I was listening to Michele Bachmann speak today (story covered here on cbsnews.com) and for the first time, I started to identify with what she was saying. For the first time, she was actually making a little sense. She was explaining why she feels the U.S. should maintain an indefinite presence in Iraq to “enforce the fragile peace” (whatever that means).
I can see her point. After all, we did go over there and overturn their government (although the original plan was to look for WMD’s which were never found so HEY, why not destroy their government without asking them first). Should we really leave them to fend for themselves before they’re strong enough to fight off the forces of Iran? She had me… she really did. But then she kept talking.
She started accusing President Obama (and it is “President Obama”, not “Mr. Obama”. I don’t understand why HE is the President known as “Mister” instead of “President” but I digress) of having political motives which may or may not be true. This is the time to start his campaign for re-election and getting the troops out of the Middle East has got to be worth some major points. We all know the repubs were going to play that card so we really can’t be mad at them for that.
She then goes on to say how we lost 4,400 of our soldiers’ lives along with $700 billion in U.S. tax dollars over the last eight years. She said, and I quote, “I believe that Iraq should reimburse the United States fully for the amount of money that we have spent to liberate these people. They’re not a poor country. They’re a wealthy country”.
I think to myself, “Okay… oil rich nation… they can afford it… okay, maybe I can get onboard with that IF they had asked us to intervene but they didn’t so… what the hell are you talking about?!? If I go into your house uninvited and wash your dishes and do your laundry then demand payment, isn’t that a form of extortion?”
Then she says this (and this is where my ears begin to bleed) “I think that they need to do that, because what we will be leaving behind is a nation that is very fragile and will be subject to dominance by Iran and their influence in the region. That’s not good.”
Let me break that down potato head style. She basically said THEY need to pay the U.S. back because WE’RE leaving THEM defenseless…WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?!? I don’t understand what one has to do with the other. Are you insinuating that they should pay us protection money? What the hell is wrong with you!?!
OH… then she goes into a rant about how Iraq doesn’t want us there in the first place. How the U.S. spent $800 billion in resources (her words) and they are booting out by the very people who liberated them (who, didn’t ask for help in the first place).
Which one is it lady? Are you angry because the U.S. troops leaving or angry because the Iraqis don’t want them there? You can’t appear on national TV and go off into a rant on how you’re upset that President Obama is bringing the troops home AND how Iraq has expressed to us that they don’t want us there in the first place.
If the president was bringing the troops home against Iraq’s wishes then fine, be angry. If the president was keeping us there against Iraq’s wishes then FINE, be upset! BUT, if he’s taking us out of Iraq AND Iraq doesn’t want us there… THEN WHAT THE HELL IS THE FRACKIN PROBLEM?!?
We can’t Americanize them. We can’t Americanize anyone. I don’t understand why the repubs and their tea bagger cronies continuously believe that we need to make an American clone out of every fracking country we “help”.
In my sad little opinion, it’s very simple Michele; if they don’t want us there then we NEED to get the hell out, point blank! Christmas is about to get really happy for tens of thousands of U.S. citizens with family off fighting the war. We need to focus on how to make THAT happen!
P.S. good luck getting THOSE votes, nice job there sister.