Joseph Sarandos
Head Administrator
Global user
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
G.W. Bush: A President AFRAID OF Responsibility for Iraq War
CBS News.com
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/26/opinion/main2730556.shtml
A President Afraid Of Responsibility
April 26, 2007
by Robert Scheer.
Blame it on the military but make it look like you're supporting the troops. That's been the convenient gambit of failed emperors throughout history as they witnessed their empires decline. Not surprisingly then, it's become the standard rhetorical trick employed by President Bush in shirking responsibility for the Iraq debacle of his making.
Ignoring the fact that we have a system of civilian control over the military, which is why he, the elected President, is designated the commander in chief, Bush hides behind the fiction that the officers in the field are calling the shots when in fact he has put them in an unwinnable situation and refuses to even consider a timetable for getting them out.
He did it again Monday, responding to the prospect that both houses of Congress seem in agreement on setting guidelines for the "progress" that the President continually proclaims is at hand. "I will strongly reject an artificial timetable [for] withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job." This is disingenuous in the extreme, because Bush is the Washington politician who plotted this unnecessary war from the moment the 9/11 attack provided him with an excuse for regime change in a country that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack.
It was Bush who sent the troops to invade Iraq with the mission of ridding it of weapons of mass destruction, which he should have known Iraq did not have, and to end ties with al Qaeda that, the record shows, he knew never existed. And it was the Bush Administration that micromanaged every aspect of the occupation to disastrous consequences, ranging from the de-Baathification that isolated the Sunnis to premature elections that put Shiite theocrats in power. The economic reconstruction of Iraq has been a failure for everyone except the U.S. corporations that have ripped off U.S. taxpayers to the tune of many billions of dollars. It is only now, when all of those policies for the economic and political reconstruction of Iraq have come a cropper, that a military surge has been ordered to provide a social order for Iraq that this President's policies have destroyed.
This President has been denied nothing by Congress in the way of financial underwriting for this boondoggle, yet he seeks to cast even the mildest attempt to hold him accountable for the results as unpatriotic. That is all that the Democratic Congressional leadership has proposed with its timetable — marks to measure progress on the ground in a war that, as Hawaii Sen. Daniel Inouye pointed out, has lasted longer than World War II. It is a very limited, nonbinding attempt to hold the President accountable, for it does not ban him from using any portion of the whopping $124 billion in new funds; it requires only that he publicly and specifically defend his claims of progress.
It's a claim of progress that, until now, has not been met with any Congressional review, even though it is the obligation of Congress to judge the effectiveness of programs paid for with the funds that Congress alone can appropriate. If the proposed timetable were in place, then it would be more difficult for the President to claim success for his surge, as he did Friday, insisting that "So far, the operation is meeting expectations" and then confusing his audience by conceding that recently "We have seen some of the highest casualty levels of the war."
It's gobbledygook, and the Democratic leaders of Congress have finally decided to call the President on it. "The longer we continue down the President's path, the further we will be from responsibly ending this war," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Not content any longer to take Bush at his word, the leaders in both the House and Senate finally posted some specific benchmarks of progress, accompanied by a nonbinding suggestion of an end to U.S. troop involvement in this quagmire within a year's time if genuine progress is not made. Even that minimum restraint on the President's ambition was accompanied with the caveat that sufficient troops would remain in Iraq to protect U.S. installations, train the Iraqi army and fight terrorists.
The proposal was the softest the Democrats could offer without totally repudiating the will of the voters who brought them to power in the last election. If the President vetoes this authorization bill, then the onus is on him for delaying funding for the troops and showing contempt for the judgment of the voters, who will have another chance in less than two years to hold the President's party responsible. But that will not restore life to the eighty-five U.S. soldiers killed so far in April alone, or prevent even greater sacrifices to Bush's folly.
Reprinted with permission from the The Nation.
----------------------------------------------------
|
|
4/26/2007, 10:00 am
|
Send Email to Joseph Sarandos
Send PM to Joseph Sarandos
|
insider3
Senior Member
Global user
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: G.W. Bush: A President AFRAID OF Responsibility for Iraq War
Robert Scheer and 'The Nation" are new to me, but since CBS News saw fit to republish this article, I take it as coming from a mainstream news source.
Mister Scheer had pulled no punches in his concise recap and analysis of the apparent "feud" between President Bush and the Congress over the war funding, and I found nothing to question or disagree with in his article.
Bush IS speaking out of both sides of his mouth, knowing full well that HE WAS AND IS directly responsible for starting and perpetuating the war against Iraq.
This game of "Chicken" that he's playing against the Congress IS delaying or withholding approval of the $124 billion that HE claims are "direly needed and wanted by THE TROOPS".
This could well be his only workable "exit strategy" from the quagmire, leaving him able to SAY that he was "forced into" withdrawing the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan even though we were "winning" under his leadership. As has been proved at this point, he surely DOESN'T CARE whether or not the majority of Americans believe him.
Bob
|
|
4/26/2007, 1:13 pm
|
Send Email to insider3
Send PM to insider3
|
Joseph Sarandos
Head Administrator
Global user
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: G.W. Bush: A President AFRAID OF Responsibility for Iraq War
quote:
insider3 wrote:
Robert Scheer and 'The Nation" are new to me, but since CBS News saw fit to republish this article, I take it as coming from a mainstream news source.
Mister Scheer had pulled no punches in his concise recap and analysis of the apparent "feud" between President Bush and the Congress over the war funding, and I found nothing to question or disagree with in his article.
Bush IS speaking out of both sides of his mouth, knowing full well that HE WAS AND IS directly responsible for starting and perpetuating the war against Iraq.
This game of "Chicken" that he's playing against the Congress IS delaying or withholding approval of the $124 billion that HE claims are "direly needed and wanted by THE TROOPS".
This could well be his only workable "exit strategy" from the quagmire, leaving him able to SAY that he was "forced into" withdrawing the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan even though we were "winning" under his leadership. As has been proved at this point, he surely DOESN'T CARE whether or not the majority of Americans believe him.
Bob
Bob,
Referring to your final paragraph, I have approximately the same theory, except that I don't think that such a strategy -- more correctly a tactic -- was cooked-up by Bush himself or by what's left of his Republican political following.
Keeping in mind that there are now more Jewish-Americans in the Congress than ever before, that they wield more clout than ever before, that the bulk of them are Democrats, and that it's the Democrats who are now pushing the idea of "abandoning" Iraq to the Iraqis, we have to look toward the fact that Iraq has already been neutralized as a threat to Israel.
So, from the Zionists' point-of-view, it is now a waste of American troops and money to keep up the fight in Iraq, especially since it is "hamstringing" the ability of our troops to wage war against the others of Israel's enemies in the M-E; i.e.; Iran, Syria, Lebanon, etc..
Of course Bush would prefer to "stay the course" in Iraq until such time as he could declare a victory "on his watch," or until he could blame his Democrat successor for the ultimate loss of it, or until he dies of natural causes. But, being able to say that he would have been victorious if not that "the Democrats had cut off his funding" might assuage his personal hubris.
Joseph
|
|
4/29/2007, 10:22 am
|
Send Email to Joseph Sarandos
Send PM to Joseph Sarandos
|
Incog4
Senior Member
Global user
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: G.W. Bush: A President AFRAID OF Responsibility for Iraq War
Speaking of "what's left of his Republican political following," please refer to my just-posted topic in this section, that I titled "Republicans are MASS-ABANDONING Bush and his War policies".
Don't forget to treat your ladies extra-nice today, Mother's Day, gentlemen.
Aaron
|
|
5/13/2007, 4:23 pm
|
Send Email to Incog4
Send PM to Incog4
|
Add a reply
Powered by AkBBS 0.9.5b - Link to us
- Blogs
- Hall of Honour
- Chat
Click here to get your own free message board
|
You are not logged in (login)
Board's time is: 11/25/2009, 8:49 am
|
|
|
