Wednesday, September 10, 2003
and we love that administration so
In Alternet's Iraq News Log, the following post:
"WMD? What WMD?
"Posted by Oj on September 9, 2003 @ 10:48AM
"The search for Saddam's deadly arsenal is now merely a footnote in the war. In what amounts to a political "do-over", Bush has recasted the mission in Iraq into Ground Zero in the broader war on terror. Rumsfeld didn't even ask about the weapons in his recent Baghdad visit. They've changed their minds about why they went to war and their sticking to it -- at least until that reasoning also fails them."
Who else watched the Bush Address on Sept. 7th? Who else wasn't sure what to make of it, other than to shake one's head with dismay?
So suddenly it doesn't matter that no WMDs have been found? Suddenly it's all just still the war on terror? Which war is which?
Bush: "Our strategy in Iraq has three objectives: destroying the terrorists, enlisting the support of other nations for a free Iraq and helping Iraqis assume responsibility for their own defense and their own future."
Define terrorist in this case. Which terrorists? For which cause? Baathists? Saddam Hussein loyalists? Al Quaida? Random terrorists? Random Iraqis who want to govern their own country? (see Liberating Iraqis, American Style for a view of what's going on with some local elections).
Bush: "The heaviest burdens in our war on terror fall, as always, on the men and women of our Armed Forces and our intelligence services. They have removed gathering threats to America and our friends, and this nation takes great pride in their incredible achievements. We are grateful for their skill and courage, and for their acts of decency, which have shown America's character to the world. We honor the sacrifice of their families. And we mourn every American who has died so bravely, so far from home."
Right. Not to bring up old news, but remember the June 30th issue of the Army times? The Nation's Daily Outrage summarized the point; here's an excerpt from the Nation summary:
"What has Army Times upset? They don't like the White House's griping and opposition to a proposal to double the $6,000 now paid to families of troops who die on active duty. (An additional $6,000 multiplied by 212 dead so far works out to $1.27 million -- or, for perspective, about 0.00032 percent of the nearly $4 billion per month the war is costing us.) They also want to cut monthly imminent-danger pay to $150 from $225, and cut the family-separation allowance down to $100 a month from $250. The anti-tax Administration is doing nothing for the military -- it won't even step up and ease residency rules to help frequent-traveling service members who sell a home qualify for capital-gains exemptions. The Administration plans to cut more than a billion dollars out of next year's budget for military housing. "The chintz even extends to basic pay," Army Times fumes, noting that Bush's proposed 2004 budget would cap raises for some ranks at 2 percent."
Anyway. I know this is all old news. Back to the good old brave fight against terror. Doing everything we can to keep Americans safe. Ah yes.
But yes. All I want to know is, did the Sept. 7th address clear things up for anybody? huh?
jane 11:00 AM [+]