The war conservatives will loose


Researcher87
#1
WASHINGTON - President Bush keeps revising his explanation for why the U.S. is in Iraq , moving from narrow military objectives at first to history-of-civilization stakes now.

Initially, the rationale was specific: to stop Saddam Hussein from using what Bush claimed were the Iraqi leader's weapons of mass destruction or from selling them to al-Qaida or other terrorist groups.
But 3 1/2 years later, with no weapons found, still no end in sight and the war a liability for nearly all Republicans on the ballot Nov. 7, the justification has become far broader and now includes the expansive "struggle between good and evil."
Republicans seized on North Korea 's reported nuclear test last week as further evidence that the need for strong U.S. leadership extends beyond Iraq.
Bush's changing rhetoric reflects increasing administration efforts to tie the war, increasingly unpopular at home, with the global fight against terrorism, still the president's strongest suit politically.
"We can't tolerate a new terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East, with large oil reserves that could be used to fund its radical ambitions, or used to inflict economic damage on the West," Bush said in a news conference last week in the Rose Garden.
When no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, Bush shifted his war justification to one of liberating Iraqis from a brutal ruler.
After Saddam's capture in December 2003, the rationale became helping to spread democracy through the Middle East. Then it was confronting terrorists in Iraq "so we do not have to face them here at home," and "making America safer," themes Bush pounds today.
"We're in the ideological struggle of the 21st century," he told a California audience this month. "It's a struggle between good and evil."
Vice President Dick Cheney takes it even further: "The hopes of the civilized world ride with us," Cheney tells audiences.
Except for the weapons of mass destruction argument, there is some validity in each of Bush's shifting rationales, said Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy scholar at the Brookings Institution who initially supported the war effort.
"And I don't have any big problems with any of them, analytically. The problem is they can't change the realities on the ground in Iraq, which is that we're in the process of beginning to lose," O'Hanlon said. "It is taking us a long time to realize that, but the war is not headed the way it should be."
Andrew Card, Bush's first chief of staff, said Bush's evolving rhetoric, including his insistence that Iraq is a crucial part of the fight against terrorism, is part of an attempt to put the war in better perspective for Americans.
The administration recently has been "doing a much better job" in explaining the stakes, Card said in an interview. "We never said it was going to be easy. The president always told us it would be long and tough."
"I'm trying to do everything I can to remind people that the war on terror has the war in Iraq as a subset. It's critical we succeed in Iraq as part of the war on terror," said Card, who left the White House in March.
Bush at first sought to explain increasing insurgent and sectarian violence as a lead-up to Iraqi elections. But elections came and went, and a democratically elected government took over, and the sectarian violence increased.
Bush has insisted U.S. soldiers will stand down as Iraqis stand up. He has likened the war to the 20th century struggles against fascism, Nazism and communism. He has called Iraq the "central front" in a global fight against radical jihadists.

Having jettisoned most of the earlier, upbeat claims of progress, Bush these days emphasizes consequences of setting even a limited withdrawal timetable: abandonment of the Iraqi people, destabilizing the Middle East and emboldening terrorists around the world.
The more ominous and determined his words, the more skeptical the American public appears, polls show, both on the war itself and over whether it is part of the larger fight against terrorism, as the administration insists.
Bush's approval rating, reflected by AP-Ipsos polls, has slid from the mid 60s at the outset of the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 to the high 30s now. There were light jumps upward after the December 2003 capture of Saddam, Bush's re-election in November 2004 and each of three series of aggressive speeches over the past year. Those gains tended to vanish quickly.
With the war intruding on the fall elections, both parties have stepped up their rhetoric.
Republicans, who are also reeling from the congressional page scandal, are casting Democrats as seeking to "cut and run" and appease terrorists.
Democrats accuse Bush of failed leadership with his "stay the course" strategy. They cite a government intelligence assessment suggesting the Iraq war has helped recruit more terrorists, and a book by journalist Bob Woodward that portrays Bush as intransigent in his defense of the Iraq war and his advisers as bitterly divided.
Democrats say Iraq has become a distraction from the war against terrorism — not a central front. But they are divided among themselves on what strategy to pursue.
Republicans, too, increasingly are growing divided as U.S. casualties rise.
"I struggle with the fact that President Bush said, `As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.' But the fact is, this has not happened," said Rep. Christopher Shays ( news , bio , voting record ), R-Conn., a war supporter turned war skeptic.
The Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee , Sen. John Warner ( news , bio , voting record ) of Virginia, said after a recent visit to Iraq that Iraq was "drifting sideways." He urged consideration of a "change of course" if the Iraq government fails to restore order over the next two or three months.
More than 2,750 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the war, most of them since Bush's May 2003 "mission accomplished" aircraft carrier speech. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died.
Recent events have been dispiriting.
The United States now has about 141,000 troops in Iraq, up from about 127,000 in July. Some military experts have suggested at least one additional U.S. division, or around 20,000 troops, is needed in western Iraq alone.
Dan Benjamin, a former Middle East specialist with the National Security Council in the Clinton administration, said the administration is overemphasizing the nature of the threat in an effort to bolster support.
"I think the administration has oversold the case that Iraq could become a jihadist state," said Benjamin, now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "If the U.S. were to leave Iraq tomorrow, the result would be a bloodbath in which Sunnis and Shiites fight it out. But the jihadists would not be able to seek power."
Not all of Bush's rhetorical flourishes have had the intended consequences.
When the history of Iraq is finally written, the recent surge in sectarian violence is "going to be a comma," Bush said in several recent appearances.
Critics immediately complained that the remark appeared unsympathetic and dismissive of U.S. and Iraqi casualties, an assertion the White House disputed.
For a while last summer, Bush depicted the war as one against "Islamic fascism," borrowing a phrase from conservative commentators. The strategy backfired, further fanning anti-American sentiment across the Muslim world.
The "fascism" phrase abruptly disappeared from Bush's speeches, reportedly after he was talked out of it by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Karen Hughes, a longtime Bush confidant now with the State Department. Hughes said she would not disclose private conversations with the president. But, she told the AP, she did not use the "fascism" phrase herself. "I use `violent extremist,'" she said.
Last edited by Andem; Oct 14th, 2006 at 04:55 PM..
 
DurkaDurka
No Party Affiliation
#2
Do you mean "lose"?
 
Sassylassie
#3
The word Fascism to quote the tired old dictionary: Extreme right wing, I'd say that describes the Radical Islamist to a tee, all in the name of "Their God Allah". Potatoo/Potatoe.
 
Researcher87
#4
I sadly would have to agree with you. But it doesn't really matter, Islamic right-wing action, Bush evangical christian right-wing actions it doesn't matter. It is just everyone else that gets hurt.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Researcher87 View Post

I sadly would have to agree with you. But it doesn't really matter, Islamic right-wing action, Bush evangical christian right-wing actions it doesn't matter. It is just everyone else that gets hurt.

All other facts aside I have to say that your reply is the most full of S bit of drivell I've heard today.

Next you'll be claiming the US Government wants to change the National Anthem to MARCH ON CHRISTIAN SOLDIER. That you lump the basic Christian in with these barbarians who lob off heads, send children to martyr themselves and murder in the name of Allah is a clear testament to the ignorance of the weak kneed.

Please enlighten me, because what I get from your statement is this. "I don't want to criticize Islam
for fear of being called a racist or islamophobe. So here's the plan, I'll lump all religions in with this and accuse GW Bush of being the Presidential version of the Reverend Jimmy Swaggart."

Just another gutless cop out. See, I'm not GW's bigesst fan, but I don't need to use him as a fall back because I'm too gutless to call a spade a spade..

No wonder Islamic extremism is exploding, why wouldn't it when no one has the guts to hold them to account.

M
 
Researcher87
#6
Quote:

All other facts aside I have to say that your reply is the most full of S bit of drivell I've heard today.

Next you'll be claiming the US Government wants to change the National Anthem to MARCH ON CHRISTIAN SOLDIER. That you lump the basic Christian in with these barbarians who lob off heads, send children to martyr themselves and murder in the name of Allah is a clear testament to the ignorance of the weak kneed.

Please enlighten me, because what I get from your statement is this. "I don't want to criticize Islam
for fear of being called a racist or islamophobe. So here's the plan, I'll lump all religions in with this and accuse GW Bush of being the Presidential version of the Reverend Jimmy Swaggart."

Just another gutless cop out. See, I'm not GW's bigesst fan, but I don't need to use him as a fall back because I'm too gutless to call a spade a spade..

No wonder Islamic extremism is exploding, why wouldn't it when no one has the guts to hold them to account.



Nice seeing you. Where is that nice red button.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#7  Top Rated Post

Vice President Dick Cheney takes it even further: "The hopes of the civilized world ride with us," Cheney tells audiences.



If there was a shred of truth to that the so called "coalition of the willing" would still be riding high with Bush. Instead, it has fallen apart because the rest of the world has seen what a phony Bush is and always has been. Of course, we all know that it was the bribes Bush paid out in the form of foreign aid that was what persuaded some of these countries to side with him. Then, when the heat got too hot they withdrew.

As for those traitors who still support Bush, you can demonstrate to the world how principled you really are by invading Russia for its WMD and its terrorism in Chechnya. And how about adding Uzbek and deposing the tyrannical Stalinist dictator Islam Karimov so that Uzbekians can enjoy democratization just as Iraqis do today.

One last thought: those who support Bush's imperialism cannot be truthfully called "conservatives". True conservatives such as Kevin Phillips, William F. Buckley, Lew Rockwell, and Pat Buchanan have all condemned Bush's criminal war on principle. And any true conservative would do the same. Therefore, it is best to classify these traitors as reich wingers ... woops, right wingers ... but not as conservatives as that would entail a demonstration of principle on their part (which, as we all know, does not exist).
 
Toro
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

As for those traitors who still support Bush,

You sound like Anne Coulter...
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#9
... but I'm smarter and better looking ...
 
Toro
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

... but I'm smarter and better looking ...

ACK!

I just had a vision of Alfred E. Newman wearing tight leather pants...
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#11
just for you ...






 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#12
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle15328.htm

Why Bush Smiles: Victory is at Hand in Iraq

By Chris Floyd
10/17/06 " Information Clearing House " -- -- Despite George W. Bush's ostentatious bucking up of the Iraqi government yesterday, it is very likely that there will indeed be an American-engineered coup ousting Maliki and installing some sort of strongman-led "national unity government" in Baghdad soon, probably before the end of the year.

(Indeed, the very showiness of Bush's pledge of support in a phone call supposedly initiated by Bush, then announced to the media is a good indication of the decapitation to come. As JFK once told Gore Vidal: "When a politician says to you, 'Jack, if there's anything I can do for you, just let me know,' that means you're dead." And Maliki installed in a Bush-backed internal party coup that toppled the previous prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who was himself once a recipient of similar pledges of staunch White House support is a dead man walking.)

The chief reason why Maliki and his government will be ousted is not the hell-storm of death and violence that is now devouring the country. The fact that every new day sees a hundred or more mutilated bodies dumped on the nation's streets, and pitched battles between sectarian militias, and multiple deaths of American troops, and mass flights of anguished Iraqi civilians running in fear for their lives is not a matter of any urgent concern to Bush and his warmakers. Indeed, there is much evidence that one of the prime instigators of the wanton killing is a group created and long nurtured by the Bush Administration itself: the Facilities Protection Service, an army of uniformed freebooters nearly 150,000 strong. (I'll be writing more on this later.) Of course, the violence is a political headache for the Bushists, because it generates bad press; but they don't care about it it has no intrinsic meaning or emotional impact on those who are already responsible for the deaths of more than half a million Iraqis and more than 2,700 Americans.

No, what will likely bring on the coup is the December deadline for crafting a new oil law, which was imposed on Iraq by the International Monetary Fund, as part of the deal to write off some but by no means all of the nation's crushing debt. Given the current level of intense anti-American feeling in Iraq, and the overwhelming majority support among every sector of society for ending the occupation, and the overwhelming belief among Iraqis that the chief reason behind the invasion was to steal their oil, it is almost inconceivable that Maliki will be able to sign the new law, which essentially opens up Iraq's oil wealth to decades of despoliation by U.S. and European energy conglomerates. The Maliki government already weak, incompetent and despised, as are all puppet regimes could not possibly survive the political backlash that such a move would provoke.

Therefore, Maliki will either refuse to sign the law in which case he would doubtless be removed immediately one way or another; perhaps even by some act of "terrorist violence" or else he will seek to postpone the deadline and buy himself a little more time. If it's the latter case, then he and his government might last out the year after all, assuming the Potomac Potentate deigns to extend his temporary mercy. But sooner or later the law will be signed: it is the reason for the war, it is why all of these people have died, it is the sign and substance of the true victory that Bush has been working for all these years.

Indeed, once it is signed, we may in fact see a partial withdrawal of occupation troops begin, under the cover of the recommendations of the "bipartisan" panel headed by Bush Family consigliere James Baker. It will look like Bush has finally "listened to reason," that he has wisely "changed course;" but if it happens, it will only be because he has gotten what he came for: crony control of Iraq's vast oil reserves. Baker meanwhile will have accomplished his own multi-faceted mission: keeping Iraq in IMF bondage by holding the whip of the remaining debt over its head, while simultaneously ensuring that Iraq continues its onerous, back-breaking payments of arrears and "reparations" to Baker's private lobbying clients (and longtime Bush Family business partners), the Saudi and Kuwaiti royals.

For as Joshua Holland of Alternet.com points out, the new Iraqi oil law will lock in succeeding governments, while the "sovereign debt" will also stay on the books no matter what kind of state follows the inevitable demise of the puppet regime installed by Bush. Holland has laid out the details of this remarkable yet almost unremarked situation in two excellent articles: Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil and The U.S. Takeover of Iraqi Oil. I've been writing piecemeal about many of these issues for years, (e.g., Dubya Indemnity: Bush Barons Beyond the Reach of Law), but Holland has provided a succinct yet in-depth overview, drawing on his own research and interviews with some of the leading muckrakers of Bush's war-profiteering bloodbath. He is especially good on the backstory of the debt deal, another unheralded "victory" by the Bush Faction.

Yes, victory. You wonder why Bush and his minions maintain the seemingly irrational belief that "things are going well" in Iraq, that "we're making progress," etc.? That's because things are going well in the war they are fighting: the war for money and power. What happens to the human beings caught up in this war Iraqi civilians, or American citizens at ever-greater risk from the terrorism spawned by the war is, again, no concern of the Bush gang. In fact, the worse things are from that standpoint, the better it is for the Bushists. The war profits (and stolen swag) they and their corporate cronies have accrued from the Iraq War (and the "War on Terror" as well) have given them unimaginable wealth with which to continue their overall dominance of American society no matter who wins the elections in 2006 or 2008, or for decades beyond. As I've stated often before, no matter what happens, Bush and his cronies have already won the war .

They've won even if Iraq collapses into perpetual anarchy, or becomes an extremist religious state; they've won even if the whole region goes up in flames, and terrorism flares to unprecedented heights because this will just mean more war-profiteering, more fear-profiteering. And yes, they've won even if they lose their majority next month or the presidency in 2008, because war and fear will still fill their coffers, buying them continuing influence and power as they bide their time through another interregnum of a Democratic "centrist" who will, at best, only nibble at the edges of the militarist state until they are back in the saddle again. The only way they can lose the Iraq War is if they are actually arrested and imprisoned for their war crimes. And you know and I know that's not going to happen.

So that confident strut of the Bush gang, their incessant upbeat pronouncements about the war, their complacent smirks, their callous indifference to the unspeakable horror they have unleashed upon the world these are not the hallmarks of self-delusion, or wilful ignorance, or a disassociation from reality. They know full well what the reality is and they like it.
Chris Floyd is an American journalist. He is the author of the book, Empire Burlesque: The Secret History of the Bush Regime http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=i...8-20&l=ur2&o=1 . Visit his website www.chris-floyd.com





Bush guarantees perpetual oil war profits for himself - that's what he has been after all this time.
 

Similar Threads

4
Lion on the loose... in Quebec!!!
by s_lone | Apr 30th, 2008
27
Loose Change
by JBeee | Sep 20th, 2007
0
Ear Eating Bandit On The Loose
by sanctus | Jan 27th, 2007
1