Bush's Midas Touch

(AP Photo/Karim Kadim)
The first known case of sex recorded on a mobile leading to murder was in 2004. Film of a boy making love with a 17-year-old girl circulated in the Kurdish capital, Arbil. Two days later she was killed by her family and a week later he was murdered by his. -- The IndependentThey are burning women alive in Iraq. Pouring paraffin over them and letting the die a horrible death because they have had sex. Shaira law is spreading in Basra and in other areas of southern Iraq. After decades there are men fighting in the streets in Lebanon again. Turkey has all but permanently invaded northern Iraq. The fallacy that Bush has made America safer is only valid if you don't include losing New Orleans or protecting our civil liberties. Or if you believe that "hasn't happened yet" equals "not going to." But, it is extremely clear that the middle east is not only a much more dangerous place, it has descended into religious terror and violence across the region.
Remember when our foreign policy was all about maintaining peace in the region? Remember fears of setting the middle east ablaze? Like many things from the reality based community that concept went out the window with reverse midas Bush. I am sure that Israel thought our invading Iraq and posting 100,000 troops next door in Iraq was a good idea, but as more and more goes wrong in more and more places, I suspect that that feeling of safety is running on par with Bush's polling numbers.
Our inability to win the "peace" as the pentagon's Orwellian phrase goes is a major factor in this. This is now beyond a military solution and has been for years. Having less people with guns around is a good first step. Nobody notices the sniper on the roof across from the womens shelter because that's normal.
- Original article
- FILED UNDER: Guest Blogger
- May 19, 2008








By Fight4itMay 20, 2008 - 1:59pm
Jesus christ now you are trotting out hatenomore's logic.
Most people with a brain will look at the CRA vote in both houses of congress and see the truth. The south is the clear difference. For both republicans and democrats the no votes are from the south. The democrats had more members in that region so you can look at the numbers and slant them to say the dems voted no by larger numbers. But both parties had greater numbers of no votes in the south. Furthermore the republicans had a larger percentage of no votes outside of the racist south.
But do continue posting your anne coulter talking points. It shows everyone how gullible you are so they won't take you seriously.
- parent
By f u bush2May 20, 2008 - 2:25pm