Issue:Bush Acknowledges Heavy Toll in Iraq - New York Times - but is that the point of my opposition?:
Specific:"For the first time, the president also put a number on the approximate numbers of Iraqis killed - 30,000 he said - since the beginning of the American-led invasion in March 2003"
Comment:Let's be clear. The President is a simplistic, straight-forward in his rhetoric. No shades of gray or subtly in him. So I will be on that level. Peace in the Middle-east is of great value.
There is a price.
Now we are simply haggling over the price. This should have been done before - not after.
Are we really haggling rhetorically about the price? Is this really about Peace in the Middle East? Is this really about protecting Americans and the Homeland?
30 thousand Iraqi's dead. More than 2 thousand American soldiers. Countless families disrupted or torn apart by the injuries to the mind and body.
Let me put something else to be considered on the bargaining table. The City of New Orleans. It has been better than 2 months since city was destroyed - does it matter if it was by a force of nature or the hand of man? This President sold us the Iraq war against Saddam by using the twin towers to amplify the fear of what happened in New Orleans - the destruction of an American city. So what if the destruction came from a storm cloud instead of a mushroom cloud.
It has happened, and the President is looking in the other direction. He choose violence and destruction, and would do it again. His Neo-con element would do it again. I believe it because it is the alogrithm or logic of this administration. They are seeking power and only power, for the sake of power and control.
If what motivated this administration was truly the welfare people of the United States, then New Orleans would be rebuilt before Baghdad, alternative fuels would be elevated to Moon-shot levels, and practical security like harbor protection, border security.
Ok, given that we have no choice - I ain't buying from this sales organization for nothing more than he got WMD wrong. If he was so wrong about that why should we trust him now? What's he going to be the next thing he is wrong about?
This President decided to change humanity by believing that it is better to lead with the power of fear than by reason.
This President decided to change humanity by playing on a human weakness - fear.
How long will a change based on a weakness last?
It is a good to build from something that is weak?
"There is nothing to fear but fear itself" is famous because of the empowering sensation of the logic and reason, than the man who said it. It plays on a strength - courage, logic and reason.
President Bush and the neo-cons do want "we the people" to feel empowered. This is why I reject this President or any poltical force or entity that does not want to enable one to be politically empowered. This is a principle.
For me th Iraq war debate is not about staying or going.
It's about the powershift involving the American citizen.
What's the price of this powershift? That's the debate
--------
Address: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/12/international/middleeast/12cnd-bush.html?hp&ex=1134450000&en=0dfcf1cab7fc0691&ei=5094&partner=homepage
