Image by FlamingText.com

Google

NEW YORK TIMES

HEADLINES

Promote your blog free.

BlogSearchEngine

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Bush's Optimism: Warranted?

Yesterday morning President Bush gave a one hour press conference in the new press room accross the street from the White House. It was a good Q&A session with the President I have to say. Bush seemed relaxed and comfortable, something he has been getting better at since he has been forced to make more public appearances with the press to battle sagging poll numbers. He was his usual self, consistent in his stances, however right or wrong they are, though a couple of times the President rambled on about terrorism and Iraq in such a convoluted way that he sounded like he was delirious, his arguments making no sense to anyone. Beyond that, he did well, though as I said before he still mantained his stances on the issues, and that is the main problem. Until the Administration faces reality, the will not adjust the direction they are going in and will just dig themselves a deeper hole. Even with staunch Bush supporters in Congress turning against White House policy, the Bush Administration stood its ground. Which begs the question: resolve or stubborness?

Iraq is more violent now than it has been since the war started, yet the Adminstration paints a portrait of victory, one that every Republican in Congress is trying to hold on to. I can understand their position. But when do the facts overtake optimism? The argument is that if we pull out now Iraq will disolve into chaos. You have no argument from me there. But, is it not in chaos right now? Was it not supposed to be better after three + years? Yes, the country would fall into a civil war if we pull out now, but the same will most likely happen if we pull out later. So, if a reasonable assumption is that Iraq will evolve into a civil war regardless of when we pull out (after all U.S. military presence is the only thing stopping a full-blown civil war from exploding), what is the logic in staying the course, losing more soldiers and spending more money, when the outcome will most likely be the same, a civil war? Of course, the optimistic side of the coin is that we will somehow shore up Iraq's government and it's own security forces will be able to keep the country secure if we stay long enough. How many actually believe that? What are the odds 10 to 1, 50 to 1, 100 to 1? The point is the odds are heavily against us.

Do not take this as argument for military defeat. This war will not be lost by the military, it will be lost by those folks in Washington who launched an ill-planned and ill-conceived campaign. We will leave right or wrong of it out of this discussion. Under those circumstances our military has performed to excellence, considering all the handicaps it was given. When ideology overtakes reality, disaster occurs. That is why ideology is not reality, it is based on an ideal, not on fact. I could sit here and write over and over about all the things that have gone wrong, but it would be redundant. And what you have is that all the mistakes are coming to frutition now that we have been in the conflict for a while. The Administration is slowly being force to admit to face reality, but that still will not stop it from trying to paint an optimistic picture of a free Iraq. I don't suppose I cannot blame them. Hey, you have to hold on to some form of hope, right?

Am I Biased?

This has been by far the longest I have gone without posting an article or comment on some of the current issues. I could sit here and falsely say that I have been too busy to do it, but honestly, I just needed to take a step back and reevaluate my thinking and my position as an unbiased commentator. It felt like the appropriate time to do so when the Israeli attack on Lebanon broke out. This war, which was so heavily covered by the media, felt to me like an unwarranted event, with both sides in the wrong. Seeing as we live in a biased pro-Israel country, I did not want to write anything regarding this war, I found it disgusting, from Israel's destruction of a fledging democracy, to the United States refusal to put a stop to the violence. Though I am devoutly against an organization like Hizbollah, I cannot in good conscience support what Israel did. Israel should have been the bigger man, in manner of speaking, and so should have the United States. Back to my reasons for taking a sabbatical from writing, I felt I needed to reassess my position on the issues in order be able to provide unbiased commentary. I find it has become increasingly difficult to provide unbiased commentary on everything that is going on, because, in all truth, anyone who is being unbiased and accurate will not have much good to say about the current Bush Administration. It is an effort to find good things to say about the Administration because it has such ill-conceived policies, both domestic and foreign. So, I pose this question to you: is someone who does his best to provide truthful accounts and commentary, which unfortunately are heavily critical of an Administration that has made mistakes at every conceivable turn, which has a cloud of corruption surrounding it, and which makes no faithful effort to correct its direction, is this person biased? Is legitimate criticism a form of bias, or just plain honesty? Let me remind you that the Bush Administration has labeled everyone who disagrees with its policies and actions as left-wing radical nuts, and sometimes even traitors. This list includes some of the most reknown and professional journalists in this country. Are they biased because they report the truth (which is for the most part bad news all the time) as best they can, or are allowed by this secretive Administration?

Reliable Alternatives net ring
| PREVIOUS | NEXT | RANDOM | LIST SITES |
This site is a Reliable Alternatives net ring member.

Thanks to RingSurf | Join? | Nominate? | Questions? |<

Google