Following up on my recent post - “If This Is The ‘Cost Of Freedom,’ What Are We Buying?” - is this excellent post from Dan Flynn - and some amazing news I include at the end. First, here’s Flynn’s post, quoted in full (sans the links):

The Bush Administration policy in Iraq is one that retrenches rather than rethinks. After the surge of additional combat troops did not yield the expected positive results, the president’s top military advisers are talking about the possibility of even more troops. What happens when the next surge fails to transform Iraq into a peaceful, orderly society free from massive waves of terrorism? For Republicans who have imbibed the nation-building Kool Aid on Iraq, the answer is another, larger surge. It’s never the premises. It’s always the execution.

Rare are the moments when the president and his lackeys reflect on the false assumptions that got us into Iraq in the first place. Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction. It wasn’t close to gaining nuclear weapons. It didn’t have anything to do with 9/11. It wasn’t poised to attack us. It wasn’t a democracy waiting to happen. Demonstrably false assumptions constituted the pre-war case for invading Iraq.

Now that the fog of pre-war has lifted, it’s easy for the seeing to see just how slipshod the administration’s arguments were. That the administration doesn’t see it, and continues to truck on–even to the point of suggesting more men and resources–suggests that the arguments for war might really have been rationalizations for war. Now our troops, and our wallets, pay the price. Spring was the deadliest three months for Americans in Iraq. It’s not getting better. It’s getting worse.

“We all want progress,” C.S. Lewis once wrote. “If you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.”

Perhaps this is why the anti-Iraq War GOP candidate for president, Ron Paul, received nearly 50% of the money donated by employees of the US military in the second quarter. (HT: LewRockwell.com) This is an incredible development. What’s more, Dr. Paul received more contributions from military personnel than any other Republican candidate, all of whom are pro-war. The report does not include contributions from the U.S. Marines, none of which went to Paul (that $1,600 went to McCain, apparently). But the findings are remarkable nonetheless:

Military support for the republican candidates (in dollars) (Source: Finance Reports for the 2007 July Quarterly)

RON PAUL: $23,465 (52.53%)
McCain: 15,825 (35.4%) - plus $1,600 from Marines?
Romney: 3,551 (7.9%)
Giuliani: 2,320 (5.2%
Hunter: 1,000 (2.2%)
All others: 1,171 (2.6%)

*****
(Eric Langborgh is the author of Borg Blog and the director of development for the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU). His views and comments expressed at the Control Congress blog are his own, and do not necessarily represent those of the ACRU, unless so specified.)

Posted by Eric Langborgh on Monday, July 16th, 2007 at 7:40 pm | under 2008 Election, Iraq | |RSS 2.0 feed | Comments and pings closed. |