pinions of buddy don: iraq is our maginot line

i reckon mos everbidy members how after the furst worl war, them french built em a perteckshun agin them germans. they figgerd ifn twuz to be a new war, them germans wood have to fite it the same ole way by linin up agin them french in thar trenches n shoot at each other till sumbidy run out of bullets. twuz usin the method of the las war to fite the nextn. mos folks probly member how them german jes went round that maginot line n tuck over the cuntry in under a cuple munths.

seems lack we're doin purty much the same thang in iraq. i aint sayin i dun cornerd the logick on thisn, but heres how it seems:

1. al qaeda attacks us usin 15 saudi arabians, 1 egyptian, 1 citizen of the united arab emirates, 1 lebanese n 1 yemeni with financin that cum mainly frum saudi arabia.


2. everbidy agrees that osama bin laden n al qaeda masterminded the plot, carrd it out, n claimed responsibilty fer it


3. we invade afghanistan to git after them taliban that wuz givin osama 'sankchewary' but we dont put in a nuff troops to git osama n fack is, fer sum reason, we delegated the job of gittin osama to them warlords, witch far as we kin tell, they hepped him git away


4. before the secunt iraq war, hans blix n scott ritter n millyuns of marchers around the worl bleeved (a) thay wuznt weppons of mass destruckshun in iraq n (b) thay wuzn no real conneckshun twixt saddam n osama (fack is, thisn has been anal-eyes'd a lot on a counta the same charges of secularism n corruption n infidel-hood wuz used by osama agin us n agin saddam as if thay wuznt much differnts twixt us n iraq under saddam, witch thay wuz a big differnts, but not to osama's logick)


5. we invade iraq, find no weppons, find no real relayshunship twixt al qaeda n saddam, witch innybidy who tuck the time to study whut osama wuz advocatin wood know that them two woodnt wurk together lessn they wuz attacked by the same enemy, witch it looks lack they been wurkin together ever since we invaded iraq


6. now our armed forces is way over-estended, much moren mr. bush wuz wurried bout durin the debates leadin to his minorty presidency (since the majority of folks ackshly voted fer gore, bush is one of them rare minorty presdents)


7. fack is, a look at the publican platform fer the eleckshun of 2000 shows that saddam wuz a target befor the attack ever tuck place. in fack, heres sum innerestin planks frum that verr platform:


1. furst, they accused the clinton admin of bein arrogant: "The arrogance, inconsistency, and unreliability of the administration's diplomacy have undermined American alliances, alienated friends, and emboldened our adversaries."


2. they gut on clinton fer not bleevin ahmad chalabi n his Iraqi National Congress, witch seems lack chalabi wuznt the bes guy to do bizness with now.


3. they claimed rite in thar platform that removal of saddam hussein wuz essenchul fer middle east peace, only they had em a differnt plan fer goin after it compard to the one they used: "A new Republican administration will patiently rebuild an international coalition opposed to Saddam Hussein and committed to joint action. We will insist that Iraq comply fully with its disarmament commitments. We will maintain the sanctions on the Iraqi regime while seeking to alleviate the suffering of innocent Iraqi people. We will react forcefully and unequivocally to any evidence of reconstituted Iraqi capabilities for producing weapons of mass destruction."


4. they claimd twuz clintons fault fer us not bein lacked by folks in the middle east n fer high gas prices. but then thar's this note frum Reuters on 4/20/2004: "Arabs in the Middle East hate the United States more than ever. . . ‘Today there is hatred of the Americans like never before in the region,’ [Mubarak, Egyptian presdint] said."


5. them publicans also sed they wood respeck the intelligents servuses: "Nor should the intelligence community be made the scapegoat for political misjudgments. A Republican administration working with the Congress will respect the needs and quiet sacrifices of these public servants as it strengthens America’s intelligence and counter-intelligence capabilities and reorients them toward the dangers of the future." i reckon they dint cunsidder ms plame part of that servus. also, dont this make it hard to use that senate report to claim twuz all the fault of the cia?


6. they accused clinton of over-extendin the troops by how he wuz deployin em, witch thatn seems hard to bleeve in this age of callin up retired reserves, stop-loss orders, servus extensions, back to back tours, cuts in benefits, attempted lowerin of combat pay, shortage of gear, etc. but here's whut it sez rite in thar platform: "When presidents fail to make hard choices, those who serve must make them instead. Soldiers must choose whether to stay with their families or to stay in the armed forces at all. Sending our military on vague, aimless, and endless missions rapidly saps morale. Even the highest morale is eventually undermined by back-to-back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare parts and equipment, inadequate training, and rapidly declining readiness."


8. now our military is over-extended to whar twood be hard to know whut to do ifn north korea wuz to invade south korea or ifn india n pakistan gut into it, or ifn mainland china deecided to take taiwan.


9. mos importunt, with our forces hunkerd down in thar maginot line of iraq, al qaeda (the real enemies) is wurkin with iraqis who hate us. thar gittin recruits frum all over. sum of em mite be attackin us in iraq, even though it seems we aint capchurin much in the way of forn prisoners, the insurgency is biggern we thought twuz, closer to 20,000 than to 5,000


10. meanwhile, our ports n other infrastruckchur is so badly perteckted that we git them warnins that thar bout to attack us only we dont know whar, when, how. wurst, we don't seem to know or wonta know the real reason why. fer all we know, they could try to disrupt our eleckshuns!

aint it nice to know we gut us a plan in place fer how we kin cancel them eleckshuns, jes in case? corse, we wont have to wurry bout that, will we? we gut our troops dug in along the maginot line of the 'central frunt' of terror. aint no way our enemies could git past em, huh?