George W Bush’s War

 

President Bush in a familiar pose

Bob Woodward is wrong. Colin Powell is wrong. The National Intelligence Estimate is wrong. Brent Scowcroft is wrong. The retired generals are wrong. Richard Clarke is wrong. The International Atomic Energy Agency is wrong. The United Nations is wrong. Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and all the Democrats are wrong. Your common sense and all the news you read are wrong.

George W Bush and his dog Barney are right. The last time a man listened to his dog, people got killed. This time is no different.

Bob Woodward’s new book is all over the news these days. CBS just gave him the royal treatment and the Washington Post drooled on its front page. However, judging from Woodward’s 60 Minutes interview and the excerpts that he so graciously shared with us, there is nothing new in it other than the gossip.

The main theme of the book seems to be this: Iraq is going badly and the Bush Administration is pretending otherwise. This is perhaps news only to the ostriches who still hold out hope of finding WMD in Iraq or finding Saddam’s DNA on the 9/11 attack plans. The rest of us have been reading the news, and the news from Iraq speaks of more than 3000 deaths a month in what has been a raging civil war since last spring.

There is also another more slightly less obvious theme to Woodward’s book. That is: George W Bush has been let down by the people who served him, most notably, Donald Rumsfeld. In Woodward’s excerpts, Andy Card does his best to protect his boss:

Card put it on the generals in the Pentagon and Iraq. If they had come forward and said to the president, "It’s not worth it," or, "The mission can’t be accomplished," Card was certain, the president would have said "I’m not going to ask another kid to sacrifice for it."

Card was enough of a realist to see that there were two negative aspects to Bush’s public persona that had come to define his presidency: incompetence and arrogance. Card did not believe that Bush was incompetent, and so he had to face the possibility that, as Bush’s chief of staff, he might have been the incompetent one. In addition, he did not think the president was arrogant.

But the marketing of Bush had come across as arrogant. Maybe it was unfair in Card’s opinion, but there it was.

He was leaving. And the man he considered most responsible for the postwar troubles, the one who should have gone, Rumsfeld, was staying.

So, you see. Mr. Bush was let down. If only Rummy and the generals had told him the facts, he would have steered clear of Iraq.

I would like to step back from the Rummy bashing for a minute and review the facts. In 2000, the American public sort of elected George Walker Bush as the 43rd President of the United States. In 2004, the very same American public, after seeing Bush in action in Afghanistan and Iraq, decided to return George Walker Bush to the White House. The events of 2000 and 2004 lay to rest any doubt that the President of the United States and the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces is George W Bush. Not Donald Rumsfeld, not Dick Cheney, not John Abizaid – but, George W Bush.

George W Bush alone is responsible for the carnage in Iraq and the fiasco in Afghanistan. Mr. Bush has made his policy on Iraq quite clear to the American people and the world:

The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society. That’s the strategy. The tactics — now, either you say, yes, its important we stay there and get it done, or we leave. We’re not leaving, so long as I’m the President. That would be a huge mistake. It would send an unbelievably terrible signal to reformers across the region. It would say we’ve abandoned our desire to change the conditions that create terror. It would give the terrorists a safe haven from which to launch attacks. It would embolden Iran. It would embolden extremists.

No, we’re not leaving. The strategic objective is to help this government succeed. That’s the strategic — and not only to help the government — the reformers in Iraq succeed, but to help the reformers across the region succeed to fight off the elements of extremism. The tactics are which change. Now, if you say, are you going to change your strategic objective, it means you’re leaving before the mission is complete. And we’re not going to leave before the mission is complete. I agree with General Abizaid: We leave before the mission is done, the terrorists will follow us here. [Emphasis added by me.]

Mr. Bush intends to stay because he does not want to send a "signal" to the "reformers" and the terrorists. But, just what kind of signal is he sending by staying? What does it say about the power of the United States that as an occupying power in Iraq it cannot contain unchecked violence that is claiming thousands of lives each month? What does it say about the power of the United States that five years after 9/11 Osama bin Laden is still at large and the Taliban are back in business in Afghanistan? What does it say about the power of the United States that Mr. Bush’s favorite general is surrendering to al Qaeda and the Taliban?

The signal Mr. Bush’s warmongering in Iraq and his neglect of Afghanistan is sending to the world is that the United States is weak and the American military can be stalemated with rudimentary battle tactics. That is a far more dangerous legacy than the withdrawal from Somalia in 1993.

Mr. Bush nonetheless has decided to stay in Iraq because to him perception is more important than reality. It is more important to Mr. Bush to be perceived as steadfast than to actually succeed in Iraq. American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are paying with their lives to maintain what Mr. Bush perceives as manhood. However, what Mr. Bush perceives as "staying the course" is really foolishness. Mr. Bush claims that he will not leave Iraq even if his only two supporters are his wife and his dog. Well, that is just stupid – if not dictatorial. I doubt that the next President will continue to stay in Iraq without any public support. Mr. Bush then has effectively set the deadline for an American pullout from Iraq to 2008. So, has Mr. Bush really served the interests of the United States by "staying the course" only to be reversed by his successor? By staying in Iraq, Mr. Bush is putting his ego above the national interest of the United States – that is simply disgraceful.

Iraq is George W Bush’s war. Donald Rumsfeld may end up taking the fall for Mr. Bush’s folly in the near term, but there is no mistaking who it was that sent our men and women into battle on March 19, 2003. With the following words spoken from the Oval Office, it was Mr. Bush who spilled American and Iraqi blood:

My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein’s ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign.

We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly — yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.

Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory. [Emphasis added by me.]

We are where we are because of Mr. Bush’s "order".We are living today in the chaos of Mr. Bush’s war.

 

This entry was posted in Foreign Policy, Iraq, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to George W Bush’s War

  1. A silly-jism fer ya:

    1) GW’s war
    2) GW is America, therefore
    3) America’s War\:d/

    It is jez like General Toby Kieth sez, “Islamofacists are trying to take over the world and we are the only Country with Halliburton”:-?

  2. Robbie says:

    And Donald Rumsfeld still won’t resign. :-w

  3. Ingrid says:

    The neo conservative language is steeped with emotional and faithbased language. Reality based objectives have never been pursued, other than the quest for control of resources. Perception is important to W since he’s the big boy in the bubble and no one is telling him otherwise. He won’t even listen to all the Methodist bishops who sent him a courtesy letter saying (basically), this is not what our faith is about, make an about turn and ye be saved (or else)..
    Ingrid

  4. Zafa says:

    So the Methodist Bishops are NOT in accord with the evangelical ones?
    The evangelical churches had been ready to canonize him…
    o:-)

  5. Ingrid says:

    Zafa, check out the national religious campaign against torture, It shows you which denominations joined up plus which our supposed leaders belong to..http://www.nrcat.org/
    Ingrid

  6. John Kactuz says:

    This is not GW Bush’s war. This is Islam’s war. In case you have a case of memory loss, Muslims were killing, plotting and doing terror before GWB was elected. Remember WTC round 1 in 1994?

    Also, it is certain that in 2 and a half years GWB will be gone, Western troops will leave Iraque and other countries, and there will still be Islamic terror.

    Of course, it will then all be the fault of A, B, or C (Insert name of person or favorite excuse). It is never Islam’s dfault, is it? No matter how much Muslim’s preach hate, oppress and kill, it never has anything to do with Islam. It is, of course, a Religion of Peace, and these actions are only the result of a burning desire for justice. Killing for justice and peace. Right?

    Well at least we all agree on one thing. GWB is wasting his time in Iraque. Islamic societies are not fertil grounds for freedom, human rights and democracy. The sooner we get out of there the better, and then we can wait for the next round of attacks from the Religion of Peace. I wonder what will the excuse be?

    Of course it all goes back 1400 ago to a man that murdered, tortured, plundered, slaves and even beat his wife. Read the hadiths. Or are you afraid of the truth?

    Islam would be pathetic if it weren’t so violent. I was reading the hadiths last night, and could somebody please explain why Mohammed hated geckos so much? I knew that he hated puppies, but little harmless lizards? Killing them made him feel good and the faithful get points for it. Maybe it was just something to do until he found some infidel to kill or torture.

    Thats all, folks.

    Old Man Kactuz

    PS: This is for you, Ingrid. I see you are really concerned with justice. Tell me how you feel about this:
    Quote: Ibn ‘Aun reported: …The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Muslim Book 019, Number 4292 – also in Bukhari). http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4321

    Zafa, so you are against torture? Tell me, does this qualify as torture in your opinion?
    Quote: Then the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and whey were left in the Harra (ie. rocky land). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died…” http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html

    Read verse 261 Yes, they were murderers and thieves, so I guess it is “good” torture by a “good” man for a “good” purpose.

  7. John Kactuz says:

    Too bad I have to treat you guys so badly, but I am old and I do not take foolishness well. Yes, America has many propblems, Yes, Bush has made bad decisions (and is too PC!). But the main problem is that we are dealing with an ideology of hate and violence, and people pretend otherwise.

    Why don’t Muslims answer the simple questions? Why are they afraid of the truth?

    Dr StrangeLove was a great movie. I remember it well even from when I first saw it 40 years ago. Good actors, good writing, good humor (the cave gap, your germans, my germans, poisoned water, and the need to stockpile females for the elites…). Of course, we know how things turned out with that Cold War business. Old SK got it wrong, didn’t he?

    So history is full of surprises. It could be that one of these days some guy is going to get up, put political correctness aside, and tell the truth about Islam. Muslims will go bananas, but 80-90% of people in the West will say: “At last, truth” . Truth is all that is needed – not restrictions, limitation of rights, or persecution. Just plain honesty. Imagine if a person stood up and asked an Imam about Banu Mustaliq on national TV and demanded a condemnation. What if a person were to ask an Imam about the passage where Muhammad beat his young wife? (unless “he hit me and caused me pain” means something else….). Could anybody argue with that? Or what about the “kill, be brutal and subdue” verses in the Quran? It would be interesting!

    Of course I have been wrong before… For a minute I though the Pope had balls. Lets see what he does in Turkey. I also have a second theory about what could happen, but I’ll leave it another time – it is a much worse scenario.

    J. Kactuz

  8. Ingrid says:

    John, I don’t think it would be considered ‘treating us badly’ since quite frankly, I don’t think those who’d disagree could care what you think. I don’t mean that in a caddy (sp?) way, but we’d have to feel bad about what you say for us to feel ‘treated badly’. Having read many blogs from all kinds of persuasion (politically), I think your opinion is one of many and I don’t think that ‘the truth’, whatever you mean by that so pls, just be clear about that so we can either agree or disagree, or engage in a discussion, …’the truth’ is very relative. For people to react on any side, there has to be a residuel of anger or frustration or what have you to be fuelled by whatever anyone says. Speaking for myself, I am confident in my opinions and will always keep an open mind to hear others’. As for Mash, same thing. As for Robbie, same thing. That’s all whom I feel confident speaking for. So John, what ‘truth’ are you referring to?
    Ingrid

  9. Robbie says:

    Hey everybody, give “John Arthur” a round of applause for making an ass out of himself this evening. l-)

    Nice to see you’re still floating around the Internet and spreading your hatred of Muslims from blog to blog. I pity people like you, so full of hate for things unlike yourself. What you need is some advice from your own holy book.

    “My dear brothers snd sisters, be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to get angry. Your anger can never make things right in God’s sight.” James 1:19-20

  10. Robbie says:

    Hey everyone, I think I found our resident troll’s website of hate. >:)

    http://www.kactuzkid.com/index.html

  11. Group Captain Mandrake says:

    Excellent point about reality vs. perception Mash…

    As for Kactuz, don’t forget that “broad brushes” get messy. Yes, wars and atrocities have been done in the name of Islam…and even more wars and atricities have been done in the name of CHRISTIANITY. Who was responsible for the crusades? The inquisition? World Wars I & II? The Holocaust? Ethnic cleansing against muslims in the Balkans? When muslims wanted to know how to hate Jews, they went to the religion and culture of western europe, where Jews have been persecuted with pogroms, forced conversions and expulsions for well over a thousand years…by CHRISTIANS.

    And by the way…you could fill up a lot of pages with all the violence, rape, murder and war quoted in the Bible. Some of those quotes make your selected readings from the Koran sound like “The Little Engine that Could.”

  12. Alfredo says:

    I must say, I somehow agree with John Kactuz when he says:

    Of course, I’ve been wrong before…

    Not only before; with all due respect, John, you continue to be wrong. You are firmly on the wrong side of history.

    It is patently obvious that the one beset by losses of memory is you, John. One is left to wonder if history’s many surprises have left you deplorably and permanently confused.

  13. Mash says:

    Robbie, thanks for the link. It was a fun read. :d

    I think the Group Captain points out something worth repeating. Lots of killing has happened in the name of God and religion.

    As for John, I think there is really only two ways of settling this religious dispute. Here are my suggestions, you pick one:

    1) I get five Muslims together and you get five Christians together and we go head to head on the next season of Survivor. They tried the race thing, the religion thing might be the next wave! =:)

    or,

    2) I get five Muslim women in burkas together and you get five Christian women in bikinis together and we host a mud wrestling event. Maybe a pay-per-view thing! $-)

    What do you say, John?

  14. Zafa says:

    Mash, I warned you, my response started to take the form of a mini thesis, but you asked for it anyway, so here it goes….

    This J Kaktuz person is in a mission. He posted similar comments in another Blog a month ago;

    I responded as follows (which obviously fell on deaf ears):

    John,

    You have quoted from Bukhari Sharif (a type of Hadith) that was put together 200 years following prophet Muhammad’s(pbuh)death. Please understand that Quran (revelations from God to Muhammad sw through angel Gabriel) is different from Hadith. Even Quran was not immediately written down as Prophet Muhammad sw could not read or write. His sahabas (trusted companions) memorized every word to their heart. Several years later the revelations were documented as Quran exactly as the sahabas remembered them.

    Hadith was an attempt to document Muhammad’s (pbuh) life style or his sayings. These sayings were described by the sahabas (his companions) to their descendants. These descendants then passed on what they heard to their descendants. So you see there had been much room for distortion. Even though there had been much research to prove authenticity of the Hadiths, but some of the hadiths are questionable (to say the least).

    If you read about Prophet Muhammad’s (pdbh) life story to understand what kind of human he was, you will understand that he was the most kind, logical, level headed person ever born on the face of this earth. He was also a good merchant and a leader. If he didn’t know how to defend his tribe from all the anarchy and brutality surrounding him, he couldn’t have lived as long as he did. He led his people so well that the entire mid east finally had law and order under Muslim ruling (without prejudice).

    … … … … … … … … … …

    So, please don’t just take some quotes from Bukhari Sharif and pass judgment on Islam. Think about how the gospels by John, Luke, Mark and Matthew have their own contradictions because those were narrated by different people, even though on the same person (Jesus Christ).

    I’d like to add something that a lot of people in the west don’t know (due to failure of the Islamic scholar in part). In Islam Moses and Jesus are regarded with just as much respect as Muhammed, along with all other messenger of God (i.e., Noah, Solomon, David, John, Jonas…). If you read Quran you’ll see that there are many many references to Jesus (as Son of Mary) and how he devoted his life trying to bring people to God’s way. There are many many references to Moses and Aaron and how both of them fought the Faraos’ autocracies.

    A lot of time people are hung up on the notions that Islam promotes violence and oppresses women etc (I won’t start on women issue – that’d be like opening a flood gate). In Quran there are verses after verses that are identical to the teachings of Torah and Gospel (the scripture) – follow the path of god, love your family, take care of them….and DEFEND them when warranted.

    In 6th century Arab Muhammed had to lead couple of battles to protect his people from the so called Jews and Christians – not the god fearing ones, but the ones who were terrorizing the tribes “disguised” as ‘jews’ and ‘christians’ – in practice they were just like pagans. They would kill anybody who stood against their autocratic way. That’s why I used the word so-called. The terrorists in these days are similar – ruthless murderers who ‘claim’ them to be Muslims. That’s why I ask people to call them Terrorists instead of Islamists or Jihadist or whatever…

    These people selectively take verses from the Quran (completely out of context) where God asked Muhammed to defend his people from the criminals (who call themselves Jews and Christians). Muhammed NEVER suggested that anybody who’s not accepting Islam was by default an infidel and that deserved to die. NO WAY. I read translations of Quran (because I can read Arabic, but don’t understand the language) top to bottom (yes, all 114 chapters, took a loooong time). My focus was to figure out how come so much crap has been embodied in to this religion. How come Judaism, Christianity or Islam be any different from one another when all 3 had come from the same god, with same teachings.

    Karen Armstrong tried to explain the revolving nature of religion, how it evolved to serve the needs of the community in her “A History of God”. You’ll realize the divide among faiths is creations of the so called religious scholars, not the messengers (prophet) themselves, most certainly not by god. There are so much to say on this, but I’ll stop here.

    I myself am absolutely secular. I believe religious practice is a VERY PERSONAL matter. To me as long as a person is not hurting anybody, taking care of his loved one, not lying or cheating – he can pick up a stone and start worshipping for all I care. I have a very good friend (a faculty in Wichita) who’s openly atheist. He’s one of the most logical, sensible, honest people I met in my life.

    My philosophy is HUMANITY is above all faith.

  15. dude says:

    late to the party, so i guess this is for you to read mash.

    on site after site i have come across these characters, having read the koran, or other islamic scholarly works, having debated, argued, and bullied others on numerous sites forums and bulletin boards, why do such people care i wonder?

    having grown up and lived in various islamic communities in africa and asia, it is apparent not all muslims know their own religion as they ought, but i guess that is the dogmatic nature of religiosity. why i wonder do people feel they have to be persuaded that their belief is valid, that their view is justified, even if their logic isnt.

    i pose this to you and anyone else reading as being a rather serious person myself in private life and work, i come across such people in all communities, from different religions, and walks of life, and i am unwilling simply to ignore them.

    it is my experience such minds are best left NOT ignored, they fester, they infect others with their irrationality… i have just about given up reading serious blogs due to what comes out of the woodwork eventuallly.

    a little knowledge is, afterall, a dangerous thing. worst perhaps then no knowledge whatsoever

  16. Mash says:

    dude, hopefully people make use of the recent comments box on the sidebar. That way it is easier to pick up older threads.

    As for the wingnut/Koranic scholars who seem to drop in here, I find that mostly they are talking to themselves. Its the new fad to focus your hate at Muslims, so these guys are running with the ball on here. I dont think there is any room for original thought in a hateful mind, so even though I don’t ignore them, I don’t bother trying to reason with them – it just gives them motivation to launch the next salvo of hate. I find that an offer to mud wrestle is the best course of action! \:d/

  17. dude says:

    yes, i’ve entangled with a few, who also like to follow commenters around from blog to blog.

    reasoning with them has never worked, or worth the bother for that matter.

    it is quite the vogue in dhaka currently to be overtly religious i am told.

    islam bashing, overzealousnessity on the part of some believers, the pulling over wool of the eyes of the sheep, whats next, a fool for a president and jello brained citizens??!!

    oh, wait…:o

Comments are closed.