overcoming average(?)

because it’s something the world just needs less of

oh, you elegant guessers

with one comment

there’s been some goings on in washington d.c. this week. typically, i try to keep on open mind on things and not make judgement calls on the few who’ve been put in charge by the many. this kind of bugged me though. earlier this week the general in charge of the troops in iraq gave a report to congress that said that because of the additional 30,000 troops sent there this summer, that violence in iraq has gone down by 50%. which actually puts violent incidents down to the level where we were this time last year. this is what president bush said in repsonse tonight taken from cnn:

In a televised speech to the nation, Bush said he would reduce U.S. force strength by 5,700 troops by Christmas and, by next July, reduce the number of combat brigades from 20 to 15 — a decrease of roughly 30,000 troops.

The first step in that process will come later this month, when 2,200 Marines leaving Anbar province will not be replaced, the president said.

“The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is ‘return on success’ — the more successful we are, the more American troops can return home,” Bush said during a 17-minute prime-time address from the Oval Office.

i don’t know if you caught that, but by his own reasoning, the president just put our position in iraq in a catch-22 situation. more troops in iraq=less violence in iraq. less violence in iraq=success in iraq. success in iraq=fewer troops in iraq. so “a”=”c” there, but “a” and “c” completely contradict each other. maybe i’m just being short-sighted, but i don’t think that’s the best solution. i don’t even think that makes sense. every time my brain tries to process that train of thought i just end up staring blankly into space like a cat who’s mentally chasing a floating piece of lint.

on that note, i’d like to formally announce my write-in candidacy for president of the united states. (or at the very least governor of iraq.) you want change in the white house? vote for someone who’s never even been in public office. sick of washington insiders? vote for someone who’s not even sure what that really means. worried your favorite candidate takes money from lobbyists? soooo not an issue here. come on, i can make guesses about what to do with this country at least just as good as someone who apparently is using circular reasoning to justify putting hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives in jeopardy. that being said:

Matt Quillen for President in ’08.
my slogan: “If they can do it, why not me?”

Advertisements

Written by matt

September 13, 2007 at 9:54 pm

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Lots of people blog about this issue but you said some true words!!

    IRREFSCEF

    December 11, 2009 at 8:33 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: