Wes Clark Gives You the Real State of the Union
Writing by on Tuesday, 31 of January , 2006 at 8:24 pm
Powered by Gregarious (42)
The state of the Union is clearly not what it should be, and not what it could be.
* Four years after 9/11, Osama Bin Laden remains on the loose and Al Qaeda remains a potent force among millions of Muslims
* The threat of terrorism has actually increased, largely as a result of the unnecessary invasion of Iraq
* In the process of our struggle against insurgents and terrorists, we are in danger of losing the very principles we are fighting for as revelations of torture undercut America’s moral strength and leadership
* Highly skilled jobs in the so-called knowledge industry are moving abroad
* More than 45 million Americans lack access to health insurance
* Our physical infrastructure and our system of public education lack essential modernization and reform
* Despite over thirty years of warning, this nation still has no policy to lead us to energy independence
* The tragic incompetence of our government: failing to assist in the terrible humanitarian catastrophe of Katrina, stumbling through a repetitive cycle of inflated rhetoric and crushing disappointments with reconstruction and reform in Iraq and the Middle East, and frustrating millions of American seniors floundering through a poorly designed Medicare prescription drug program.
* The emergence of what appears to be a culture of corruption reaching from lobbyists, through the Republican leadership in Congress, and into the White House itself
The policies followed by your Administration since 9/11 — the belligerent tone, the unilateralism, and the excessive reliance on military force — are not making us safer; they are increasing the dangers we face abroad and distracting us from the most important challenges here at home.
The American people demand better leadership from you, President Bush. It’s time to change course — now — and get America back on track.
Technorati Tags: DemocratsShare This
Category: Democrats, Democrats
- Add this post to
- Del.icio.us -
- Meneame -
- Digg
Comment by Anonymous
Made Wednesday, 1 of February , 2006 at 4:15 pm
The only qualms I have with
The only qualms I have with Clark’s rebuttal is that he, much like bush, pandered to the christians by mentioning god as our creator. As a non-traditionalist Pagan, I find such comments irksome but not unexpected. Whatever it takes to get rid of the republicans is good, but the end must justify the means.
Comment by Anonymous
Made Wednesday, 1 of February , 2006 at 7:45 pm
I am a pagan to, but
I am a pagan to, but sometimes you have to support the guy that has 9 out of 10 right!
Beats 0 for 10…
Comment by Anonymous
Made Thursday, 2 of February , 2006 at 2:02 pm
I hate to give “W” a
I hate to give “W” a loophole, but when Wes Clark calls it an “unnecessary invasion” of Iraq, I disagree because it is an unnecessary OCCUPATION of Iraq.
We HAD to invade Iraq. In August, 1998, Billy Jeff Clinton and Madelaine Albright threw away Bush Sr’s ceasefire and allowed Saddam Hussein to prohibit inspections. This was front page news in the Washington Post, 8/6/98. Nobody cared because Monica’s thong and stained blue dress were the top concern. No peace demonstrations took place, because Clinton “cared.”
When we, the winners, throw away our own ceasefire, what happens? We have to go back and fight again! But Peter Pan, I mean Billy Jeff, knew, in his cunnning, that the new Iraqi war wouldn’t happen on his watch. MORAL: Don’t trust the peacies and the flag burners and the chanters, they have a SENTIMENTAL agenda and don’t recognize peace being thrown away even when it is front page news.
So, no, Wes, you’re wrong, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was necessary. In August, 1998, we threw away our own peace deal of 1991. But you’re on the right track — why did we OCCUPY the country as a colony (yup! America is a 21st century occupying colonial power!) instead of partitioning it in mid-2003 into separate nations? Why has partition never even been considered, although Pulitzer prize winner Seymour Hersch says that partition is already taking place since a low-level civil war is NOW taking place in Iraq? Why the INFLEXIBLE insistance that “Iraq” stay together? Answer that and you have the idol our young fighting men are being sacrificed unto.
The rest of Wes Clark’s list is excellent. I think he should have added one more thing — we are perilously close to INITIATING a nuclear FIRST STRIKE in either Pakistan or North Korea, and this is especially horrific since we haven’t fixed the incompetent intelligence apparatus we use for our decisions. Without much better intelligence, whoever’s in charge may vaporize paper opponents based on a bad intel briefing.
Are you scared yet?!
By the way I voted for Clark in the 2004 primary in my state. I wish he was a Senate or gubernatorial candidate in 2006 and a presidential candidate for 2008, because “W” has promised us sotto voce to keep the Iraqi fight going until he leaves office in January, 2009.
Comment by Anonymous
Made Thursday, 2 of February , 2006 at 6:19 pm
You’ve lost me. Why exactly
You’ve lost me. Why exactly was it NECESSARY to invade Iraq?
