It's still just "Stay The Course"

[ndebord]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/opinion/10sun1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

It's the weekend after Baker-Hamilton released their report on the status of the war in Iraq and the early indicators are in: Bush will stay the course and damn the torpedoes.

<sigh>

[Jeff]

Of course. Ala the Blues Brothers, he's 'on a mission from god'. And look where that got them.

- Jeff

[ktinkel]

And then there was Frank Rich’s column (http://select.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/opinion/10rich.html) in the Times today. He is, unfortunately, often quite right.

[Lindsey]

the early indicators are in: Bush will stay the course and damn the torpedoes.


http://www.uclick.com/feature/06/12/06/po061206.gif


--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

And then there was Frank Rich’s column (http://select.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/opinion/10rich.html) in the Times today. He is, unfortunately, often quite right.
Someone said not too long ago (I can't remember who it was, unfortunately) that as a former theater critic, Frank Rich is the perfect one to analyze the highly stage-managed performance of the Bush administration.

For me, the most disheartening portion of Rich's column is the history he relates after drawing a parallel between the Iraq Study Group and Lyndon Johnson's own bi-partisan group of "wise men" who counselled disengagement from Vietnam: Pointing out that Lyndon Johnson took positive steps to implement those recommendations (unlike the signals of intransigence we are seeing from Bush), Rich says

But as Stanley Karnow recounts in “Vietnam: A History,” it was already too late, after some 20,000 casualties and three years of all-out war, for an easy escape: “The frustrating talks were to drag on for another five years. More Americans would be killed in Vietnam than had died there previously. And the United States itself would be torn apart by the worst internal upheavals in a century.”
Five years may be optimistic; some analysts are saying it will take another 10 or 15 years before we can leave Iraq. Will the rest of the world be that patient? I'm not so sure. Certainly if we continue to "stay the course" for that long, there are forces that are going to be determined to make it extremely painful for us.

Several months ago, I was with Nancy Pelosi in taking the question of impeachment off of the table. With only two years left in Bush's term, and with no hope of anything but a very thin majority in the Senate (and therefore not enough to accomplish a conviction), I didn't see that impeachment would serve as anything but a distraction. But I'm reconsidering now. If Bush refuses to change his policy in Iraq, despite the result of the elections, despite the clear loss of confidence in his leadership conveyed by the current opinion polls, despite the advice of the vast majority of the country's foreign policy experts, I think the threat of impeachment is the only recourse left if we are to have any hope of turning this ship around before it runs aground. He may still not listen -- W seems to like playing chicken -- but it's the only Constitutional means left to us.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Lindsey,

Doubt the country nor the Democrats will impeach Bush over this fiasco. Saw Gen. Garner on CSPAN yesterday and his frank discussion included tidbits such as when he was replaced by Bremer after just one month on the job, he met with Bush for 45 minutes during which Bush supposedly said, it was not his decision to remove Garner, it was Rummie. Anyhow, the point was that Garner was going to use the Sunni power structure to maintain control in Iraq. Army, Baathists, etc. And that was what did him in. Which is why Bremer fired the Army and the Baathists when he took over, creating an instant insurgency of around 400,000 Sunnis and a new Shiite governing authority with zero experience at running a state.

[ktinkel]

I doubt there will be a serious move to impeach. We seem to have forgotten that it is a tool designed for just this sort of thing, and instead have a fear of it. (And, of course, the Clinton fiasco still leaves a bad taste.) And there does not seem to be much will among the public.

Rich’s analysis was depressing, but hard to believe it is wrong.

[Judy G. Russell]

Oh ROFL!!! Love that cartoon...

[Lindsey]

Doubt the country nor the Democrats will impeach Bush over this fiasco.
Oh, I don't think they would, either; it's just that I've gone from thinking they shouldn't to thinking that maybe they should. Bush is about to destroy the army and the marines, and I don't think it's a particularly good idea to sit back and say, "Oh, well, he's president for another two years. What can we do?"

Bush supposedly said, it was not his decision to remove Garner, it was Rummie.
Bush has been recently comparing himself to Harry Truman. Harry Truman's motto was, "The buck stops here." Bush's motto seems to be "The buck stops elsewhere." It's never his fault, always someone else's. It's the CIA, the FBI, it's his cabinet, it's the Iraqis, it's al-Qaeda, it's the American people. Everybody but Georgie boy. He likes to puff out his chest and say, "I'm the Commander-In-Chief. I'm the Decider." So how come the decision to fire Garner wasn't his responsibility? No wonder the cartoonists draw him the size of an elf, and with pointy little ears.

Garner had his faults, too. I wasn't all that impressed with his performance in the short time he was in charge. It was on his watch that all that looting occurred, and it's been all downhill from there. But even that was not all his fault; he was hampered by the simple fact that there were no plans in place for handling the occupation, and that strikes me as criminal negligence. Rumsfeld has to take a large share of blame for that -- he dismissed the detailed plans the State Department had, and threatened to fire anyone who made plans for an occupation, because he was determined there was not going to be one. And then when it didn't work out the way he envisioned, the troops were stuck with no backup plan. But Bush was Rumsfeld's boss, and he should have been damned sure he was satisfied that all contingencies had been taken into account before he committed the lives of thousands of young people into his little adventure.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

I doubt there will be a serious move to impeach.
As I told Nick, I don't think there will be, either; it's just that I'm now beginning to think there should be.

Meanwhile, I was shocked to see this on the Democracy Now! web site from Friday (I missed the broadcast itself):


United States vs. George W. Bush et al: Former Federal Prosecutor Drafts Indictment Against the President

A former federal prosecutor named Elizabeth de la Vega has drafted an indictment of President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top officials for tricking the nation into war and for conspiracy to defraud the United States.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/08/158219
Turns out it's just a mock indictment (how could it be otherwise from a former prosecutor), and appears in her recent book (United States vs. George W. Bush, et al) simply as a device to allow de la Vega to lay out for the public (as a hypothetical grand jury) how the actions of the Bush administration meet the elements of the crime described in Title 18, Section 321 of the US Code (conspiracy to defraud the United States). But bogus or not, boy, did it get my attention! And wouldn't it be something if someone could actually file such a case?

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Oh ROFL!!! Love that cartoon...
Well, hello, stranger!! It's wonderful to see you back here!

The clerk at the bookstore (they all know me by sight, and they know what magazines I buy) put me onto the cartoon. "You have to look for Oliphant's latest," she said. And she was right!

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Well, hello, stranger!! It's wonderful to see you back here!Well, thankee kindly! It's nice to be back!

The clerk at the bookstore (they all know me by sight, and they know what magazines I buy) put me onto the cartoon. "You have to look for Oliphant's latest," she said. And she was right!Just about anything by Oliphant is worth looking at!

[Lindsey]

Just about anything by Oliphant is worth looking at!
This is true!

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Garner had his faults, too. I wasn't all that impressed with his performance in the short time he was in charge. It was on his watch that all that looting occurred, and it's been all downhill from there. But even that was not all his fault; he was hampered by the simple fact that there were no plans in place for handling the occupation, and that strikes me as criminal negligence. Rumsfeld has to take a large share of blame for that -- he dismissed the detailed plans the State Department had, and threatened to fire anyone who made plans for an occupation, because he was determined there was not going to be one. And then when it didn't work out the way he envisioned, the troops were stuck with no backup plan. But Bush was Rumsfeld's boss, and he should have been damned sure he was satisfied that all contingencies had been taken into account before he committed the lives of thousands of young people into his little adventure.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Not fair to fault Garner on the looting. He was not allowed in country for the first 3 weeks or so by Tommy Franks. Not safe enough they said at the time. And when he got there, he immediately tried to put security at the top of the list, along with elections and jobs. Supposedly he complained about the paltry number of troops provided to garrison the country and that, along with an unwillingness to go along with the, at the time, proposal to privatize the country, helped get him fired. He did manage to get backpay for all those in the military and government who were then fired by Bremer. Guess you could say their going away bonus helped equip them for the insurgency.

<sigh>

[ndebord]

Lindsey,

I'm not saying Bush should NOT be impeached, just that he won't be imo.

As for Bush comparing himself to Truman. That is is his second banana impression. His first comparision was to Winston Churchill, standing up against the Nazis. As one wag has said, the better comparision is Hitler refusing to admit that Stalingrad was his Waterloo.

[ktinkel]

It would definitely be something. Possibly mostly a distraction. I am afraid the most I hope for is public investigation into all the chinks in Bush’s behavior, nice and methodical. Not even too optomistic about that, alas.

[Judy G. Russell]

It would definitely be something. Possibly mostly a distraction. I am afraid the most I hope for is public investigation into all the chinks in Bush’s behavior, nice and methodical. Not even too optomistic about that, alas.I certainly expect a full investigation into how we've spent the hundreds of billions of dollars that have gone, in large measure, to line the pockets of GOP fat cats...

[Lindsey]

Not fair to fault Garner on the looting. He was not allowed in country for the first 3 weeks or so by Tommy Franks.
I stand corrected, then -- I must be remembering wrong. Maybe what I'm thinking about is when Garner himself actually arrived and took over the civil operation from Franks or whoever was in charge of it before he got there. I just remember being disgusted that nobody seemed in the beginning to be taking the issue of security seriously (like with Rumsfeld shrugging off the looting with the equivalent of "stuff happens").

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

I'm not saying Bush should NOT be impeached, just that he won't be imo.
I'm afraid I have to agree with you there!

As for the Churchill comparison: I can't think of anyone Bush is less like than Winston Churchill! Churchill was a keen student of history, understood military strategy, was vitally interested in every aspect of the conduct of WWII, was an effective diplomat, and was quick to hold out his hand to former enemies once the war had ended. Not to mention that he knew how to put a sentence together!

--Lindsey

[ktinkel]

I certainly expect a full investigation into how we've spent the hundreds of billions of dollars that have gone, in large measure, to line the pockets of GOP fat cats...Let us hope. And hope, and hope, and hope.

I have all my digits crossed, anyway. :(

[Judy G. Russell]

Let us hope. And hope, and hope, and hope.

I have all my digits crossed, anyway. :(Fingers, toes and everything else. But clearly if the Democrats have any hopes at all for 2008, they'd better not just sit around with their thumbs up their ... ahem ... posteriors.

[Lindsey]

Let us hope. And hope, and hope, and hope.

I have all my digits crossed, anyway. :(
Yes, a thorough investigation (or, even better, a series of thorough investigations) would suit me just fine. I would very much like to see the truth come out, about a lot of things..

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Yes, a thorough investigation (or, even better, a series of thorough investigations) would suit me just fine. I would very much like to see the truth come out, about a lot of things..I think most of us would like to know just how badly we've been lied to ... or just negligently misled (for those few who can't yet bring themselves to admit we've been lied to).

[Lindsey]

I think most of us would like to know just how badly we've been lied to ... or just negligently misled (for those few who can't yet bring themselves to admit we've been lied to).
I would like to think we might be able to learn something from what we find out that would help prevent making the same horrendous mistake again. Then again, we thought we had learned something from Vietnam, too, and yet somehow, Colin Powell was persuaded to back a policy that violated the very doctrine coming from the lessons of that war that bore his name.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I would like to think we might be able to learn something from what we find out that would help prevent making the same horrendous mistake again. Then again, we thought we had learned something from Vietnam, too, and yet somehow, Colin Powell was persuaded to back a policy that violated the very doctrine coming from the lessons of that war that bore his name.I will always think that the co-opting of Colin Powell to sell a war he knew shouldn't have been sold, not to the UN and not to the American people, should go down in history as one of the darkest moments of the Bush presidency.

[Lindsey]

I will always think that the co-opting of Colin Powell to sell a war he knew shouldn't have been sold, not to the UN and not to the American people, should go down in history as one of the darkest moments of the Bush presidency.
Not to mention in Colin Powell's own biography. He was trying to be the good soldier, and I respect him for that, but there are times when being the good soldier requires you to tell your commander that he has his head in a place where the sun don't shine.

Left with a choice between what was right for his country, and following orders, he chose to follow orders. And that was the fatal flaw in his character. Sad. Under any other president, he'd have been one of the great Secretaries of State.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Left with a choice between what was right for his country, and following orders, he chose to follow orders. And that was the fatal flaw in his character. Sad. Under any other president, he'd have been one of the great Secretaries of State.The problem with choosing to follow orders is that he wasn't wearing a uniform at that time. As a statesman representing his country, he owed his country -- and his personal integrity -- a higher duty than a snappy salute and a "yes, sir!"

[Lindsey]

The problem with choosing to follow orders is that he wasn't wearing a uniform at that time.
Good point.

--Lindsey