See other Editorial Articles
Title: Rattling the Cage: It's Bush vs. America - and Bush wins
Source:
Jerusalem Post
URL Source: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satell ... me=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
Published: Feb 8, 2007
Author: Larry Derfner
Post Date: 2007-02-08 11:13:28 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 142
Comments: 10
What's going on in Washington now is unbelievable - Bush is getting away with it. He's escalating the war in Iraq. He's sending 21,500 more soldiers over there. Nobody's stopping him, nobody's going to, either - not the Democrats, not the new Republican realists and not American public opinion, where Bush is heading down to Nixon's Watergate level. The war in Iraq is a four-year, runaway disaster, the American voters turned adamantly against it in the November elections, the vaunted James Baker-led panel recommended what most everybody wants - a careful withdrawal, or as careful a withdrawal as possible. In the face of all that, it was just assumed Bush would have to bow to reality. No way. The exact opposite is happening. Not only is Bush not starting to get the troops out, he's not content to stand pat with the troops he's got there now. No, he's sending over more. The war in Iraq is one of the worst blunders in American history, and the man responsible is now digging America in deeper. And America is letting him do it. You watch these clowns in Congress, these eunuchs who don't have the balls to even pass what a Bush ally laughed off as a "confetti resolution" - a symbolic statement that wouldn't force Bush to withdraw but would at least officially express Congress's opinion in favor of withdrawal. But they can't even agree on that - they're afraid the White House will accuse them of demoralizing the troops, of encouraging the enemy. It would be too politically risky. Such a statement wouldn't have stopped Bush anyway. The only way Congress can prevent Bush from escalating the war is by refusing to pay the cost of sending the extra troops in. But only a few senators and congressmen are willing to take that step because then the White House would accuse Congress of leaving the troops to die, of taking away their guns and uniforms and everything. It's bullshit, of course. The only thing that would be taken away is Bush's right to send over those 21,500 more soldiers. But it's not going to happen; the fear of White House propaganda has all but a few politicians paralyzed, and the White House knows it. The administration isn't even worried. "We are moving forward," Dick Cheney told CNN about Bush's decision to escalate. "Congress has control over the purse strings, they have the right, obviously, if they want, to cut off funding, but in terms of this effort, the president has made his decision." In America, the dogs bark but the caravan moves on. Right over the cliff. MEANWHILE, the administration's argument for moving forward has cleverly changed. Bush and his mouthpieces have stopped braying about "victory," because nobody will buy that anymore, it'll only hold them up to ridicule. No, America isn't fighting to win in Iraq now, because whatever victory might look like, it's nowhere on the horizon. Instead, America is fighting to avoid defeat, which is very easy to visualize. Defeat will come when America leaves Iraq with the country still exploding, with the killing still going on in all directions, with America still hated by everyone (except the Kurds), and with nothing but further atomization, slaughter and radicalism ahead. That's defeat. And that, warns the pro-war camp, will leave the entire Middle East in danger of being pulled into the Iraqi conflict. Even worse, it will leave America disgraced and its enemies emboldened. So, they argue, America has no choice but to fight on. The 21,500-plan is called a "surge" - a euphemism for "escalation" that lets people think this is just temporary, that the extra troops being sent into Iraq will be home soon. The idea is that these new troops, being deployed in new ways, will make the difference in the war, that they will bring a turning point toward security on the Iraqi streets and national unity in the Iraqi government. I'm not being too original when I say this is impossible. In the best case, the extra troops might make Baghdad somewhat less lethal; they might bring the daily nationwide body count down from 100 or so to 80, or 70. But security they're not going to bring. And this is in the best case. Another possibility is that they will make no difference at all. Still another is that they will make things worse. But even if the new troops really make a dent in the murder rate, does anybody think that whatever security and stability gains might be made from the "surge" would remain in place after America's withdrawal? In other words, is there anything these additional soldiers can achieve that would change the consequences of an American pull-out, that would make those consequences any different from what they would be if those 21,500 soldiers were kept home? Does anybody have a good idea for anything at all that the US can do in Iraq over the next two years, or five years, or 10 years, that would make the downside of an American withdrawal any less steep than it would be after the gradual withdrawal, beginning now, that most Americans want? I haven't heard such an idea, and I don't believe it exists. While optimists may come up with feasible plans for improving Iraqi conditions under America's occupation, no one can come up with a feasible plan for holding Iraq together after American troops are gone. So by staving off the withdrawal, the Bush administration's escalation of the war is just delaying America's inevitable defeat. The only lasting difference the surge will make is to increase the number of American soldiers getting killed and maimed. The majority of senators and congressmen, Democrats and Republicans both, now understand this. And since they understand, but lack the courage to use their power to force Bush to wind down this war, the American blood about to be spilled for nothing will be on their hands, too.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
The guy does a good job of summing it up. I can't really add anything.
.
Quote deserving of a ping
All: Do we agree that Bush is insane and we aren't representated politicaly? If yes, any ideas as to what to do? I do, but I'm not allowed to say.
these troops have got to refuse. they all need to say, SIR, NO, SIR. then they and we need to take care of bush et al. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
I heard Clarke speaking on the radio once. He said the real reason we got out of Viet Nam was because the army had simply refused to fight anymore. Nothing got done except ass covering past a certain point. During the 1970s however they didn't have the Hannity/Limbaugh/Fox News thing egging the 18 year olds on and there were conscripts mixed in among them who would wise them up. It may take a lot longer for us to get to the quitting point today. But I bet the repeated tours are taking a toll now. There may also be a plan to use Bush's contractors to negate this sort of rebellion however. I'm sure its a real concern with Bush and the crew.
.
I hate to say it (not really) but we need a military coup, arrests of the AIPAC types, their beneficiaries, the neo-cons and all others that have conspired to involve the country in the pre-emptive war on "terror" like Colin Powell and Richard Armitage. A one year moratorium on elections while trials are held to ascertain the treasonous acts committed by congress in aiding Bush or enacting unconstitutional laws such as Patriot Acts etc., and an oversight panel made up of individual(s) / civilians like Ron Paul commissioned to co-govern with a re- commissioned General Officer. Special Prosecutors immediately commissioned to investigate all military contractors and their CEOs for bribing officials to obtain no-bid contracts etc., If Pelosi don't have the balls to orchestrate the necessary actions, her immediate dismissal should be demanded or she should be arrested for harboring criminals. Then public hangings days prior to the next election might help potential public servants remain focused on their oaths.
“The First Highest Masonic Council was, as we have already said, formed on 31st May 1801 in Charleston, 33 degrees northern latitude, under the chairmanship of the Jew Isaac Long, who was made inspector general by the Jew Moses Cohen, and who had received his degree from Hyes, from Franken, and the Jew Morin.”
the fact that the administration lied us into this war is pretty much common knowledge now and the majority of the american people are for putting an end to it. i'm hoping that this will inspire a military mutiny like happened in viet nam.
uh huh!
It ain't Bush...it's the whole fukking lot of 'em.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
On a more humorous note related to what you said above, yesterday when I was listening to Hardball, a question came up about GWB and his very unpopular desire to do war, war, war around the globe... Anyhow one of the interviewees responded with a shrug and a laugh along these lines: "Why would GWB care about how his current actions might cause more negative opinions about him? I mean his polls are so low now, can they go any lower?" There was a split screen showing the faces of the other interviewees, and their heads all nodded in agreement. I am convinced that the only way GWB can be stopped is by his own party. The GOP congresscritters need to lead the charge on Capitol Hill. I doubt the Democrats want to do anything to stop George from starting a war with Iran - most of them are on board with that policy (AIPAC funding dependency)and over 50% are on board with the continued occupation of Iraq at least according to Pat Buchanan and his sources. So the GOP need to get so scared about the consequences of GWB's unpopular war policies at the 2008 voting booths, that they would be the ones on the forefront of taming or at least caging The Beast by obstructing and/or cutting funding for every single thing GWB desires. If the GOP took the leadership role in this regard, Democrats would need to follow or it would be them who'd end up "owning" GWB's policies. The Democrats could not risk that label. I guess the big question is do the GOP have anything realistically speaking to fear in 2008, due to the inherent advantages of incumbentcy?
#2. To: Brian S, tommythemadartist, red jones, robin, diana (#0)
And since they understand, but lack the courage to use their power to force Bush to wind down this war, the American blood about to be spilled for nothing will be on their hands, too.
#3. To: Brian S, All those fed up (#0)
No way. The exact opposite is happening. Not only is Bush not starting to get the troops out, he's not content to stand pat with the troops he's got there now. No, he's sending over more.
#4. To: Jethro Tull (#3)
#5. To: christine (#4)
these troops have got to refuse.
#6. To: christine (#4)
#7. To: ... (#5)
#8. To: noone222 (#6)
#9. To: Brian S (#0)
Bush is getting away with it
#10. To: Jethro Tull (#3)
All: Do we agree that Bush is insane and we aren't representated politicaly?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest