You are herecontent / No Way Out for Bush and Co.

No Way Out for Bush and Co.


By Eugene Robinson, Washington Post

As visual metaphors go, it was a lavishly gilded lily of an image, a hanging curveball across the plate, a George Tenet-style slam-dunk: A weary President Bush, trying to escape a news conference in Beijing on Sunday, strides away from the microphone to a pair of locked doors, which he pulls and tugs in vain. No exit , the image screamed. No way out. Of course, George Bush will inevitably get out of the mess he has made -- he leaves office in three years and two months, not that anyone's counting. But the rest of us will be left with his handiwork: crushing national debt, rising economic inequality, a poisoned political atmosphere and, oh, yes, the war in Iraq. We're the ones trapped in the dark with no exit sign in sight.

As the debate over the war grows in passion and bitterness, the administration can't seem to settle on the right way to answer its critics. Last week the party line was that attacking the war was somehow beyond the pale. The president quickly endorsed Vice President Cheney's snarling sound bite -- that it was "dishonest and reprehensible" to suggest that anyone cooked the prewar intelligence on Iraq. And when Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops, the White House response was to link the 73-year-old decorated Vietnam veteran with filmmaker Michael Moore and the "extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party."

House Republicans dutifully followed the script and went on the attack, but before the weekend was over the White House had changed tack. Now the line is that criticism is to be expected in a democracy, even criticism of the war. The president is all but sprinkling Murtha with rose petals.

Even Cheney, the hawks' hawk, managed to turn conciliatory. Sort of. In a speech yesterday, he swallowed his castor oil: "I do not believe it is wrong to criticize the war on terror or any aspect thereof," he said, going on to describe Murtha as "a good man, a Marine, a patriot." He then repeated his "dishonest and reprehensible" line to describe those who would impugn the administration's honesty, and went on to give the same muddled rationale for U.S. Iraq policy that we've heard in the past. The fact is that the White House is losing the public debate over Iraq -- and it's not hard to understand why.

Cheney's umbrage aside, there are legitimate questions about whether the nation was snowed into a costly war. Even if you give the administration the benefit of the doubt and assume that the prewar intelligence failures stemmed from incompetence, not dishonesty, there's still no defense for the mistakes that were made in the conduct of the war. And the abuses that have been committed in the name of the United States -- arbitrary and indefinite detention, wholesale flouting of the Geneva Conventions, a string of secret prisons, interrogation by torture, Abu Ghraib -- should result in more people being sent to jail than a couple of ill-trained enlisted reservists.

The administration is losing the public debate because of its many missteps and failures, but also because of its insistence on conflating the war in Iraq with the larger "war on terror." Does anyone understand what "war on terror" means? The country was attacked by a murderous association of Islamic fundamentalists led by Osama bin Laden. Last we heard, he was still alive and well, probably in some cave in northwestern Pakistan. That's a long way from Iraq.

The president says that Iraq is a test of our nation's resolve, that anything less than victory will confirm the enemy's view that America lacks the stomach for a fight. But "stay the course" doesn't play as a strategy when the course seems to lead nowhere. What is victory in Iraq? When will we know we've won? When the simmering, low-level civil war we've ignited sparks into full flame and somebody takes over the country? When a new government in Baghdad declares its eternal brotherhood and friendship with Tehran?

The mess that George Bush and Co. have created in Iraq doesn't have an unmessy solution. Murtha's plan -- just get out -- isn't really attractive, but at least it's a plan. The saying goes that when you're in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging. But the president, like the optimistic kid in the old joke, just keeps burrowing deeper into the pile of manure, even though by now we can be pretty sure that there's no pony down there.

eugenerobinson@washpost.com

Tags

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

US President George Bush planned to bomb pan-Arab television broadcaster Aljazeera, British newspaper the Daily Mirror has reported, citing a Downing Street memo marked top secret.

http://www.mwcnews.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2413&It...

The point is. A moron like Bush has no right, even criticizing Al-Jazeera. While supporting hideous propaganda machine like Fox, net work (read Republican Broadcasting Corporation)

This is just another example of Americans arrogant, : "We bomb it, because we don't like what they say about us." Then you should bomb entire world and some cities in US even because no one say anything good about your idiotic attitude

"The president says that Iraq is a test of our nation's resolve, that anything less than victory will confirm the enemy's view that America lacks the stomach for a fight. But "stay the course" doesn't play as a strategy when the course seems to lead nowhere."

The "resolve" being tested is our willingness as a people to be misled into destruction because we don't want to doubt the media and the Pentagon-policians.

Why is this "resolve" necessary, after all? Why can't we redeploy right after the elections?

Because "resolve" can mean a lot of things. Here's one definition, from today's Independent:

The Iraqi government has announced plans to seek foreign investment to exploit its oil reserves after the general election, which will be held next month. Iraq has 115 billion barrels of proved oil reserves, the third largest in the world.

According to the report, from groups including War on Want and the New Economics Foundation (NEF), the new Iraqi constitution opened the way for greater foreign investment. Negotiations with oil companies are already under way ahead of next month's election and before legislation is passed, it said.

The groups said they had amassed details of high-level pressure from the US and UK governments on Iraq to look to foreign companies to rebuild its oil industry. It said a Foreign Office code of practice issued in summer last year said at least $4bn would be needed to restore production to the levels before the 1990-91 Gulf War.

But it's not 2000 anymore. It's not even October 2001. Changes are afoot. The people aren't going to take this lying down. Fortunately for us, the longer Bushco tries to exploit this situation for their own profit, according to their original plan, the worse the popular backlash is going to be. And if there's an economic collapse as it looks like there inevitably will be? The popular BACKLASH is going to be pretty bad.

Before long, Congress may be debating a bill as to whether or not it violates the Geneva Conventions to torture members of the Bush Administration.

LIAR COL JAMES BROWN

Last night it was REPORTED on MSNBC by Keith Obermann that this COMMANDER JAMES BROWN, returned the next day to the USA - Texas from IRAQ after his statement to the us press see below:

"Here on the ground, our job is not done," Col. James Brown, commander of the 56th Brigade Combat Team, told reporters at the Pentagon

COL JAMES BROWN you are the description of MILITARY SCUM and MILITARY INCOMPETENCE! Did you BUY your way out of IRAQ?

To John Vines:....you NEED to Educate your MIND

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/2004/Vol30_2/10.htm
NOTE LAST PARAGRAPH under "Incompetence Today"

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The bitter battle in Washington over whether to quickly withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq is disturbing, but has not damaged U.S. military morale, a senior American Army general in Baghdad said on Tuesday.

"A precipitous pullout, I believe, would be destabilizing," Lt. Gen. John Vines, the second-ranking U.S. commander there, told Pentagon reporters in a teleconference from Iraq. He refused to set any timetable.

"Of course the debate and the bitterness is disturbing. But, after all, we are a democracy and that is what democracy is about ... people will have differences of opinion," Vines said.

"Certainly, soldiers are concerned about whether or not they enjoy the support of not only their elected representatives but the people. And they know that they have their support," Vines replied when pressed about morale among the 155,000 American in Iraq troops.

Vines, who commands the multinational corps of U.S.-led foreign troops in Iraq, declined to be drawn into the debate over a proposal by Democratic Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania that all of the troops be withdrawn within six months.

That call, issued last week by the decorated retired Marine and longtime supporter of the military, sparked a vitriolic war of words in Congress, with some Republicans questioning Murtha's patriotism, at a time when President George W. Bush has suffered declining popularity over the war in Iraq.

SECURITY SITUATION, NOT POLITICS

Vines said that, despite potential pressure from home, any recommendation from U.S. commanders in Iraq to begin withdrawing forces would be made based on the security situation and not on political considerations.

"I'm not going to get into a timetable. It will be driven by conditions on the ground," he said.

How will Americans know, Vines was asked, that any recommendation to depart is based on military judgment rather than political questions over whether Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 and his subsequent handling of the war?

"I know that our recommendations will be based on conditions here in-country. They will not be based on the things that you allude to. So I'll leave someone else the responsibility to explain that one to you," Vines said.

Chief Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said on Tuesday U.S. military commanders in Iraq are mindful that the very presence of American forces may fuel insurgent violence in parts of that country, adding that this concern factored into decisions about future U.S. force levels.

"The tension that the commanders feel between heavy presence and lower footprint is something they're measuring all the time," Di Rita said.

Di Rita also said that the intensifying debate at home about the future of U.S. troops in Iraq will not play a role in the decisions currently being made about future force levels.

"There are a lot of factors that will go into determining force levels in Iraq that have to do with conditions in Iraq, not conditions in Washington, D.C.," he said.

Army Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has said that how things go during the period from the last month's constitutional referendum through the December 15 elections for a new Iraqi government would help determine whether the United States can make the "fairly substantial" reduction in troops he previously forecast for spring and summer.

Pentagon officials have said that meant a potential reduction of perhaps 20,000 to 30,000 troops. Casey has said any reduction was contingent on progress in the Iraqi political process and developing Iraqi security forces.

This cabal that took over our government and is destroying the nation has to be prosecuted to the FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW. This means, that Congress and the Senate have to introduce ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, then the Senate has to hold hearings about the 'vice' president (dick who screwed all of us) and make sure that once the president non-elect (appointed) gets impeached, that the cabal is out of there once and for all. Next, every single member of Congress needs to be investigated if they had any ties to this mis-administration in any way that allowed it to gain illicit and illegal power to take this nation to war. The president and VICE president need to be charged with WAR CRIMES, and they need to be tried in an International Criminal Court, extradited, and sent to serve hard time at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. They should undergo the same levels of TORTURE that their crooked, illegal regime warranted for others who had not been tried in any court and were fully covered under the Geneva Convention and human decency norms which the U.S. apparently believes it doesn't have to abide by under this DICTATOR.

We need to pass strict new laws that PROHIBIT PRE-EMPTIVE ELECTIVE WARS BY DICTATORS IN OUR GOVERNMENT, be they appointed, wrongly elected via blatant voting fraud, or both.

We need to IMPRISON EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM FOR LIFE SENTENCES x the number of dead (more than 100,000 Iraqi's and more than 2100 dead american G.I.'s, meaning NO PAROLE EVER POSSIBLE in this millenium.

America needs to clean up it's government or it will not survive.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Store:



















Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.