Naive My Ass

The Republican candidates have attacked Barrack Obama for threatening to attack Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, saying his view was "naive". Is this as naive as saying that we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq? Or that we would only need a small military force to secure Iraq? Or to disband the police and military in Iraq? Or to say that oil revenues would pay for the war? Or to say that the insurgency was in it's last throes? Or to think a troop surge would make any difference in the political discord in Iraq?
Also, I seem to remember a certain President Bush saying any country, like Afghanistan, that harbored terrorists was the enemy. But, now it is okay for Pakistan to harbor Al-Qaeda and the Taliban and we should do nothing? What ever happened to those macho Bush threats? The only people who are naive are the ones who voted to reelect these spin-doctor hypocrites.

Dying for a Vacation

The purpose of the troop surge in Iraq was to allow "breathing space" for the Iraqi government to make the necessary compromises for a national unity government. Every single person involved with this situation has said that there is no military solutions to the civil war/resistance in Iraq. The solution is political. And what have the Iraqi politicians done while American soldiers are giving their lives for this "breathing space"? They went on vacation. Or they have decided to take their marbles and go home until they get their way. Does this administration really think that soldiers should continue to sacrifice their lives to help a political process that behaves like this? I guess it must be easy to sacrifice these people because the rich and powerful are safe and secure in their lives of gluttony while the poor who make up the fighting force live and die in an unspeakable hell.