Archive for the 'George W. Bush' Category

Last week the Bush administration made extraordinary claims about Iran supplying arms to Shiite extremists in Iraq, saying that they were directly responsible for the deaths of 170 American troops. Shortly thereafter, the administration was forced to back off from those claims after the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff disputed the involvement of the Iranian government.  But the administration continues to maintain their assertion that weapons from Iran are killing Americans in Iraq.  And during a press conference, when Bush was questioned about the level of involvement by Iran's government, he said:

But here's my point: Either they knew or didn't know, and what matters is, is that they're there. What's worse, that the government knew or that the government didn't know?   [...]

Can I -- let me -- I can't say it more plainly: there are weapons in Iraq that are harming U.S. troops because of the Quds force...Whether Ahmadinejad ordered the Quds force to do this, I don't think we know. But we do know that they're there, and I intend to do something about it. And I've asked our commanders to do something about it. And we're going to protect our troops.  [...]

And that's what the family members of our soldiers expect the Commander-in-Chief and those responsible for -- responsible for our troops on the ground. And we'll continue do so.

Of course later during that same press conference, when he was asked about putting financial pressure on Iran, Bush said:

One of the problems -- not specifically on this issue, just in general -- let's put it this way, money trumps peace, sometimes.

...which may explain an exchange that took place today when White House spokesman Tony Snow appeared on Meet The Press.  Tim Russert was questioning Snow about the claim that Iran, "is a significant contributor to attacks on coalition forces," given that:

...data compiled by the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count (icasualties.org), a nonprofit group that tracks US deaths, a staggering 60 percent or more of US deaths have occurred in areas where Sunni insurgents are active. Those insurgents are believed to receive much of their funding and weapons from private donors in Sunni Arab countries, including Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, not Iran.

Snow's response?

...the president is very honest with people with whom he does diplomacy; but on the other hand, while it might make for sort of good PR, you don’t always call your allies out in public. Sometimes, you’re much more effective dealing privately with them. And the Saudis and the Jordanians and others have a—have been and continue to be and we assume will continue to be, very helpful in trying to fight against these forces of terror.

Given that this administration will not engage Iran diplomatically, did his spokesman imply that Bush was being dishonest regarding Iran?  And more importantly, would dealing with threats against our troops only be worth "sort of good PR," because we're talking about allies?  If Iranians are supplying arms, whether their government is involved or not, Bush "intends to do something about it," but if there is Saudi or Jordanian involvement, we'll discuss it privately?  What happened to:

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

It seems that money does trump peace, never mind protecting the troops.

Now who do you suppose these words are describing?

34 Incompetent
25 Arrogant
25 Honest
19 Good
19 Idiot
13 Integrity
13 Leader
11 Strong
11 Stupid
10 Ignorant
8 Determined
8 Fair
7 Ass

Yup, that would be our President. The numbers are the number of volunteered responses when pollsters for the Pew Research Center [pdf] ask Americans to say the one word that best describes Bush. Two years ago, the top responses were "honest" and "good," and even in March of last year, he got "incompetent" but still "good."

Respondents didn't get around to describing him as "President" until 18th place. "Irresponsible" and "unconfident" round out the list, with "liar," "hypocrite," and "selfish" sprinkled in as well. That's what a 33 percent approval rating will get you.

In the wake of the passage of the non-binding House Resolution opposing Bush's escalation in Iraq, the reaction from the White House was predictable:

The House of Representatives has passed a resolution expressing disapproval of President Bush's plan to send reinforcements to Iraq. This plan enjoys the support of the Iraqi government and U.S. military leadership...

The President believes that the Congress should provide the full funding and flexibility our Armed Forces need to succeed in their mission to protect our country.

Well then, as long as the Iraqi government, the military leadership that Bush installed after removing the leadership that disagreed with the escalation, and Barney support the plan, never mind what Congress or the American people think.  In other words, fund it and shut up.

Earlier today, during the White House press briefing, Tony Snow had this to say:

Again, members -- it's going to be interesting, because members of Congress have taken their own gamble here. They're gambling on failure -- some members, at least.

Well of course they are, because as Snow pointed out, when the escalation succeeds, these jokers aren't going to vote on a resolution that says they are wrong.  After all:

...a lot of the things that people have been citing as benchmarks are taking place. And, therefore, it is important to keep an eye on the realities on the ground.

And what are some of those realities?  Only two of the three promised Iraqi Brigades have arrived in Baghdad and their readiness is already being questioned, the so-called Iraqi-led offensive is anything but, and in the first two weeks of February, 48 U.S. troops and 879 Iraqis have been killed.  And what about the reality that says 60% of the American people oppose the escalation and want a timetable for withdrawal set?  Here's Snow ignoring that reality:

Q The source says that that -- the American public actually has seen what's going on as a Civil War, and says that that places the White House at the wrong end of public opinion.

MR. SNOW: The President understands public opinion and public impatience. The President also sees intelligence every day, and he has to assess what the long-term costs are going to be...Let me add further -- when you're talking about bringing forces in -- but it is an interesting switch. So what you're saying is, it's no longer support the troops, it's just get them out.

Q The question is, does the debate about supporting the troops obscure the real debate that Americans want to have, which is, increase the number there, or start to bring them home?

MR. SNOW: You know what, we'd love to bring them home. We'd love to bring them home. We'd love to -- no, let me continue. But what you have is somebody framing a debate as if the rest of the world didn't exist...

Q His point was that, yes, they understand all that.

MR. SNOW: No, the source -- no, the source's point is to ignore all that and not --

Q Well, actually, I had the conversation with the source, so the source's point was -- the source's point was, yes, they're aware, Americans are aware of all of that; they're looking at it and saying, you know what, we still want to bring the troops home.

MR. SNOW: You know what, the President -- the President understands that to operate under those circumstances is to invite bloodshed on a level that is absolutely appalling, not only in Iraq, but possibly in the United States of America...but the President also is absolutely determined to keep this country safe and do what's best for Americans. That is his job.

And so the message to Congress is to shut up and fund Bush's war, and for the American people, to shut up, let Bush protect you...and go shopping.

You know the people inside the DC beltway are out of touch when one of their demigods, David Broder, utters crap like this:

It may seem perverse to suggest that, at the very moment the House of Representatives is repudiating his policy in Iraq, President Bush is poised for a political comeback. But don't be astonished if that is the case.

It may seem perverse to suggest that the "Dean" of the DC punditocracy will see his predictions fall flat on his face. Well, not really. It would only seem perverse to those members of the failed DC media establishment.  But what will genuinely be perverse is the lack of accountability Broder will face when his prediction falls flat on its face.

So let's hold him accountable.

First of all, how do we define "political comeback"? I would argue that Bush would have to garner a majority of the American public's approval -- 50 percent -- to qualify. But to be charitable, let's say "comeback" means 40-45 percent approvals in the aggregate of opinion polls.

Where are we now?

So the baseline has been set. Don't be astonished when Broder blows this one.

Yesterday, George Bush opened his speech at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) by saying:

I appreciate the chance to come and share some thoughts with the men and women of AEI. I admire AEI a lot -- I'm sure you know that. After all, I have been consistently borrowing some of your best people. More than 20 AEI scholars have worked in my administration. [...]

Thanks for trying to stay on the leading edge of thought, as well. It's really important that ideas be conceived, circulated and embraced.

Today, let's take a look at some of the leading edge of thought that was conceived, circulated and embraced by this administration, courtesy of the AEI, in the lead-up to and in the aftermath of, the war in Iraq:

• Whether Osama bin Laden was involved in Tuesday's terrorist assault remains to be seen. Yet if that proves to be so, it is extremely unlikely that he acted on his own. It is far more likely that he operated in conjunction with a state--the state with which the U.S. remains at war, namely Iraq. - 9/13/2001

• As in Afghanistan, there are large numbers of Iraqi people who will help us crush Saddam. - 10/15/2001

• If there's an emerging conventional wisdom uniting many of the pundits, military analysts, and former government officials who have taken to the airwaves and op-ed pages in recent weeks, it's that the United States can overthrow Saddam, but it will be messy and painful...But there's reason to believe that these predictions...are too pessimistic. For one thing, the United States can't bog down in protracted warfare in Baghdad unless a significant number of Iraqi troops are willing to fight us there.  While newspaper leaks have featured sobering assessments of the number of U.S. troops needed for an Iraq war, such numbers can be deceiving. - 9/9/2002

• Instead of providing support for the terrorists, the Iraqi people would support allied forces, and create a model for the war against terrorism throughout the region: Free countries don't support terrorism. They fight it. - 2/21/2003

• And when we finally smash his evil regime suddenly those countries that doubt us will have their eyes opened. Meanwhile UN weapons inspectors are being seriously deceived. - 2/23/2003

• A hateful regime will be gone, and except for Saddam, French President Jacques Chirac and the media analysts, almost no one will have had the sky fall on the them. - 3/28/2003

• This was a war worth fighting. It ended quickly with few civilian casualties and with little damage to Iraq's cities, towns or infrastructure. It ended without the Arab world rising up against us, as the war's critics feared, without the quagmire they predicted, without the heavy losses in house-to-house fighting they warned us to expect. - 5/2/2003

• Also, I was really struck--because I know that many Americans think of Iraq as a brutally sectarian, ethnically-racially divided country. Certainly, there are latent suspicions, particularly among extremists of all parties--but the general ambience between Shia and Sunni, and between all of them and the Kurdish population, is remarkably positive. - 10/20/2003

• Eight American troops died in Baghdad, as fighting erupted between Coalition troops and followers of Muqtada al-Sadr. Hearing the news, Senator Edward Kennedy (D., Mass.) declared Iraq to be "George Bush's Vietnam." Evening-news anchors question whether this weekend's violence marked the start of a Shii revolt. Quite the contrary...The sky is not falling. The decision to confront the Muqtada al-Sadr's challenge to rule-of-law and liberty will cause a short-term spike in violence, but lead to long-term improvement.  - 4/6/2004

• The operational good news coming out of Iraq was the destruction of the Mahdi army that served the rebel Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr. - 10/24/2004

When you consider all of that deep thinking, isn't it comforting to know that another AEI luminary, Frederick Kagan, is the architect of the "new way forward" in Iraq?  

The White House has been very busy these past few days as they continue to ratchet up the rhetoric against Iran.  It began this weekend, when anonymous officials in Baghdad trotted out various weapons to show that, "Iran is a significant contributor to attacks on coalition forces" in Iraq.  And on Monday, during the White House press briefing:

Is the U.S. administration confident that there is conclusive evidence that Iran is providing these weapons to Iraq?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Of course, given this administration's track record on intelligence, skepticism was high, and when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff apparently missed the memo and said of the evidence:

That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this.

...it was time for George Bush to hold a press conference. And what did we learn?  We learned that Bush knows:

...that the Quds force was instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq. We know that. And we also know that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. That's a known.

He knows, he can say with certainty, he is confident.  Just as he knew with confident certainty that:

Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

...had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.

...had several mobile biological weapons labs.

...recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

...has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

Bush knew all that for a fact in January, 2003, and four years and 3,127 U.S. deaths later, everything that Bush knew has been proven wrong.  But today he knows that Iran is supplying weapons that have killed 170 U.S. troops in Iraq.  Except he doesn't.  

What we don't know is whether or not the head leaders of Iran ordered the Quds force to do what they did.

 
What?  After repeatedly claiming that Iran was supplying these weapons, we don't really know that? Said Bush:

But here's my point: Either they knew or didn't know, and what matters is, is that they're there. What's worse, that the government knew or that the government didn't know?  [...]

...what's worse -- them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and it happening? And so we will continue to protect our troops.

First ignoring that blathering idiocy, and leaving aside the 2,957 U.S. troops that weren't killed by the weaponry that may or may not have been provided by Iran, what really is the point?

...our strategy is comprehensive in order to resolve problems that will affect our own peace and the peace in the world. And the biggest problem I see is the Iranians' desire to have a nuclear weapon.

And finally, that is the point.  The Iranian branch of the axis of evil must be dealt with.  With anonymous briefings, accusations, shifting claims and aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, the case for war is being built under the guise of "protecting the troops."  Or how Bush characterizes it:

...making sure that this weapon is dealt with, the program is dealt with in a constructive, peaceful way.

Because after all, "we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."  Again.