Good Friday morning Fellow Seekers,
In his address to the nation on Thursday evening, President Bush attempted to do something that even his own lawyers will not assert is within his power: To impose an indefinite commitment to his Iraq policy on his successor.
“Iraqi leaders from all communities… understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship…”
Translation please?
I’ve already demonstrated that my constitutional powers are sufficient to keep U.S. troops fighting in Iraq long after most Americans have lost confidence in the benefits of such a policy.
From where we are, politically and constitutionally, it’s hard to see how the number of U.S. troops will get much below the pre-surge level of 130,000 before the next president is sworn in in Jan. 2008. I’m no longer making any serious effort to kid you about that.
And in the same spirit of candor, I now acknowledge that the plan is for us to stay in Iraq forever, just like those crazy lefties have been claiming for years.
President Bush also said:
“In all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy.”
Translation please?
Yes, I know what my approval ratings are and which party has the majority in both houses, but I still have my veto pen and Democrats still don’t have two-thirds to override.
President Bush also said:
“The [Iraqi] government has not met its own legislative benchmarks — and in my meetings with Iraqi leaders, I have made it clear that they must.”
Translation please?
But, since I’ve clearly indicated publicly on every occasion that no matter how many times they fail to pass the laws I keep urging them to pass or fail to supply the quantity and quality of Iraqi troops I keep asking them to supply, America has no option to leave them to their fate, when I say they must meet the benchmarks, I mean I hope they will meet the benchmarks.
President Bush also said:
“The key now is to link this progress in the provinces to progress in Baghdad. As local politics change, so will national politics.”
Followup question please?
Because why?
President Bush also said:
“It will soon be possible to bring home an Army combat brigade, for a total force reduction of 5,700 troops by Christmas.”
Translation please?
Republican Senators, like John Warner and Norm Coleman seem to be threatening to bolt if we don’t make a small token withdrawal, and if I start losing guys like that, even my veto pen might not save me.
President Bush also said:
“A free Iraq will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran.”
Rude follow-up question please?
And what if a free and Democratic Iraq, with a Shia majority led by men who spent most of their recent years as guests of Iran decide that they would rather have an alliance with Iran than with us?
Answer: well then you’ll really be glad we still have troops and bases there, won’t you?
President Bush also said:
“Those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should begin bringing our troops home, have been at odds. Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home. The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together.”
Translation please?
(I’m having trouble translating this one. Can you help?)
Translation: People on both sides of the debate can come together and agree that I’m the decider, that I’m going to keep 130,000+ of YOUR sons and daughters in harm’s way, and that they can’t do a damn thing about it until January 20, 2009, 12:01 pm.EST, at the earliest.
Oh, and BTW, anyone who does not agree is a Defeat-O-Crat and is undermining the Troops.
Bush has made himself irelevant. It’s not worth trying to decode what he says, and it’s not even worth watching his little telly events.
History has already passed him by.
The problem with Bush is that he overreached. He would have been really good in a plaid sport coat on one of Red McComb’s Chevy lots down there in San Antonio. He could’ve sold Corvairs to blue haired women who only drive to church on Sunday. When the car fell apart he would sell them an extended warranty to make them feel safe again. They would love him!
Extended warranty — brilliant! And isn’t that what the Toxic Texan is offering Congress every time he goes back for more money? Absolutely. Pony up the money because if you don’t, something just might go wrong and you don’t want to risk that, now do you?! By saying “yes,” Congress gets the salesman off their collective backs for a period of time so they can dither about their re-election prospects in 2008.
Been pushing this idea. The American people need to draft benchmarks for Congress. Specific goals to be met and dates certain for meeting them. The carrot? Americans will vote in 2008 for Congressional reps who have demonstrated that they have spines, fully understand the Constitution, and are fully accountable to the people. Failure means being parked in the used Congress rep lot. Oh, yeah, baby, we mean it!
Bush is saying that both sides can now agree that the U.S. needs huge, permanent military bases in Iraq. The liberals will go along “to prevent further genocide.” The right wing, which has already caused 600,000 deaths in Iraq, wants bases to destabilize and potentially invade Iran. American can not leave Iraq because of Al Qaeda, just as America could not leave Viet Nam because of dominoes. This is my theory for now, as one of those crazy lefties who have claimed for years that the plan was to be in Iraq forever. I have just started Peter Dale Scott’s new book, which may lead me even further left.
Saying that we need to stay in Iraq for the good of the Iraqi people makes the bizarre assumption that our presence there is somehow helpful. If the Lancet estimate of last year was at all correct, we are well on our way to a million dead Iraqis since we showed up (not counting deaths not caused by the invasion). This, out of a population of 25 million, give or take a few–I hear that censuses are particularly hard to take these days. The horror that we have caused to rain down upon this nation is an atrocity for which all of us who have paid taxes lately (anyone?) are at least on some level accountable.
The Iraqi leaders who are a requesting an enduring security relationship with the United States are without a doubt those who are slated to get a cut of the oil profits if and when Iraqis vote to give drilling rights to the private oil companies. So far they have managed to hold out, but the U.S. has been putting tremendous pressure on the Maliki government to pass the Iraq Oil Bill and have tried to make it one of the benchmarks of progress. It’s hard to say what the final outcome will be.
It’s a bit hard to stay the course when the course keeps changing. Remember Lt. Gen. Lute, the Iraq czar? He was the guy who, when appointed, was going to get it all together and solve our problems. In an interview he mentioned the possibility of considering a draft, and now he’s harder to find than Jimmy Hoffa. Then there was the surge, the rationale of which was to provide security in Baghdad so the Iraqi parliament would have “breathing space” to solve their urgent problems. The surge started, the parliament went on vacation. Now there’s the praise of what happened in Anbar where we armed sunni tribesmen to help them kill AQI without considering that arming the other half of a civil war is not going contribute to peace and security. No one seems to notice that the strategic theory of the surge supports a strong central government while the strategy behind supporting the Anbar sunnis suggests partition at best and most likely an even bloodier civil war.
Bush’s real strategy is to stall by offering hopes that something will happen in the next six months and offering some other hope when the six months runs out so he can run out the clock and dump the problem off on the next president who will get to oversee the inevitable disaster. It is a case of pinning the tail on the Democratic donkey.