George Bush has been keeping secrets. He has kept secret what he learned from the National Intelligence Council back in July: that the outlook in Iraq was bleak. That civil war was a distinct possiblity. That entire regions of the country were now a "no go" for U.S. troops, since those regions are now under the control of "terrorists and insurgents."
It's obvious why Bush can't level about that: it makes him look bad. But I'm thinking about how curious the terms have become: "terrorists and insurgents. It's interesting that we have now begun to define "terrorists and insurgents" as entire regions of Iraq.
Weren't the terrorists and insurgents supposed to be just little pockets of Hussein's loyalists?
Now, suddenly, "terrorists and insurgents" are entire regions, many of whom, no doubt, passionately HATED Saddam Hussein.
How big of a stretch would it be, then, for Bush to extend the term "terrorists and insurgents" to cover every person in Iraq? Is that so far-fetched? If virtually every person in Iraq wanted the U.S. out of there, would that make them ALL terrorists and insurgents and entitle the U.S. to kill them all?
Is that the definition of a "liberated Iraqi"? One who pledges allegiance to the United States?
No comments:
Post a Comment