Thanks, Connecticut
DB was off in Connecticut last week, where the hospitality was great and the allergies greater. At least the trip ended before the U.N. took over everything in the NYC area and screwed up all the traffic and flights.
Here's a thought for the day:
Even though there's terrible violence and instability in Iraq, the president can "imagine" how much worse it would be if we were to change course. So we need to keep our troops in harm's way and continue throwing money away. We must do this because it is imperitive that we maintain the fragile situation that is as close to peace as we could ever hope to have.
Even though Lebanon was being bombed back to the 18th Century, Israelis were being killed by rockets and the entire conflict was likely to end in a matter of weeks, Bush could not call for a cease-fire. The people who were going to be killed in those last few days had to die. The president could not take the zero-risk position of uttering a few words on their behalf because it would not be a "real" or "lasting" peace and there was no way we could settle for maintaining a fragile situation that is as close to peace as we could ever hope to have.
Why was this administration unwilling to say one sentence in the hopes of attaining a fragile and imperfect form of peace in the Israel-Lebanon conflict, but at the same time, willing to spend billions of dollars and risk American lives for exactly that in Iraq?
Here's a thought for the day:
Even though there's terrible violence and instability in Iraq, the president can "imagine" how much worse it would be if we were to change course. So we need to keep our troops in harm's way and continue throwing money away. We must do this because it is imperitive that we maintain the fragile situation that is as close to peace as we could ever hope to have.
Even though Lebanon was being bombed back to the 18th Century, Israelis were being killed by rockets and the entire conflict was likely to end in a matter of weeks, Bush could not call for a cease-fire. The people who were going to be killed in those last few days had to die. The president could not take the zero-risk position of uttering a few words on their behalf because it would not be a "real" or "lasting" peace and there was no way we could settle for maintaining a fragile situation that is as close to peace as we could ever hope to have.
Why was this administration unwilling to say one sentence in the hopes of attaining a fragile and imperfect form of peace in the Israel-Lebanon conflict, but at the same time, willing to spend billions of dollars and risk American lives for exactly that in Iraq?
