are we 'winning' yet...
Would you be surprised to learn that more Iraqi civilians have died in just the last two months than Americans have died since the beginning of the war? The Baghdad morgue does 5 times more business than it ever did under Saddam's rule? Five times as many Iraqis NOW live in poverty than ever did under Saddam? [ source
] This is what war has wrought. I would dare say we need to rethink our current strategy.
Apparently I'm not alone. As of today 56% of American's polled think the war is going badly and are questioning it's validity. [source
] Many are wondering why we're in Iraq? Is it really for freedom and democracy? Are our troops over there fighting to help establish a government where the people can speak up about their government and it's leaders? If so, maybe someone needs to remind people like this guy
, who wants to "use whatever means necessary" to ensure that everyone just shuts the fuck up."
And, folks it's not just the 'extremist' (yes there are those who would consider "me"
and extremist, although, Bill O'Rielly isn't one of them)on the left anymore. Senator Chuck Hagel (R/Nebraska) has stepped up to the podium and took a stand (" 'stay the course' is not a policy. By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq ... we are not winning"
]Not even close. insurgencyensy is NOT in it's last throes. If anything it's growing stronger every day. Many of the Iraqi's that have been trained by American troops have deserted the Iraqi army and joined up with the opposition. In effect we've trained them to fight,...US!
Of course the
young republicans Yellow Elephants
have been quick to label this war veteran (two Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and numerous citations of meritorious honor) as being "out of touch" and uninformed. Much the same as they did John McCain, Max Clelland, and John Kerry. Apparently anyone who's actually seen battle
has no idea what this war
is all about. Or how to win it. Then again, it's fairly apparent neither does anyone in the current administration.
Cindy Sheehan has taken a lot of flack for her stand on the war. I know full well it's an unpopular subject on this side of the blogosphere. But, much like the war, neither of us is going away. Here in this blog, in this place, is where I will show my support for the troops. By demanding that we not forget there is a war going on. By not allowing 'stay the course'
to become the catch phrase for easing the conscience of this country. There are people paying the price for this 'strategy' and it's not you and I. Not yet anyway. But how many of us have sons and daughters who could be at risk should there be a need for a draft? With the age for enlistments being raised to 35, I'd say most of us have at least one child who'd be eligible. So no, I will not go quietly into the dark night. I will rage on against the dying of the light. The HIGH PRICE of War .
ps: Thanks to Crabletta over at The Curmudgeonly Crab
for the link to the above images.
It's not just about abortion
After reading Richard Cohen's article
about Governor's Pataki (NY) and Romney (MASS) and their 'evolving' attitudes on abortion, and Firedoglake's
post on John Roberts , I've done some serious thinking on the landmark court case of Roe-v-Wade
, and how it relates to abortion..
In my opinion Roe-v-Wade is not about abortion. Abortion just happens to be the catalyst that led to the case. Roe-v-Wade is in reality about a much deeper and important issue. In it's roots it's about the individual's right to privacy. The right of one person to make not just this intensely personal decision but ANY decision, for him/herself.
Conservatives see Roe-v-Wade as being about killing unborn babies. They insist life begins at conception and any interference that terminates that process amounts to murder. Taken literally this would or should mean any kind of interference,[INCLUDING birth control] is the taking of (or preventing of) a life. Which is the Catholic church's stand. For them it's simple. If there is the possibility of life, to interfere, with the intent of ending or preventing the natural process, is murder. The rights of the woman, and her privacy, are irrelevant or immaterial. All that matters is the life of the unborn.
Liberals on the other hand, don't see the unborn
as the issue at all. They see Roe-v-Wade as being about the right to privacy of the individual. The unborn fetus/baby
isn't irrelevant but it takes a back seat to the rights of the woman. Liberals value of the right to privacy is right up there with the right to freedom and democracy. They believe the government should stay out of their personal and religious lives.
Both points of view are a bit skewed. Without the host body (woman) a fetus/baby cannot survive. Yet there are those who believe this clump of unformed cells has rights that proceed those of the body it needs for survival. And still if you believe life has already begun, I can see where you would be facing a moral dilemma.
I personally find the idea of abortion abhorrent. Especially late term abortions. However, I also think "Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's."
which was previously the good Governor from Massachusetts's opinion as well. Like Governor's Pataki and Romney, I too have seen my opinion on abortion 'evolve' over the years. As a young woman I strongly supported the right to abortion.
As I've grown older and seen life from many sides I've come to realize, there is a dark side to abortion. The side no liberal wants to address. There are those who use abortion as a means of birth control. They have no concern whatsoever for the seriousness of their actions. They engage in unprotected sex, they have no respect for their own bodies. They are lazy and irresponsible, not only in getting pregnant but in waiting way too late to even seek an abortion. While I say 'they' I know full well these are women. These women make me ashamed that in order to steadfastly support my right to privacy, to make my own choices, I must in essence support their right to be lazy and irresponsible. This disgusts me.
Still I fear the repercussions should I weaken my stand. So, unlike Governor's Pataki, and Romney, I will not step back, I will not back down. I will continue to strongly support Roe-v-Wade. Not because I support abortion, I don't. But, because I support the right of every woman to make that decision for herself.
Because in the end it is no more and no less than what God granted each of us when he allowed Adam and Eve to make that all important decision in the Garden of Eden. It's called Free Will and it is God given. Who am I to challenge that?