Thursday, May 27, 2004

Wait. . . . tear what down?

Huh. I suppose this is just par for the course, but the New York Times is reporting that the Pentagon claims that Bush's plan for tearing down Abu Ghraib wasn't something they'd ever heard of or discussed.

God, I even think it's a good idea . . . a really good idea, to the point that it doesn't even bother me that it smells of cheap symbolism rather than effective reform. I mean, sometimes symbolism is important too, after all. But the fact that it seems President Bush just pulled it out of his ass without talking to the Pentagon first? Well, it really just is the icing on the 'poor planning' cake, isn't it?

Liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein? Good idea, shitty planning.
Democratizing the Middle East? Good idea, shitty planning.
The postwar occupation and rebuilding? Good idea, shitty planning.

It's not even as if I share many of Bush's goals, you know? On 85% of the issues out there, I couldn't possibly disagree with him more. What's revealing to me is that even on the issues I totally agree with him on, he just can't be trusted to carry them out without screwing them up.

At this point, we would even be better off with another, different Republican in the White House.

I'm voting Kerry, of course. I meant that totally hypothetically.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you for the insite regarding planning refusal matters. Planning permission in order to have some form of planning gain will always make money for the site owner. We can explain further the issues on planning refusal so stop by and compare opinions.

8:38 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home