are either letting them make attacks in Shi'ite territory or are just refusing to do anything to stop them (subtle difference, but I suppose some would find it important). If that's the case - and it appears to be - it says something about how little the Shi'ites like us.

Gaffney then goes on to say:

Unfortunately, such is the extent of the animus towards this President (especially among Democrats running to succeed him and their party's left-wing base for which they are competing) that a concerted effort is being mounted to savage his reputation. The focus of this partisan attack, not surprisingly, is Mr. Bush's stewardship of the one portfolio that has thus far seriously impeded efforts to unseat him -- namely, his outstanding performance as wartime Commander-in-Chief.

Outstanding performance? WHAT OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE????? I haven't see any outfuckingstanding performance here, have you? Who the hell does he think he's fooling?

Ok, so Gaffney thinks criticism of Bush's "outstanding" performance is unwarrented and just a partisan attempt to score points? How, exactly, can criticism over the decision-making and handling of the war make our problems in Iraq any worse? Hell if I know, except maybe waking more people up to how badly this has been done, and create more pressure on the government to start doing a better job.

Maybe, just maybe, if the Bush administration starts to worry that it's days are numbered as the tide of public opinion turns against the job they're doing, they'll realize they need to do things differently. Maybe they'll realize they need to acknowledge that we actually do need help from the rest of the world, and that if it means we need to hand over control of the situation to the UN, so be it.

I don't give a flying fuck what the jackasses at the PNAC wanted to get out of the Iraq war. Obviously, their plan isn't going too well, is it? What we need now is just to GET OUT of Iraq - once we've managed to help get things to a point where they can have a functional nation. We aren't going to manage to do that by ourselves. I think we've demonstrated that pretty well. We need to welcome the assistance of the rest of the world, even if it means Bush and his cronies need to swallow their pride, give up their imperial dreams and admit that maybe, just maybe, they underestimated the reaction and resolve of the Iraqi people.

And excuse me, Mr. Gaffney, if I happen to think it's rather important to know if the government based its decision to go to war on something other than the evidence they presented to us and to the rest of the world, and which they maniuplated, exaggerated and "fudged" to try and convince others to go along with it. It's pretty clear that the reasons they've given us aren't all there is to it - and, considering that the PNAC have been wanting to overthrow Saddam since even before Bush took office, you'll excuse me if I don't think that the information they presented to us has little, if anything, to do with why they actually wanted this war. Since its my tax dollars paying for this fiasco, and since my fellow citizens are now risking, and far too often losing, their lives fighting it, I think I'm entitled to some answers.

So, as far as I'm concerned, all those who think we should just close our eyes, shut our mouths and pretend eveything is hunky dory can go fuck themselves - and each other for all I care. They can't go fucking any dogs, though, because I like dogs too much for that. You're "Bush said it, I believe it, that does it" approach to their faith-based intelligence and faith-based foreign policy hasn't done a damn thing. IF Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and we don't know where they are, odds are good someone we don't want to have them has got them. Instead of making the world safer, this war may well have made it more dangerous. You can't deny that there are enough angry Iraqis to give al Qaeda a whole new generation of recruits with a particular beef to pick with us. You can't deny that, aside from it not taking long to topple Saddam himself, none of the war-lover's predictions have worked out the way they said. You can't deny that, in spite of Fighter Jock GI President's simplistic "Mission Accomplished" photo-op that the mission is anything but accomplished. And you can't deny that more and more of our citizens are dying every day because of the complete mishandling of this entire situation.

When it comes down to it, when a President takes our country into war - regardless of any other factors, he is the only one who can decide if we should go, and it is incumbent upon him to make sure he truly knows what the situation is, what is likely to happen and why the war is being waged. Ignorance of the truth is no excuse for making a bad decision. Lying to justify you want a war that has little to no justificaion is no excuse for killing anyone. General incompetence is simply inexcusable.

When all is said and done, the President got us into this war. He needs to get us out, and do so quickly and efficiently, but without abandoning the Iraqis to the mercy of whomever is willing to try and fill the void left by our actions. If it goes well, the President gets the praise. If it doesn't, he gets the blame.

Whether he or anyone else wants to hear it.

Posted by thorswitch at July 22, 2003 01:48 AM | TrackBack