This About Sums It Up
“And there’s no doubt in my mind, not one doubt in my mind, that we will fail.“ — President Bush, October 4, 2001.
While we await the announcement early next week that President Bush will escalate the war against the advice of the Iraq Study Group and the Pentagon, as reported by the BBC (why can’t the American media be the first to tell us what’s up in Washington?), Paul Abrams on The Huffington Post does a fine job of explaining why.
Bush invaded Iraq for domestic political reasons, to enlarge Republican majorities. The invasion, they thought, would cause the American people to rally around them, and provide large, lockstep majorities to shove their radical rightwing programs down the throats of the American people who really reject almost every part of their philosophy by large majorities. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld screwed it all up because their tactical choices were limited by not triggering domestic opposition. This matters now because Bush/Cheney/Rove’s decision on policy changes in Iraq will be driven not by what is good for the United States nor any concern about the morality of asking even more people to die for a mistake, but how best to rescue their legacy and radical rightwing ideology.
And he concludes:
Why we invaded matters now because the decisions he makes going forward will cause the deaths and dismemberment of thousands of more US boys and girls, and many times that number of Iraqis. These decisions will be guided by that same, pernicious principle, although by now they have been reduced to preventing the killing of the rightwing agenda instead of advancing it.
The Baker-Hamilton Report had one essential truth: either the Iraqis get their own act together—in which case, our military is not needed—OR, they do not–in which case, our military cannot help them, so that, in either situation, our military intervention should be ended post haste. Any decision that prolongs the US involvement a day more than logistically necessary to withdraw safely lacks any moral foundation.
The reason Bush is making this show of deliberation is that they (Rove, Cheney et al) cannot figure out what their best political play is now that their entire enterprise has blown up in their faces. They are trying to hang on until January, 2009, so that the next President is “blamed” for the eventual outcome that is not going to be in the national interests of the United States….
… Bush is a failed President. More worrisome, he is a failed person with power. Unchecked, he will spend others’ lives and limbs to escape his failures and insecurities.
He cannot be allowed to do so.
UPDATE: Tonight NBC News and CNN confirmed the BBC story. Bush will indeed escalate the war, with a new three-word slogan: “surge and accelerate.” The plan is to send 20,000 more troops in another attempt to secure Baghdad. Sources in the National Security Council say that political, not military, strategy explains the move.
UPDATE: Last night on NBC News, Jim Miklaszewski reported that the new strategy will be announced next Tuesday, and that an administration official “admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one.”
Richard Warnick
January 3rd, 2007 at 8:18 am
Was it your purpose to take George Bush’s quote and use it out of context? There are a few more sentences that should be attached to that quote. Actually there is an entire speech attached to that quote.
January 3rd, 2007 at 8:55 am
I linked to the whole speech. It constantly amazes me that Bush can utter stupid sentences like this, and the government transcripts preserve it word for word as he said it. Here’s another example:
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” — President Bush, August 5, 2004.
I watched Bush say that live on CNN. Couldn’t believe my ears. The President was threatening the country and nobody in the room dared to correct him. The official transcript doesn’t even dare to correct him.
January 3rd, 2007 at 9:15 am
Doesn’t this just speak to a fundamental difference between right-wing blogs and main stream ones. Anthony doesn’t address the substance of Richards post but instead criticizes Richards method. More proof of my thesis.
As an unwritten standard, honest bloggers ALWAYS reference the sources to which their comments refer as did Richard.
For Anthony to suggest Richard took the quote out of context despite referencing the entire speech, demonstrates either a rather pedestrian appreciation of the higher standards of debate and discourse in blogging, or the clicker on his mouse is broken, in which case I apologize.
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:03 pm
I’ve had stuff stolen almost verbatim on other blogs, or maybe it’s the great minds think alike senario. In any case I need a lesson in linking so that the notions I present can be chased down and backed-up. It’ got to be easy, no?
January 3rd, 2007 at 6:52 pm
I do apologize Richard, I did not notice the link.
And to you Cliff, why don’t you take that fist that is up your ass and stick it in a bit further and twist. Honest mistake, calm yourself.
January 3rd, 2007 at 8:06 pm
No please Anthony, allow me to apologize, you’ve just leapt ahead in my estimation of your ability to see the light someday.
Twisting as hard as I can. Yeeeehaaaa!
January 3rd, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Caveat, send me an email at cliff.lyon ‘at’ gmail.com
I’ll pass you the code to hyperlink