(Updated below) (Update II) (Update III) (Update IV)Here's what
Republican GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said yesterday:
"(...)
the (USA) would be safer by only a small percentage and would see a very insignificant increase in safety if al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was caught because another terrorist would rise to power. It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person (...)"
Now,
remember what Da Decider said a while back concerning Osama bin Laden? No? Here are three quotes:
"(...)
He’s not the issue." - Pres. G.W. Bush; 02/05/2002;
“
I truly am not that concerned about him.” - Pres. G.W. Bush; 03/13/2002;
“
bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism.” - Pres. G.W. Bush; 09/14/2006.
Vice-President Dick Cheney also
said this on 09/10/2006:
"
He’s not the only source of the problem, obviously (...)"
Then, here is what Congress House Speaker
Nanci Pelosi said on 09/12/2006 (when she was still Democratic House Minority Leader):
"(...)
But in fact, the damage that (Osama bin Laden) has done is done. And even to capture him now, I don’t think makes us any safer.”
And here are more notable quotes concerning bin Laden:
"
My attitude is if (bin Laden) were gone tomorrow the same problem would exist (...)" - Don Rumsfeld (then Secretary of Defense); 10/24/2001;
"
Bin Ladin may be limited in his ability to organize major attacks from his hideouts. Yet killing or capturing him, while extremely important, would not end terror (...)" - 9-11 Commission Report Executive Summary;
With more or less the same
from many other folks.
But ... but ... were not
the capture (or death) of bin Laden, the destruction of al-Qaida and the eradication of the al-Qaida-supportive Taliban the rationales/justifications for invading Afghanistan? Is this not
why our
Canadian soldiers and Coalition allies remain there to this day, seeking to eradicate the re-surging remnants of the Taliban and
dying for it - now
almost every week?
Considering all of this, and the fact that
Pakistan appears to have been harboring bin Laden all along (while
claiming that they would capture him ... if they catch him. Right. No one went in Pakistan because not only do
they have Da Bomb, the U.S. allowed them to develop it!), then the obvious question is:
What are we still doing in Afghanistan?!?Here are some sample answers that are being parroted in response to such a question by our
so-called Right-Honourable Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his neocon lackeys:
"(...)
We don't make a commitment and then run away at the first sign of trouble. We don't and we will not, as long as I'm leading this country (...)" - P.M. S. Harper; 03/13/2006;
"(to the soldiers:)
Your work is about more than just defending Canada's national interests. Your work is also about demonstrating an international leadership role for our country." - P.M. S. Harper; 03/13/2006;
"(...)
These (fallen soldiers) were working to bring security, democracy, self-sufficiency and prosperity to the Afghan people and to protect Canadians' national and collective security. We will not forget their selfless contribution to Canada (...)" - P.M. S. Harper; 04/22/2006;
"(...)
(The soldiers) are there to defend our national interests and protect the population of Afghanistan. It is the Taliban who are committing violence against our troops and the Afghan people and this Parliament should be supporting our men and women in uniform." - P.M. S. Harper; 04/17/2007;
"
We believe that we are engaged in a war on terrorism, a war on evil people, just as we were during the First and Second World Wars. We believe that these people have to be brought to justice." - Government Whip (Conservative) J. Hill; 04/20/2007;
"
Is that the legacy we want to have for our Afghanistan mission, that we did not get the job done? Setting a deadline for the Canadian Forces to withdraw right now would send a clear and dangerous signal to the Taliban. For the sake of the Afghans, our mission cannot be measured simply by the number of years or months we have invested." - Conservative M.P. R. Hiebert; 04/20/2007;
"(...)
Progress is being made [in Afghanistan] (...)." - Public Safety Minister S. Day; 04/24/07.
So ... we are
there for them, for
Democracy, Freedom and all
those other Noble Principles, right? These platitudes are not only
the same snake oil selling talking points we keep hearing from
Da Decider and his Bushies, they are downright nauseating.
Therefore
and nonetheless:
How long will we be there?When will we have the courage to end this?(and by the way:
shame on you, NDP!)
The answer to these questions, folks, is apparently this: just like the Americans and their Iraq War, it looks like we must "stay the course" in Afghanistan.
More than ever: Harper = Bush. Period. Except that Harper is now being one step behind Bush - then again, that is what
followers do, no?
Someone
please call for an election soon to get rid of this ridiculous minority neocon government ...
stat. We need a
competent Prime Minister and government - urgently.
Update: 04/27/07 - Darn it - I completely forgot about those
magnificent arguments against pulling out of Afghanistan and/or Iraq (after all, these arguments are the same and apply to both instances):
i) If we don't stay the course or if we question the authorities (i.e. Da Leader),
then the terrorists win;
ii) If we withdraw, we are
the lowest of scum cowards (and the terrosists win - see above);
iii) Besides, we
are (always) "
turning the corner" (one
Friedman Unit at a time);
iv) The "
slam dunk" was
only a talking point;
v) The bad stuff at
Abu Ghraib (or
Gitmo) was due to "
a few bad apples", certainly not
because the Geneva Conventions had been deemed quaint by
Bush et al.;
vi)
Bringing the troops home will place them in greater harm than letting them stay;
vii) And we all better stop complaining and criticizing - otherwise,
we and our families deserve to be killed by terrorists.
The words to comment such asinine, inane and
insane thinking simply fail me ...
Then, someone (like too many others) posts
something like this or
this. My answer to such intellectual sloth-driven questions and proclamations? Read it
here. Talk about
incompetence indeed.
And so ... are we Canadians as doomed to endure the Harper government as the
Americans are doomed to endure the rest of the Bush Reign?
For good measure: here's
a timeline - rather, a veritable litany - of lies and incompetence concerning the Iraq War ... for your reading "pleasure".
In the meantime, wake me up
when September comes up ...
What do you folks think?
Update II: 04/28/07 - The reason of Da Bushies for invading Iraq was to
strike a blow against worldwide terrorism, right?
Same with Afghanistan, right?
Working great so far, huh?
Heck of a job, Georgie and Stevie ... In all fairness, I suppose no one could have
predicted this, right? (
Right).
Update III: 04/28/07 - Compare Da Decider's stance on Iraq with Da Harper's stance on Afghanistan, with regard to "
staying the course" and "
not cutting and running":
"(...)
if the Congress wants to test my will as to whether or not I'll accept the timetable for withdrawal, I won't accept one." - Pres. G.W. Bush
"(...)
We don't make a commitment and then run away at the first sign of trouble. We don't and we will not, as long as I'm leading this country (...)" - P.M. S. Harper
Now, let's also take a look at another type of argument against setting dates for withdrawal of troops:
"(...)
Basically the vote is going to be: Do you tell the enemy the exact day you are going to leave or do you not? (...)" - Public Safety Minister S. Day
"
Don’t you think an enemy is going to wait and adjust based upon an announced timetable of withdrawal?” - Pres. G.W. Bush
Strikingly alike talking points,
would you not say?
Update IV: 04/30/07 - Concerning the
current scandal of Afghan prisoners captured by Canadians - they are indeed our responsibility according to the
Geneva Conventions. And we
have been treating them as such: good on us. However, if
we decided not to turn them over to the U.S. forces because of their
neo(con)-attitudes vis à vis torture, then what was the Harper government thinking by directing our soldiers to simply surrender them to the Afghan government - especially since they have a
rather abysmal record where the humanitarian treatment of prisoners of war is concerned?
Neocon incompetence is universal, apparently.
The peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan are still performed by N.A.T.O. forces and these are still
U.N.-sanctioned. Perhaps it is time that the U.N. and N.A.T.O. maintain responsibility of those prisoners of war by either keeping full custody or by supervising Afghan prisons, so as to ensure that all articles of the Geneva Conventions are respected ... until such a time when the Afghan government demonstrates its willingness and capability of respecting said conventions (of which it is a signatory).
And hopefully, we will have brought our brave and dutiful men and women home, long before this farway day comes.
