First, during the speech, Bush actually defined what he means by success in Iraq. I list his criteria here, for future reference. According to President Bush, success in Iraq would be measured by these benchmarks of success:
- A government that functions, meaning:
- It provides security for its people
- It takes steps to share the oil wealth
- It deals with the de-Baathification law
- It encourages local elections
- It provides security for its people
- A Baghdad that is less violent
- Reconstruction projects in place that employ Iraqis
- Iraqi troops chasing down killers
- al-Qaeda prevented from getting a foothold in Iraq
Next I will quote, out of order, the lengthy list of lies that Bush told during the interview:
(origin of violence in Iraq)
...some of these bombings are done by al-Qaeda and their affiliates.
This statement is, on the face of it, true. It implies, however, something that is not. Once again al-Qaeda is mentioned in conjunction with Iraq, in an obvious, tired, and repetitive way, as a continued attempt to link two unrelated issues in the minds of the American people.
(consequences of failure of the Iraq war)
This is a war; part of a broader war, and that if we fail in Iraq, there is a better likelihood that the enemy comes and hurts us here.
...it would just really create a very dangerous situation for the American people in the longer run.
...if we fail in Iraq, it is likely there will be safe haven from which people will be able to launch attacks from America.
Three separate times during the interview, Bush claims that failure in Iraq specifically endangers America. This is more neo-con fear peddling, it is just not true. Failure in Iraq, which has already occurred, will have enormous short-term consequences for the Iraqis, and longer term consequences for the region. The idea that America would allow al-Qaeda safe-havens anywhere in the world, whether we are actively engaged in war or not, is just silly. The fact is, Bush created the situation that is drawing al-Qaeda to Iraq. They are there because we are there, and if we left, they would have no reason to stay.
It is likely there would be enormous clashes between radical Shia and radical Sunnis.
He implies that there are not already clashes in Iraq between these groups.
It is likely that moderate governments could be toppled, in which case, people could get a hold of oil resources.
Which moderate governments? The Saudis? The Kuwaitis? The Iranians? Who is he talking about? There is some truth here, clearly he is concerned about losing a controlling interest in world oil supplies.
(the Iraqi goverment)
...some of my decisions actually have worked, like getting rid of Saddam Hussein and helping the Iraqi government form a unity government that is based on a novel constitution for the Middle East.
There is no unity government in Iraq, it's a sectarian government.
(taking responsibility - without taking responsibility)
Bush: Part of the failure for our reaction was ourselves. I mean, we should have found troops and moved them. But part of it was that the Iraqis didn't move troops. And I take responsibility for us not moving our own troops into Baghdad -
Lehrer: Why didn't we move the troops, Mr. President?
Bush: Well, because I think the commanders there felt like it was important to make sure the Iraqis did first, or that the Iraqis made a focused, concerted effort. And they just didn't. There were supposedly six brigades committed and they sent two.
Throughout these responses, he appears to take responsibility without actually admitting mistakes of his own. He claims responsibility for not moving troops, then blames the Iraqis and his own commanders. I said in a previous blog, and I say it again: He seems to want be attempting to nobly take responsibility for the errors of others, without admitting his own mistakes. He seems to be pathologically incapable of saying that he was wrong. When directly asked by Lehrer if he felt a personal sense of failure in regards to the Iraq war, he distinctly shakes his head no.
(about General Casey)
he is also the general who felt like we needed more troops, and he's also the general that believes this is the best chance of working.
Casey has strongly recommended against more troops. Repeatedly. He reiterated those recommendations as recently as December 21st.
(about his options in Iraq)
Look, I had a choice to make, Jim, and that is - one - do what we're doing. And one could define that maybe a slow failure. Secondly, withdraw out of Baghdad and hope for the best. I would think that would be expedited failure. And thirdly is to help this Iraqi government with additional forces - help them do what they need to do, which is to provide security in Baghdad.
(then later)
One idea was just keep doing what you're doing; another idea was to pull out of Baghdad...the final option is secure the capital and at the same time chase al-Qaida into Anbar.
Bush presents these options as the only options. That is categorically false. He completely leaves unmentioned diplomatic solutions or involving neighboring countries in security solutions, or other options.
The question I'm now faced with is do I react to that (2006 being a lousy year) or do we just begin to leave, which is - some people - decent people on Capitol Hill think we ought to do. I made the decision, let's succeed; let's work for success not work for failure.
Forget what decent people on Capitol Hill think. What about what the American people think? How is looking at solutions other than military ones working for failure? He repeatedly hammers this point throughout the interview, without allowing for non-military considerations. Even the analysts of the interview seem to miss this point, granting him the basic framework of his argument, and picking it apart within that framework. The lie here comes from Bush framing this question, and its answers, in a way that leaves his solution as the apparent obvious and correct conclusion.
I've listened to the commanders.
Which ones have you listened to, Mr. President? Your actions seem to be directly contrary to the advice of your commanders.
All timetables do is embolden the enemy.
Whether timetables embolden the enemy or not, timetables would force the Iraqis to take more responsibility for their own security, or at least acknowledge that Americans were no longer going to.
I listened to a lot of folks, a lot of good, decent folks, and came up with this answer as the best way to succeed.
Which folks did you listen to, Mr. President? Who advised you that this was the best way to succeed? Dick Cheney? Condi Rice? Don Rumsfeld? Paul Wolfowitz? Or perhaps it was Lee Raymond, Heroen van der Veer and Lord Browne?
In this interview, Bush envisions the world if America does not "succeed in Iraq", as 20 years from now being a "cauldron of radicalism and extremism." He sees radical Shia & Sunni competing for power, with oil falling in the hands of radicals, which could then be used to blackmail Western Governments. He predicts the use of nucyular weapons of mass destruction. The truth is, Bush envisions the power of oil corporations extending into the indefinite future, an unlimited supply of treasure buried beneath the sands of the Middle East.
This next lie is a complex one, and it has been missed by those analyses that I have seen. Bush was criticized strongly by many about his initial response to Lehrer's question:
Why have you not, as president of the United States, asked more Americans and more American interests to sacrifice something?
As has been remarked on many times in other forums, he came back with a nonsensical comment about Americans sacrificing by watching the war on TV. This statement is only another Bushism, that once again puts his bumbling folksiness under the microscope. What bothers me more is the rest of his answer.
He goes on to say that he feels he should not raise taxes, that people should feel like their life's moving on, and puts an image in our minds of regular folks working hard to feed their kids and send them to college. This leads to his most disturbing point: this is like saying why don't you make sacrifices in the Cold War? I mean, Iraq is only a part of a larger ideological struggle. But it's a totally different kind of war, than ones we're used to.
This is his most important point. This is the big lie that the Bush administration has hoped from the beginning to get us to buy into. It's the same old neo-con fear baiting. Like the cliche of the snake-oil salesman, he just slips it in casually, again and again. It's taken for granted that we fight an ongoing war, decades in length. An "ideological struggle", that we must be prepared to fight for years. We are expected to slip on the familiar, comfortable Cold War shoes, falling into the habit of fear that some of us lived with from the time we were children doing duck and cover drills under our desks at school. If we just hang tough, and rely on good old American values, they and God will carry us through.
This Straussian bullshit has got to be exposed. The same old story about an implacable enemy dedicated to conquering our Christian values and our American ideals and our Democratic principles, an enemy dedicated to non-Christian and anti-Democratic evil that hates America. The Athiestic Communist Threat must be stopped! Umm.. Er.. The Fanatical Muslim Terrorist Threat must be stopped! I think and hope that finally people are waking up this, and maybe the neocons can be thrown out for good.
The neocons have a lot of the money, and the corporations of America back them. It's going to take a lot of work, and we have to do it one piece at a time. Today we work to stop the escalation of the war, and bring our troops home. Tomorrow we demand investigations and make the case for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. Then we take on Big Oil, Big Media, and the Carlyle Group.
President Bush truly cares about all Americans
Peace
No comments:
Post a Comment