Bush's Exit Strategy: Goodman and Good Sense #6

In recent days I have lamented to myself and to some of my co-bloggers that much as I would like to go back to regular political blogging, I just can't bring myself to gather my thoughts. I have nothing new to say about the Bush administration that I haven't said before. Immoral and unethical? Check. Boorish and incompetent? Check. Dishonest and disingenuous? Check. Heartless and calculating? Check. The worst presidency in the history of the US? Check.

Last night I heard George W. Bush describe his plans for the future of Iraq and the US military's involvement there. As usual, he said nothing that we didn't know or didn't expect. And unsurprisingly, it made little or no sense. Once again, the Commander in Chief chose to hide behind the shiny uniform and medals of one of his military generals. (See this You Tube video of Bush lamenting the treatment of General Petraeus by Democrats. The video was inspired by the outburst of a distraught Britney Spears fan.) The testimony by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker before the Congress, strategically planned on and around the September 11 anniversary, paved the way for Bush to once again come before American citizens and sell another bill of faulty goods - this time the much vaunted  "surge" in Iraq.  No one, including the most ardent supporters of Bush, expects the military surge to solve any problem, in the short or the long term. We all understand that this is a stalling strategy - a Texas Hold 'Em game of poker faced bluffing. The only real plan Bush has is to hand over this disaster to the next president (probably a Democrat) and escape into his retirement years with a sigh of relief. As has been the story of his life, someone else will have to clean up Bush Jr's mess.

Columnist Ellen Goodman echoes my sentiments. She rightly points out that the only exit strategy George Bush cares about is his own.

It was no accident that bin Laden timed his videos for Sept. 11. But then again, how fitting it was that the hearings on the Iraq war coincided with the anniversary of his attack.

The testimony was dotted with overt and subtle messages about Iraq as the center of the war on terrorism without acknowledging how it became the center. In opening statements, Ambassador Ryan Crocker used "al-Qaida" nine times and Gen. David Petraeus used it 17 times without mentioning that there was no al-Qaida in Iraq before we were in Iraq.

There was nothing new in this false connection. For that matter, there was no news at all from the hearings, if by "news" we mean something unexpected: "General Bites Commander in Chief."

Was there any doubt that Petraeus wanted to keep the surge troops as long as possible? Was there any doubt that Bush would claim to follow the advice of the man he commands and announce plans to withdraw those 30,000 troops by next summer?

Nevertheless, to my surprise, these hearings did mark a turning point. In place of swagger, we saw sobriety. There was no presidential voice in these rooms telling the senators and representatives, as he told the Aussies, "we're kicking ass." The cockeyed optimism of "Mission Accomplished" was replaced by the controlled pessimism in Crocker's voice as he claimed, simply, that "success is attainable."

But if you need more proof of sobriety, there was the moment of the hearings when Petraeus was asked whether Americans were safer now. After a pregnant pause, he answered: "Sir, I don't know, actually."

The choices facing voters will be these: Chaos in Iraq, or casualties in America. The forces of terrorism let loose in the world, or the real war against terrorism distracted by the war in Iraq. One side will ask how we can justify the massacres and mayhem that may well follow our departure. The other side will ask how we can justify asking one more, or 1,000, or 5,000 Americans to die - for what? A mistake.

Between these two unbearable options, I choose leaving. But any choice comes with a bitter recognition of the financial, moral and political fallout from this president's decision and deception.

In Robert Draper's aptly named book on the Bush presidency, "Dead Certain," the president muses on his retirement. "I'll give some speeches, just to replenish the ol' coffers," he says. "We'll have a nice place in Dallas," he adds, where he will run "a fantastic Freedom Institute. I can just envision getting in the car, getting bored, going down to the ranch."

Robert Draper reports in the same book that Bush confessed to crying during his presidency:

Draper says President Bush also admits that he cries. “I've got God's shoulder to cry on. And I cry a lot. I do a lot of crying in this job. I'll bet I've shed more tears than you can count, as president," Bush told Draper.

Multiply that by hundreds of millions Mr. Bush, to include others in the world who have been reduced to tears by your presidency. Perhaps it's worse than crying. Your presidency sometimes feels like a pebble stuck in our throats and we can only hope to breathe freely when it is dislodged - in a little more than fifteen interminable months.

Comments

[Sujatha]

"The other side will ask how we can justify asking one more, or 1,000, or 5,000 Americans to die - for what? A mistake."

I'm fairly convinced that the truth is worse- it was no mistake. It's the fulfilling of a plan that enriches a huge cabal of shadowy corporations and individuals who financed GWB's path to the presidency, at the cost of Iraqi and American lives. Yesterday's 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' had a disturbing segment (item number 4) on a deal between the Kurds and Hunt Oil of Texas and the collapse of the political process in Iraq necessitating permanent stationing of US troops there to 'guarantee the peace'.

[Ruchira Paul]

The Hunt Oil story is an especially interesting one. While Bush publicly orates about a united, free and democratic Iraq, one of his close friends and contributors strikes a unilateral deal with "Kurdistan?" How funny. It is true that both the Kurds and Hunt Oil have made public assurances about sharing the revenues as required by the "Iraqi Constitution." But it makes you wonder what Hunt Oil knows that we don't. Is Iraq fated to be a divided country along sectarian lines with long time US military presence at the borders? Like in Korea? And has the Bush administration shared this advance knowledge with their fat-cat cronies so that they can get in the game early? Like Halliburton did business with Iran when it was illegal? Well it wouldn't be the first time that corrupt patrons of a corrupt government profited from instability and suffering in a distant land. Forget peace and security. War profiteering is what the whole Iraq war is about.

[coonie]

I really hate Bush.