The Rogue President
Dec. 14th, 2006 12:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eggwardsYesterday President Bush said that he’s still digging in his heels as he tries to go against the tide of advice to begin a withdrawl of troops in Iraq. The story, from CNN, is HERE. Quote:
Just how far in denial is this guy? Somebody please tell me what the “job” is and how we are supposed to finish it, let alone how we are supposed to “win” someone else’s civil war? Wouldn’t winning a civil war mean we need to take a side? Hell, most politicians don’t even know the difference between a Shiite Muslim and a Sunni Muslim.
I guess that I was in favor of the Colin Powell strategy of fixing what you broke, and it certainly looks bad to leave Iraq in such a mess, but really, someone please tell me what the positives of staying are. Iraq itself doesn’t seem ready to reconcile and build for the future, so why should we try to do the impossible for them?
I understand that the President is bull-headed, and he’s not taking advice – at least not from the Iraq Study Group, but does he think that for the next two years he can just go about continuing the war in the same manner he has for the last four? Does he really just want the effort to just coast its way to 2009 when his successor takes over? What is the good in that? If this is being done just to allow John McCain to be the heir apparent, as he seems to be the only “stay the course” candidate, then that effort is failing as McCain’s numbers are falling right along with the President’s.
I remember in the last couple of years of Bill Clinton’s administration that he was criticized that he was making a lot of moves to shore up his legacy, such as the Good Friday Agreement between Britain and Ireland. If this is also the case with Bush, then he’s only doing damage to his and his family’s reputation as he continues to go down this path.
The Iraq Study Group’s recommendations seemed sound. I wouldn’t expect them all to be implemented, but the main message is that there’s nothing to win in Iraq, and we should cut bait in a controlled manner as the costs, both human and economically are not worth the effort. Apparently Bush can’t or won’t see the same conclusion, so hopefully the House of Representatives will bring this to a halt by refusing to fund the continued war. It seems our only option to stop this continued farce.
Of course, the conspiracy theorist in me is thinking, is this what the President wants, a showdown for the funding of the war so that he can go on TV and demonize the Congress as being against the troops and unwilling to support the “war on terror”? Hopefully the American people can see through that and will continue to support a pull out from Iraq, and we should applaud efforts to continue to work in Afghanistan and fight the real war there, where we still have allies.
On the other hand, perhaps this “taking a stand” crap just shows Bush is just worried about his Soy Intake making him less manly.
Bush said that during his consultations he had heard some "interesting" ideas, but would not specifically address them, and some "ideas that would lead to defeat."
"And I reject those ideas," he said. "Ideas such as leaving before the job is done. Ideas such as not helping this (Iraqi) government take the necessary and hard steps to be able to do its job."
Just how far in denial is this guy? Somebody please tell me what the “job” is and how we are supposed to finish it, let alone how we are supposed to “win” someone else’s civil war? Wouldn’t winning a civil war mean we need to take a side? Hell, most politicians don’t even know the difference between a Shiite Muslim and a Sunni Muslim.
I guess that I was in favor of the Colin Powell strategy of fixing what you broke, and it certainly looks bad to leave Iraq in such a mess, but really, someone please tell me what the positives of staying are. Iraq itself doesn’t seem ready to reconcile and build for the future, so why should we try to do the impossible for them?
I understand that the President is bull-headed, and he’s not taking advice – at least not from the Iraq Study Group, but does he think that for the next two years he can just go about continuing the war in the same manner he has for the last four? Does he really just want the effort to just coast its way to 2009 when his successor takes over? What is the good in that? If this is being done just to allow John McCain to be the heir apparent, as he seems to be the only “stay the course” candidate, then that effort is failing as McCain’s numbers are falling right along with the President’s.
I remember in the last couple of years of Bill Clinton’s administration that he was criticized that he was making a lot of moves to shore up his legacy, such as the Good Friday Agreement between Britain and Ireland. If this is also the case with Bush, then he’s only doing damage to his and his family’s reputation as he continues to go down this path.
The Iraq Study Group’s recommendations seemed sound. I wouldn’t expect them all to be implemented, but the main message is that there’s nothing to win in Iraq, and we should cut bait in a controlled manner as the costs, both human and economically are not worth the effort. Apparently Bush can’t or won’t see the same conclusion, so hopefully the House of Representatives will bring this to a halt by refusing to fund the continued war. It seems our only option to stop this continued farce.
Of course, the conspiracy theorist in me is thinking, is this what the President wants, a showdown for the funding of the war so that he can go on TV and demonize the Congress as being against the troops and unwilling to support the “war on terror”? Hopefully the American people can see through that and will continue to support a pull out from Iraq, and we should applaud efforts to continue to work in Afghanistan and fight the real war there, where we still have allies.
On the other hand, perhaps this “taking a stand” crap just shows Bush is just worried about his Soy Intake making him less manly.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-12-14 07:11 pm (UTC)It's not a denial; it's an agenda.. There are several corporations making a profit off of this war and to end it would mean the well has run dry. Want to know which ones? Send me an email and I've send you a scary PDF...
no subject
Date: 2006-12-14 09:33 pm (UTC)As for the consequences of pulling out, the Saudis have already told us that they will support the Sunni minority in the event we leave. The net effect would be that the whole region would most likely go to war and it's hard to say what the outcome of that would be. It's easy to predict when you're dealing with an enemy that values life, but when dying is a wondrous thing, all bets are off. Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are all on the table.
And lest we not forget that Israel is sitting in the middle of all of this. The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has said, "God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism." Even after Israel completely pulled out of the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians launched rocket attacks and kidnapped an Israeli soldier. Are those the actions of reasonable peoples? Simply put: the radical sects in the Muslim community will not rest until we are all dead. That is what Bush fears and is trying to protect us from.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, though, that things have got to change in Iraq. "Business as usual" just isn't cutting it and we need to change our strategies. Rumsfeld should have been gone at least a year ago and there are other things, as well.