Editors of The Washington Post: Mr. Bush on Iraq

From The Washington Post
Dated Wednesday June 29

Mr. Bush on Iraq

President Bush sought last night to bolster slipping public support for the war in Iraq by connecting it, once again, to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and to the war against terrorism. That connection is not spurious, even if Saddam Hussein was not a collaborator of al Qaeda: Clearly Iraq is now a prime battlefield for Islamic extremists, and success or failure there will do much to determine the outcome of the larger struggle against them. But Mr. Bush didn't explain how a war meant to remove a tyrant believed to wield weapons of mass destruction turned into a fight against Muslim militants, a transformation caused in part by his administration's many errors since Saddam Hussein's defeat more than two years ago. The president also didn't speak candidly enough about the primary mission the United States now has in Iraq, which is not "hunting down the terrorists" but constructing a stable government in spite of Iraq's sectarian divisions and violent resistance from the former ruling elite. It's harder to explain why Americans should die in such a complex and ambitious enterprise than in a fight with international terrorists, but that is the case Mr. Bush most needs to make.

When he did turn to Iraq's reconstruction Mr. Bush mostly described the bright side of a very mixed picture . . . .

Once again, however, the president missed an opportunity to fully level with Americans, even though some of the hard truths he elided have been spelled out by his aides and senior military commanders . . . .

Fortunately, most Americans appear to have a hardheaded appreciation of the problems and stakes in Iraq. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that most do not believe the administration's claims of progress, but a majority still is willing to support an extended stay by U.S. forces. If those forces are to succeed in the difficult months and years ahead, Mr. Bush will need to preserve and nourish that fragile mandate -- which will mean speaking more honestly to Americans than he did last night.

Read more.

Goddamn I hate the WaPo. I just fucking hate them and their moronic consensus reality. How deep into WaPo's throat does the administration have to shove its collective schlong before they decide to stop sucking and starting speaking up for themselves?

I almost wrote something nasty about it. Only after reading it over did I give the Post a pass on that. In the end, the editors of the Post state that the reason it is not spurious has more to do with the fallout of invading than with any conditions in Iraq prior to the invasion.

See my critique of the editorial (post 2).

This is just New Excuse for War Crimes #273.

Having abandoned the other 272 excuses previously put forth we now have the rehash of the warn-terra excuse. Now we are supposed to just forget that they lied to us when they said that Iraq was connected to 9-11. Now we are supposed to send our sons and daughters to die in Iraq because, since we wrecked the place based on a pack of lies, it has become a hot bed of terra. Tell you what: lets get the heck out of there and let the Iraqis sort out their own problems. That would defuse the whole jihadist element. Oh but we would be shamed, right? Too f'ing bad. What we did was shameful. Time to take our medicine, again. When will we learn?

Oh, by the way, Iraq is not a hot bed of terra. Iraq is a hot bed of insurgency against what is widely perceived to be an occupation force that has conquered Iraq and is attempting to install a puppet regime to govern Iraq for the benefit of the conquerors. Jihadists are taking advantage of that situation, but we can end their opportunism tomorrow BY GETTING OUT.

There is no valid reason why the Iraqi government cannot organize its own security forces and take care of the problem of Zarqawi. Bush and his friends want something out of Iraq that conflicts with the concept of a free and independent state. In order to expropriate Iraq's wealth for transnational corporations, Bush needs to make sure that any Iraqi regime, whether it is nominally democratic or just another tin horn dictator, is dependent on US. There is no sovereignty in Iraq; the occupation continues. Bush and the neoconservatives would like it to continue indefinitely for the benefit of transnational corporations, not the Iraqi people or the American people.

The Iraqi people will be better able to deal with jihadists without Bush's help than with it. That will benefit them and us, the American people. The Bush regime and transnational corporations won't fare so well.

My point in post 3 was merely what the Post met by "not spurious". The connection between terrorists like Zarqawi as a threat to the US and Iraq could not be justified by conditions as they were in March 2003. The Post is not saying that they were. However, Zarqawi has since alligned himself with Osama, who is no doubt very happy to have US military muscle tied down in Iraq. The Post is saying that the connection between Iraq and September 11 comes after the fact of the invasion and as a consequence of it. That a defensible thesis.

The Post seems to want to earn a reputation as being Mr. Bush's most reliable ally among the leading formerly respectable print dailies. As an American citizen and taxpayer, I have no desire to maintain a military presence in Iraq for years if the goal is to expropriate Iraq's national wealth.

The insurgents had no trouble organizing their fighting forces; what is keeping the Iraqi government from organizing its own? One might suspect it is the same thing that is preventing the distribution of water and power to Iraqi homes and businesses.

The Bush regime needs to be removed from power in two countries: Iraq and the US. They need to be removed in the US simply because they have violated a sacred public trust by willfully lying to get into a war and making a bad situation worse. Saddam was a brutal tyrant, but a paper tiger who posed no regional or global threat. Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorists until our neoconservative misleaders blundered their way into Baghdad. Meanwhile, the brutality of the occupation too often matches the brutality of Saddam's dark rule. It has been Bush's Falluja for Saddam's Halabja and Bush's Abu Ghraib for Saddam's Abu Ghraib.

The Bush regime needs to be removed from power in Iraq because the Iraqi people can build their country better than the neoconservatives can build it for them. The Bush regime is unable to secure the road from the Green Zone to the airport and unable to keep trash collected or traffic lights working in the Green Zone. Iraq under occupation does not have a reliable water and power or sewage system in most of the country. And the security forces aren't ready after two years of American rule? What is going on here? Perhaps Iraq should be given real sovereignty, not the merely rhetorical sovereignty she was "granted" a year ago. Who can doubt that a truly self-governing Iraq can do better than Iraq as a neoconservative colony?

dark side.

I think that we have exceeded Saddam. Read this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3976285&mesg_id=3976285

Did Negroponte develop Death Squads in Iraq?

As someone who resisted participating in this ill-conceived campaign while still within the ranks of the military, I have become increasingly maddened with the calls from many seemingly intelligent people that we "have to stay until the job is done".

For them, I have two questions. First, is for them to define, in some detail, exactly what that "job" is and how to achieve it. Second, is to ask them if they are willing to go and help finish that "job" themselves, or to encourage their children to do so if they are not of service age.

A "no" answer on either of the aspects of the second question renders their beliefs completely inconsequential, IMHO.

The last paragraph hit me with this realization.
Fortunately, most Americans appear to have a hardheaded appreciation of the problems and stakes in Iraq. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that most do not believe the administration's claims of progress, but a majority still is willing to support an extended stay by U.S. forces. If those forces are to succeed in the difficult months and years ahead, Mr. Bush will need to preserve and nourish that fragile mandate -- which will mean speaking more honestly to Americans than he did last night.

I've read numerous articles in which people have been asked their thoughts on Iraq. Many of those who express the view that we need to "stay" have then said that they would discourage their own children from joining the military. So, the message is that the job is good enough for them to advocate sending someone else's kid, but they're not about to sacrifice their own for it. Just more evidence of how spoiled, coddled and increasingly delusional we are as a nation.

dreams, dreams.

I'm a liar and an incompetent? I'm losing the War on Terror? I've fired everybody that has a clue and promoted those who have completely fucked up Iraq and smeared the good name and honor of our country with filth and shit?

"My fellow Americans, if you want turn things around in Iraq you will have to start by impeaching, then removing me and the rest of my administration from office, and we all know that just ain't gonna happen. So, in conclusion, fuck you."