Bush in Baghdad
Seems like George W. Bush left behind only one minor prop during his unscheduled 8 hour drop-in on Iraq's Anbar province. After all, he remembered to pack along Condi Rice and Steve Hadley. Bob Gates joined in the photo-op as did General Peter Pace. Bush even managed to squeeze Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki out of the Green Zone for a day, and Iraqi President Talabani --freshly released from a U.S. fat farm-- also made the scene.
What Bush forgot was a huge lettered banner reading: "Mission Accomplished -- Again."
And we do need to give the Prez some credit here. He has, indeed, accomplished something quite crucial. With an able assist from the befuddled Congressional Democrats, he has managed to shift the national debate to the surge and away from the war itself.
This is no minor feat -- as the surge was always irrelevant. But no matter. Next week General Petraeus will deliver his anti-climactic report, congressional hearings will be convoked to parse through the verbal thickets, but the White House, using Anbar as a backdrop, has pretty much declared it a success. Ineed, Bush used that word four different times during his presser.
Even better, Bush extended the possibility that the surge has been so successful that might soon be withdrawing some troops. A token number of troops, of course, no significant number.
No need to greatly rehearse what I think we all know about Anbar. The introduction of 4,000 Marines is hardly enough to have made a ripple. Sunni anger against Al Qaeda, and the willingness of the U.S. to provide arms to the Sunnis is what has made an impact.
Unfortuntately this merely helps pave the way for the post U.S.-withdrawal gang-bang. Having supported, armed, and tolerated the Shia militias we are now beefing up the other side as well -- guaranteeing the bloodiest sort of sectarian showdown.
The issue in Iraq has never been the surge. It's always been the flawed fundamental basis for the war, the botched and horrendous occupation, the stoking of a civil war and the lack of any visible exit strategy.
Meanwhile, chalk one up for Dubya.
September 4th, 2007 at 12:56 am
Hey, no great man ever accomplishes such feats with only the help of the befuddled. The corrupt public relation wing of the Pentagon (your tax dollars at work) have done their bit for the Warfare State. Their bought and paid for politicos, like Marc Cooper favorite Lindsey Graham, have beat the drum well. The Press in general have held Bush to account pretty much as they did at the start of the invasion. Petraeus is the new and improved Powell.
You gotta give Bush credit? Nope, you do. That’s your job.
September 4th, 2007 at 1:12 am
No worries, the buzz from the latest photo op will not last long. We are quickly headed towards 4000 US casualties (yes, yes, I know, many times more Iraqis, but most Americans don’t care about that) and the press will certainly cover that milestone thoroughly. The ONLY obstacle to stopping this war is the Democratic Party.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:23 am
Today’s post was brought to you by guest blogger Markos Moulitsas.
September 4th, 2007 at 6:31 am
Interesting bit of pushback here from jerry Bremer on the subject of disbanding the Iraqi Army.
I’m sure that there will be more of this as time goes on.
September 4th, 2007 at 6:56 am
“The ONLY obstacle to stopping this war is the Democratic Party.”
That, without question, is one of the dumbest statements I’ve read regarding the war since it began in 2003 – and lord knows there have been a lot of incredibly dumb ones.
September 4th, 2007 at 7:21 am
I obviously have a deep, unwitting psychological need to defend the Democrats against MB’s persistent digs. But, unbeknownst to other commenters, do we secretly meet and conduct this debate via foot tapping and hand signals at the CDG airport ? Has it been dragged through these threads so long that the only way of measuring its age is through carbon dating ? Can we resolve it with a game of chess ?
Discuss…
September 4th, 2007 at 7:45 am
Obviously you’re not defending Democrats but rather a state of affairs that we tend to dub “reality.” The far right disasters created by the Bush White house are supposedly “no worse” than Gore or Kerry would have brought us. Cooper and Balter both know it’s BS, but they’re gargantuan egos won’t let them cop to it.
September 4th, 2007 at 8:00 am
Don’t underestimate the power of the pundits and apparatchiks who need to resuscitate their reputations and are grasping at the surge narrative for dear life. They’ve been waiting a long time for this plotline and they’re not about to let go.
September 4th, 2007 at 8:01 am
I wouldn’t be so cavalier about the notion of “Sunni Anger at Al Qaida.” This is irrelevant, as far as I can see. The story is “Buying off tribes” or old-fashioned imperialism, not the first time “enemies” ahve become “Friends” through guns, money and looking-the-other-way at criminal activity. Its the highest stage.
September 4th, 2007 at 8:03 am
Woody-
Markos and gang are not at all antiwqar, are not mentioning the upcoming (yes I know its ANSWER – but also IVAW) manifestation on 9/15, and prefer to create faux-antiwar front groups like “Americans Against Escalation in Iraq”
September 4th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Gee. What on earth is wrong with ANSWER?
September 4th, 2007 at 9:28 am
[...] no se le puede avasallar y no salir escaldado, que no hay ejército más poderosos del mundo si en otros West Point conocen milenarias formas de lucha que acaban desquiciando a quienes han visto demasiadas guerras [...]
September 4th, 2007 at 10:04 am
evets nails what we’re seeing unfold in much of the media
September 4th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Atrios, one of those “in-the-tank” netroots guys who would vote for – gasp – Hillary, has a strong critique of weak-kneed Dems here:
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_09_02_archive.html#2174744776667365036
(Whooda thunk it’s possible to be a Democrat AND critical of Democrats without being either politically infantile or an ass-kissing hack. And will MB’s or other from-the-margins blanket accusations against “the Democrats” ever matter or move the party ? Not likely.)
September 4th, 2007 at 10:23 am
And scroll up one post on that Atrios link if you want to understand why, even when you’re disappointed on a key issue, it’s obviously worth it to work within the party and continue to push for better representation and stronger leadership.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:34 am
“I wouldn’t be so cavalier about the notion of ‘Sunni Anger at Al Qaida.’ This is irrelevant, as far as I can see.”
Would that be beyond your nose ? Apparently not. The Sunnis are no more likely to allow al Qaeda to gain long-term power in their provinces than Saddam was. And AQIM has clearly over-reached in their tactics. Sunni insurgents could work with al Qaeda strategically against the occupation as a primary focus. It’s not in their interest to keep ginning up ethnic strife with random attacks on Shiites. Our bribing the Sunnis with arms in the midst of a civil war is a crazy idea, but sooner or later al Qaeda was destined to end up antagonizing local Sunni powers and militias.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:31 am
reg-
Whether or not thats the case on one level, giving it credit buys into the administration’s lies by placing outside of the broader context, let alone re-hashing the absurd concept that “insurgents” are now alongside the Americans, when working alongside the Americans implies anything but insurgency. This can really only be read as part of the broad pattern of discrediting Salafi forces within Sunni community in order to arm Sunnis against Shias and Iran.
September 4th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Reg the problem with ATRIOS is that he’s just another “Unserious” Dirty Hippie. The real news is that the public is not buying this. The only one’s gullible enought to be snowed are the Great and the Good inside the Beltwayway Bubble. Unfortunately that includes a lot of the so-called leadership of the Democrats in Congress who suffer from Battered Party Syndrome and are afraid of the unkind things that “serious” journalists like Tom Friedman or Jim Hoagland will say about them.
But, then again, when they are criticized by the likes of Mike Gravel and Mike Balter I think their natural instinct is to engage their middle finger in a stirring salute. After all Messers Balet – and Cooper – knew that Al was just as bad as George and would be doing the same things.
Oh, and Bill Clinton is a Nasty, Naughty, Bad Boy.
September 4th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
At this point bringing up interpretations of the 2000 election becomes a way of avoiding discussion about how the Democrats are acting now. It really is an insistence on trying to shield them from all criticism and an insistence that no pressure be put on them whatsoever to change course.
September 4th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
“The ONLY obstacle to stopping this war is the Democratic Party.â€
Reg says that that is a dumb statement, maybe so, but it is an accurate one.
On the other hand, with Hillary immersed in another fund raising scandal, I’m thinking Obama may be the Democrats better bet. Question is will the Democrats agree?
September 4th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Fundraisng scandal? Give me a break! See today’s DAILY HOWLER – as usual Sommerby gets it right.
September 4th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
I dont know about all of you hetero-gentlemen, but I had a horrific wet dream of being next to the President in Iraq and closely surrounded by all those sexy Marine jar heads.
September 4th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Ken Silverstein asks Milt Bearden about the new Sunni/US alliance
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/09/hbc-90001111
September 4th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Roper – the obstacle to stopping the U.S. from getting in this war and staying in it despite the obvious debacle has been crackpots and hysterics such as yourself. It’s Bush’s damned war. Take some responsibility for the debacle. You were mindlessly cheerleading every step of the way.
You fucking make me sick on this issue. The better part of common sense for folks such as yourself would be to shut the fuck up and go hide in a corner.
September 4th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
jc – Bearden makes my point.
September 4th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
I hear him as far more pessimistic than you, perhaps I’m wrong.
September 4th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Yeah, Roper! Your type is responsible for this war. What was wrong with the way the U.N. was handling Hussein? We could have passed some resolutions with real teeth and waited him out like we have Castro. Listen to people like reg, who knew from day one all the facts and what wouldn’t work.
September 4th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
No, bringing up the 2000 election illustrates that you were saying foolish things then, and saying foolish things now. “Any” criticism and flat out B.S. are easy enough to seperate; if you want to speak seriously about Iraq.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Woody – the nonsensical crap you and roper have been spewing on the Iraq debacle over the years is a litany of shit that hasn’t worked. You’re a sick puppy…
Go grill some meat.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
reg, I was taking up for you. Didn’t I express your position well, which was stick with the U.N. plan for dealing with Hussein?
Now, today, who would have guessed this? Katie Couric has joined the right-wing war mongers and says that there is progress in Iraq. Video
September 4th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
As I said the gullible ones in the media want to be fleeced and they are. KATIE COURIC? Oh My! four million refugees, no electricity, 80% unemployment, thousands of civilian deaths a month (so many that the USG now doesn’t count car bombs as war related deaths) and only three of 15 benchmarks made,
And Woody thinks the Iraqi people are better off now than under Saddam?
September 4th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Ultimately.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Ahh, who to believe: Katie Couric or the GAO?
September 4th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
I sure do wish all of you who say that Iraqis would be better off under Saddam and Sons would employ the same crystal ball you use to predict US defeat to explain what Iraq would look like today with Saddam running the show.
Do the math. Two wars of aggression and sundry state genocides plus wholesale torture and murder equals 1.5 million dead.
You “progressives” never bother to explain what peace and stability the US interrupted.
September 4th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
As shown in “Fiasco”, the smart money in the Pentagon said Saddam had been defanged, and would be busy defending himself against pressures at home had he been left alone. Sanctions may, or may not, have been helping him. In anycase, to argue that the invasion has been good for the Iraqi people is simply a tale told be an idiot.
September 4th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
That’s hogwash Sam. While Ive opposed this war from the beginning I have been unrestrained in celebrating the overthrow and demise of Saddam Hussein. But you’re engaging in pure sophistry.
We don’t know exactly how many Iraqis have died since the U.S. invasion because the Bush administration apparently doesnt feel such lives are worth accounting for. By the modest measure it’s more than 150,000 and perhaps as much as five or six times that amount. We do KNOW there are TWO MILLION external refugees and and an almost equal number of internally displaced.
Saddam was a butcher, a mass murderer and a tyrant BUT… unless you have some alternative FACTS, history shows that his masisve killling was accomplished not on yearly averages, but in bloody spikes and spurts. Those peaks of mass homicide just happened to coincide with the moments when conservative American administrations were more closely allied with Saddam. Indeed, 2/3 of the total number you state occurred during the Iran-Iraq war during which the Reagan admin openly supported Saddam, provided him with arms, intelligence and a couple of billion in subsidies. So WTF are you talking about?
The most recent upsurge in mass killings by Saddam,. of course, was immediately following the Gulf War when he massacred both foolish Kurds and uppity Marsh Arabs who were syupid enough to be believe that one George H.W. Bush was actually going to assist or support their insurrection.
This sort of mass killing had subsided after the 1991 massacres not because Saddam was a good guy or because he had joined Move On. but rather because he had so terrified the population they were no longer necessary.
So as someone who opposed Saddam when Reagan and Rummy were licking his arse I can state, without flinching, that if the U.S. had NOT invaded Iraq in 2003 and Saddam had remained in power, Iraq would have remained in the grip of dictatorship but FEWER PEOPLE MOST CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE DIED.
Nearly five years later, instead, Saddam is fortunately gone but a better future for most Iraqis remains purely hypothetical. For the moment the dictatorship has been replaced by occupation, vile and bloody civil war, chaos, and diaspora.
What I dont understand is from where you summon the gall to make such patently absurd arguments — and ones laced, no less, with a stiff dose of moral blackmail. Go talk to Rummy and ask him how many Iraqis died after he went to Baghdad and played pattycake with an Arab Nazi.
I’d love to hear the answer.Id be satisfied just to hear the question/.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Stott and Woody couldn’t stand themselves if they acknowledged even half of the crank bullshit they’ve been trying to feed us these past four years defending the war in Iraq. We’re not engaging political arguments with these types. We’re being subjected to the personal pathology of moral cowards.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a legitimate policy goal. How best to go about it? Make up stories about WMD to hoodwink Americans into supporting it, ignore all advice from Iraq experts that a civil war would start after Saddam’s fall, send a fraction of the troops that military experts said was necessary, spend more than a billion dollars a year on the whole thing, and then keep calling the ensuing disaster success and progress year after year until such time as your political party is so discredited that it may not recover for years to come? Hmm. There must have been a better way, but the Bush administration seems to have realized that they could count on support from enough Woodys and Samuel Stotts to give it a try. That is the one thing they were right about.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Oh, forgot to say: And the Bush administration seems to have realized that it could count on support from a Democratic Party so terrified at being branded weak on terrorism that it would sell the country down the river for the price of a vote.
September 5th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Whoops, typo, that is more than 100 billion dollars a year. About what they say single payer healthcare would cost taxpayers using one of the cheaper schemes. Amazing how so many Americans will spend that kind of money on a war without blinking, but health and schools are another matter.
September 5th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Stott writes: “You “progressives†never bother to explain what peace and stability the US interrupted.”
Probably because it’s self-evident. But since you ask: when we invaded Iraq this time, Iraq hadn’t invaded any country in over a decade. You might say it had invaded itself, if you accept for the sake of argument that a Kurdistan somewhat covered under the no-fly zones was truly Iraq. But actually it was two Kurdistans, fighting each other in a civil war for much of the sanctions period; Saddam’s troops merely weighed in on whichever side was most opposed to U.S.-supported destabilization efforts. If the Kurds (whatever their internal differences) had jointly agreed to not permit U.S. intervention efforts to proceed on their divided turf, and if they had united, there probably would have been a lot of peace, not to mention more Kurdish autonomy, which was already pretty well established under Saddam.
Which is to say, Iraq was relatively stable and peaceful under the sanctions, except where there was war and instability being fanned by the U.S.
Was it an awful dictatorship? Oh, yeah. Hell, yeah. But … as bad as Robert Mugabe’s? As bad as Sudan’s? I’d say not. So … gosh … I guess there must have been some OTHER reason to invade. Maybe something to do with what Colin Powell said about the importance of a stable Middle East oil supplier, because (among other things) of the kinds of cars we like to drive. And yes, he DID say that.
September 5th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Michael Turner points out the obvious. By an y standard life was nbetter under Saddam. And it sure as hell was better there than under Mugabe or the “Dear Leader” in North Korea.
Oh yeah what did we do about that “Axis of Evil” partner? We used diplomacy! And its working!
Course not even Bush and the most deluded neocon wants to tangle with Kim’s army – they’d kick our ass and what was left would be kicked across the Sea of Japan by the South – which is more than capable of defending itself, thank you.
Anyone who saw South Korean forces as I did in Vietnam would think long and hard about messing with them!
September 5th, 2007 at 9:42 am
rlo, if you really want to see the US get its ass kicked, try a land invasion of Iran. But they are too cowardly for that, so it will be bombs bombs bombs.
September 5th, 2007 at 10:44 am
MB since there are no combat units available the ground option is out. But don’t discount the “fun” Naval units will have in the Straits of Hormuz facing improved silkworm missiles.
September 5th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
I’m going out on a limb – there is no way that America will launch any bombing of Iran that isn’t already taking place, mostly through paramilitary incursions, terrorist acts, etc. The open talk of where American navl vessels are and talk of bombing Iran, it seems to me, are psychological warfare meant to confuse the regime.
Teh Iranian bourgeoisie, and the NED funded intellectuals there are openly speaking against an attack – this should be placed in the broad context of a good cop/bad cop diplomatic attitude toward Iran – officially the two nations are in close talks constantly over fighting over influence in Iraq. The ultimate goal, as it has been in many regions subject to this type of psy/war, is preparing to in some way shape or form overthrow the regime “nonviolently” – they already have plenty of folks – Rafsanjani – working them.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Marc,
I’m engaging in “pure sophistry?” You are a fair minded person, so perhaps you are willing to acknowledge that yours below is susceptible to the same charge, times ten and on wheels:
“While I’ve opposed this war from the beginning I have been unrestrained in celebrating the overthrow and demise of Saddam Hussein.”
For my part, I am not so much a sophist that I am willing to celebrate the outcome of a policy I opposed, without conceding that the policy had some sort of merit. You can’t have it both ways, without getting sophistical, yourself.
In olden days, my favorite Left arguments were that Saddam was a crafty rational actor who could be contained, and that Bush was incompetent becasue he refused to put enough boots on the ground.
The first argument was retired uncerimouniously, when a few boots pulled Saddam out of a rabbit hole. In light of the partial success of the Surge, the second argument just gets ignored.
It would be nice if the world’s liberal democracies would get serious about defending liberal democracy by imposing minimal standards upon barbarians. Barbarians.
September 6th, 2007 at 5:25 am
“In olden days, my favorite Left arguments were that Saddam was a crafty rational actor who could be contained, and that Bush was incompetent becasue he refused to put enough boots on the ground.
The first argument was retired uncerimouniously, when a few boots pulled Saddam out of a rabbit hole. In light of the partial success of the Surge, the second argument just gets ignored.”
Would it be rude to point out that there is absolutely no logical connection binding those two paragraphs ?
The unbearable futility of debating idiots…
September 6th, 2007 at 8:05 am
Would it be rude to point out that there is absolutely no logical connection binding those two paragraphs?
No, nor would it be rude to point out that Saddam had no better friend than that conservative wet dream, Ronald Reagan.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
The Left argument that Saddam was a threat, albiet rational and thus containable, has been disproved by the fact that Saddam is now dead, having invited his own destruction, by refusing to comply with the numerous UN mandates that gave the US legal justification for killing him. Saddam could have easily staved off the US invasion by honoring the armistice he signed and innumerable UN mandates. Instead, he chose to spit in the face of the UN and international law by refusing to comply with the UN inspections regime, which itself, naturally, only reentered Iraq under threat of 200,000 American and Allied troops massed on the Iraqi border and slavering for war.
In vain, one looks for a consistent position, among the Left, regarding enforcement of UN mandates. In Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Darfur…
This is not a minor point. The official UN position on Iraq, today, is that the Allies are now the legitimate guarantor of Iraqi soveriegnty. The official international Left position is cheerleading for American and Allied defeat.
Point two: Anyone who criticized Bush for not putting enough “boots on the ground” might be willing to support the putting of “boots on the ground,” unless, of course, the argument was strictly opportunistic and devoid of principle. If we (“we” being the advanced and civilized people of liberal democracy) are willing to enforce law, there is no question that law will be enforced. The Left objection here, which can and must never be stated, is that Liberal Democracy is a meaningless chimera.
Your average Western Leftist, after, and not before cashing his munificent paycheck, would rather step over his expiring sister to have intercourse with his expired mom before stating in plain English that liberal democracies and constitututional governments are superior to any other known forms of government.
In closing, let’s hear from any of you jokers who can explain how the world and the Middle-East would look today had the US not invaded Iraq.
This would seem to be a slam dunk. Instead of supporting Chimpy McBush Hitler and that well-known facist Tony Blair, and those well-known Hitlerites curently running the evil countries of France and Germany, let’s hear about the your blessed Left alternative.
Go ahead and try to win an election
September 7th, 2007 at 10:23 am
“and not before cashing his munificent paycheck, would rather step over his expiring sister to have intercourse with his expired mom”
Have you considered a shrink? I’m not kidding–this type of speech is a bit unsettling. It’s funny, I think you were the one who was harping about profanity use and ad homina, but hearing “you’re an asshole” sounds a lot more mentally balanced to me than “step over his expiring sister to have intercourse with his expired mom”. That’s just… eyebrow-raisingly weird.
September 7th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
That’s just… eyebrow-raisingly weird.
Maybe it’s projection or fantasy.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:12 am
d5d878675c7a…
d5d878675c7ad52be6c1…