Reply #2: Critique [View All]

The Post seems to want to earn a reputation as being Mr. Bush's most reliable ally among the leading formerly respectable print dailies. As an American citizen and taxpayer, I have no desire to maintain a military presence in Iraq for years if the goal is to expropriate Iraq's national wealth.

The insurgents had no trouble organizing their fighting forces; what is keeping the Iraqi government from organizing its own? One might suspect it is the same thing that is preventing the distribution of water and power to Iraqi homes and businesses.

The Bush regime needs to be removed from power in two countries: Iraq and the US. They need to be removed in the US simply because they have violated a sacred public trust by willfully lying to get into a war and making a bad situation worse. Saddam was a brutal tyrant, but a paper tiger who posed no regional or global threat. Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorists until our neoconservative misleaders blundered their way into Baghdad. Meanwhile, the brutality of the occupation too often matches the brutality of Saddam's dark rule. It has been Bush's Falluja for Saddam's Halabja and Bush's Abu Ghraib for Saddam's Abu Ghraib.

The Bush regime needs to be removed from power in Iraq because the Iraqi people can build their country better than the neoconservatives can build it for them. The Bush regime is unable to secure the road from the Green Zone to the airport and unable to keep trash collected or traffic lights working in the Green Zone. Iraq under occupation does not have a reliable water and power or sewage system in most of the country. And the security forces aren't ready after two years of American rule? What is going on here? Perhaps Iraq should be given real sovereignty, not the merely rhetorical sovereignty she was "granted" a year ago. Who can doubt that a truly self-governing Iraq can do better than Iraq as a neoconservative colony?