Wednesday, July 23, 2008

It's the Afghanistan, Stupid!

I remember not that long ago the presidential campaign was all about Iraq. Afghanistan scarcely got a mention. Obama made it clear time and time again that he thought Iraq was, is, and will be a bad idea. I don't recall him ever saying it was a bad idea because we should be focusing on Afghanistan.

Now Afghanistan is all the rage. The war in Iraq is taking resources away from the war in Afghanistan. No really, I've been saying this all along!

Yeah, right. What's he been saying?

- Iraq was a bad idea. It's not made us safer.
- We need to bring our troops home
- The Surge would not work, and hasn't really worked. It's the political changes that have brought about the progress in Iraq.
- We need to fight Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan
- We need The Surge in Afghanistan

So let me get this straight. We need to bring our troops home--but not until after we've sent them to Afghanistan to defeat Al Qaeda there, even though it's the Taliban in Afghanistan, not Al Qaeda. If Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan, it's because they've fled from Iraq to there. So if we hadn't gone to war in Iraq we'd have to go there to get to Al Qaeda. But that would have been Obama's choice, so it would be okay.

Furthermore, we need a Surge in Afghanistan, even though The Surge hasn't produced the success we're seeing. It's the political progress that's produced results. So why are we moving troops to Afghanistan? Just implement that political solution that works so dang well? And by the way, we do not have Pakistan's permission to operate within their country. Are we planning to invade them to get at Al Qaeda? Isn't that the same reason we went into Iraq?

So vote for Obama! He'll move our troops somewhere else to fight a war that won't do any good pursuing people who are not there, but are hiding in a separate country we'd have to invade. But a political solution would do the job better anyway.

Pardon me, but that seems like his plan is screwier than he accuses Bush's plan of being.

The good news is, though, that if he's elected Susan Sarandon will not move to Italy.

2 comments:

Ronaldo said...

Funny, that. Haven't all these celebrities who are threatening to move to Country X already bought their homes there? Essentially, they already HAVE moved, except that they keep coming back here. Why is that, you ask? Because if they ever DID move to Country X and STAYED THERE, they'd be undercutting their celebrity and thus eliminating what give them their chance to make these kind of statements in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, I LIKE Susan Sarandon's work. (Speed Racer addict, woohoo!) But I just can't see her throwing herself into the Italian film industry.

Thom said...

There's also the minor detail of citizenship. You can MOVE somewhere without actually becoming a citizen. I'll bet even if she did move she would retain her citizenship--and likely take every opportunity to avoid paying taxes there. I'm willing to bet taxes are higher in Italy than here for her tax bracket.

Fact is, as you imply, that moving to another country is so much less a sacrifice for actors than for the common man. Ms. Sarandon can live anywhere in the world and still work in the US--and still afford to fly home on weekends.

Someone like me would find it much more difficult to do that.

And for the record, I'm not one of those people who can't separate a person's work from their private life/opinions either. I like her work. I like Tim Robbins' work (what I've seen). I can watch them in a movie without having to mentally screech "FREAKIN' LIBERAL SCUM!" the whole time.