Why abandon proven failure?
Retreating from Iraq would allow the terrorists to gain a new safe haven from which to launch new attacks on America. Retreating from Iraq would dishonor the men and women who have given their lives in that country, and mean their sacrifice has been in vain. And retreating from Iraq would embolden the terrorists, and make our country, our friends, and our allies more vulnerable to new attacks.-- George W. Bush, radio address today
This BS is so despicable it makes Keith Olbermann want to scream. For several reasons--I'll start with the picky one first: the first and third sentences say basically the same thing. And, as with most of what he says, it is seriously deceptive if not an outright lie. For one, it is shear conjecture--staying the course was tried in 2004, and the violence and threat from terrorism (Madrid) got worse. Tried it again in 2005, more violence, more terrorism (London). Staying the course has a terrible track record, and many in the sane community believe that Iraq is already a breeding ground for terrorists (even ignoring the obvious evidence of terrorism in Iraq). Cutting and running hasn't been given a chance, and Bush is just making up crap about it to give it a bad reputation. Staying the course is a proven failure.
Of course, the second sentence above is the most despicable. Sending troops to fight an unnecessary war based on lies is the most dishonorable thing you could do to them--except perhaps for continuing to do so.