Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Terror Chief Retires Citing Medical Reasons
Redd evidently needs to have surgery on both knees, and the recuperation is expected to take an extended period of time. Let us give credit where it is due: at least that is a more creative excuse than the typical "spend more time with the family" hokum we are normally plied with.
You may detect a slight bit of scepticism from yours truly when it comes to this, which perception would be correct. Why would I be so cynical as to not believe that Redd has legitmate medical concerns leading to his retirement? Because just the day before yesterday Redd committed truth by telling NBC News that the U.S. was probably not safer from terrorism today than before the invasion of Iraq.
Telling the truth is just not acceptable behavior if you are a big shot terrorist fighting Bushie.
All you have to do is look at the casualty lists to determine if the United States is in more danger now than before the invasion. Let us first establish that our military members (not to mention a good percentage of the private contractors we are paying for) are Americans. Next let us establish that the Bush administration tells us on a daily basis that Iraq is a central front in the war on terror, and that we are fighting the terrorists there so we won't have to fight them here... and so on and on and on. Connect the dots and it is patently obvious. Nearly 1000 more Americans have died in Iraq than died in the attacks on 9/11. In fact many many more Americans, by a factor of thousands, have been wounded by terrorists BECAUSE of Iraq, than were wounded on 9/11.
On that basis alone, it is obviously true that this nation is in greater danger now than prior to the invasion. This is not just a result of having troops deployed overseas either. For example, Americans are not in greater danger than before our involvement in the Balkans under President Clinton's leadership despite being deployed there.
Now the right wing koolaid drinkers will come back with "but we have not seen an attack on American soil since 9/11". Frankly, if I were the family member of a soldier serving in Iraq, or even worse a family member of one who had been wounded or given their life there, I would be just a bit cheesed at that logic. Is that family member somehow less American for having risked their life or spilled their blood because they did so in Iraq? That American is just as American as the people who died in the towers on 9/11. The sacrifice of our military families is hard enough without having to hear some cheesy Republican crowing about how safe Americans are even as Americans give their lives on a daily basis in George Bush's disastrous blunder in Iraq.
The sad part of this is that Iraq was entirely unnecessary. No amount of post invasion obfuscation and goal post shifting can change that fundamental truth. More Americans have died needlessly in George Bush's foreign blunder than died on 9/11, and we are supposed to think that we are safer?
Unfortunately telling the truth is no way to thrive in the Bush Administration, and Admiral Redd is just the latest to find that out the hard way.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]