What will the Iraq end-game be?

I have been overcome by a certain malaise when writing about the Iraq war or George W. Bush. What ever your view, Iraq, and the President's legacy, will remain with us for quite some time. While the news has been filled with Iraq reports, the President's televised address, and General Petreaus's Senate testimony, sifting through the information and misinformation is not only incredibly time consuming but largely fruitless. Which is why I greatly appreciate the work of George Packer.

I have followed Mr. Packer's writing since first reading the incredibly even-handed Dreaming of Democracy which Packer wrote in early 2003 before the fateful invasion of Iraq. With hindsight that peace proved to be incredibly predictive of the now historic lapses in judgment that accompanied Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I have also read Packer's book The Assassin's Gate which devotes 480 pages to America's activities in Iraq after the invasion. Packer has also written numerous pieces on Iraq for the New Yorker but it is his latest report entitled Planning for Defeat which brings to light a few more unfortunate truths.

Both General Petraeus and President Bush have hinted at future troop reductions in Iraq, those men say the draw downs are due to recent success, but in truth they are the product of more mundane forces. The American "surge" in Iraq will have to end at some point next summer. It will end for logistical reasons--brigades will have to rotate out because their tours will be over-extended. The surge's 160,000 troops will inevitably be reduced to 130,000 which will eventually be further reduced due to political pressures at home. (All of the Democratic presidential front-runners are calling for a withdrawal of troops.) But what then?

This is the answer Packer seeks in his article, the conclusion of-which is grim: Iraq will continue to slide into sectarian factions. Barring an incredible turn of events, control in Iraq will continue to rescind away from the central government and into more localized control. These are conditions no one wants to talk about and if the military is doing any planning in this area it is highly secretive. Hillary Clinton has asked the Pentagon for a briefing on their Iraq exit strategy but her request was largely rhetorical, insinuating that surely the pentagon plans to leave Iraq at some point, right? But would anyone be surprised if no such plan exists?

And if it doesn't exist, which is highly likely, it is not because the military does not know how to plan. It is because the administration fears even the thought of planning for defeat. Such a thing would, in the mind of a true believer like Bush, be like kryptonite, radiating its negative energy through the Department of Defense and draining the will to fight. We are living with a President who only sees what he wants to see, and he has proven acutely representative of a country who also sees what it wants, but in slightly different ways. Where the President believes victory first comes from the absolute abolishment of the hint of failure, Americans want to pull the plug on the whole operation, back out, and hope the radicalism we have unleashed in Iraq never manifests itself on our shores. This too is selfish and wishful thinking.

President Bush, most of the Republican presidential candidates, and a hand-full of hard core supporters, continue to talk about victory in Iraq, a concept which has moved from the removal of WMDs to hoping that the Iraqi central government can gain enough traction to run the country. The point of the surge was to buy the Maliki government some time to do this. This seems highly unlikely since the government has become "dysfunctional" according to a recent report), unable to overcome the sectarian rifts that separate its constituents. The big winners could be the tribal warlords, insurgents, and Iran, a country with a vested interest in seeing Iraq's Shi'ite majority remain in power.

Perhaps our leaders have come to grips the very real possibility that Iran's stature will be enhanced. Maybe this is why the administration has upped its rhetoric against that country and why we are now arming Sunni groups to defend themselves. America says this is to battle Al Quada, but the long-term goal could be to build a proxy buffer against Iran. Adept readers will recognize this is essentially the very same role Saddam Hussein filled when his Sunni minority ruled Iraq with an iron grip, and kept an eye on its blood enemy Iran.

So perhaps in the end, after all that blood and treasure, the administration is taking steps to duplicate as closely as possible the situation as it was before we ever went into Iraq. But will anyone realize it when we declare victory and pull out? Removing Saddam paved the way for a Shi'ite led, sectarian government in Iraq, thus matching Iran's. The solution to a very minor problem has created two intractable issues at the heart of the Middle East. That this possibility could have eluded the minds of the war's creators seems baffling but not all that surprising when you consider the people who cooked up the idea in the first place.

Bridges, and the Funny Thing About Bad Goverment

President Bush dismissed today raising the federal gas tax to repair the nation's bridges citing fiscal responsibility.

"The way it seems to have worked is that each member on that (Transportation) committee gets to set his or her own priorities first," Bush said. "That's not the right way to prioritize the people's money. Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities."

This comes a week after the highway 35W bridge collapsed in downtown Minneapolis during rush hour killing five people, at least eight are still missing. As a resident of the Twin Cities, and one who traverses its bridges frequently, this event has been, perhaps, more personal than to our nation's leaders. One does not expect a major bridge, in a major city, to collapse during rush hour. It's not only stunning but obviously unacceptable.

What is also stunning is that the press has quickly uncovered previous inspections of that bridge deeming it structurally unsound. Thus I am not sure which element I find more disconcerting: the collapse of the bridge, or the wealth of information on-hand warning us that such a thing could occur and was basically ignored. Minnesota Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty twice vetoed compressive transportation bills, but more on that in a moment.

Since the collapse Pawlenty has been quick to point out there are 70,000 bridges across the country that are in similar condition. His point serves two purposes. One, to illustrate the dire condition of our nation's infrastructure while at the same time assuaging fears many people have about their own bridges. After 69,999 of these unsound bridges are still standing.

But how many of these bridges are in major cities? How many carry over 100,000 cars a day as the 35W bridge in Minneapolis did? Shouldn't some priority have been given to a major bridge when it is found to be structurally unsound? Our problem is not lack of information but leaders who lack the wisdom and judgment to make the right decision with the information they have. We now know that the 35W bridge inspections had been done and their findings turned out to be an accurate harbinger of the disaster. Still, our leaders choose to take their chances. That bridge, and the pages of findings about its deficiencies, is a symbol of how we govern these days. It is now a terrible tragedy; unfortunately, and unnecessarily, a recovery zone.

There's a funny thing about conservativism, which stokes a strong American distrust for government: operations which are conducted are done so poorly that one finds the distrust reasonable. When those operations are found to be woefully inefficient, comities are formed to plumb the depths of their incompetence, but nothing changes. Amazingly, the people usually know what needs to be done without the availability of official reports. They go to their executive leaders and ask to be taxed to create the funds needed for remedy and they are turned away in the name of fiscal responsibility. Thus bad government, trying to do things for nothing, creates disasters, which fosters more mistrust in the government. In this area President Bush, and Gov. Pawlenty have done a magnificent job.

In early 2006 the Minnesota legislature produced a transportation bill which was being pushed unilaterally from both sides, and notably by business leaders, a crowd not usually anxious for more taxes, who affirmed the poor condition of our state's infrastructure. Gov. Pawlenty swiftly and dramatically vetoed the bill while musing aloud, "How dumb can they be?" The people resurrected the bill as an amendment which was voted on, and rejected, in the 2006 elections. By November 2006 enough people had seen enough inefficiency in government to allow the no-tax, something-for-nothing crowd to have its day and in the end we are left with what we (don't) pay for. Since the 35W bridge collapse Pawlenty, to his credit, says he could accept a higher gasoline tax to pay for infrastructure upgrades. A changed man, perhaps, we will see if he has discovered the leadership needed to govern above people's base fears.

And You Shall Know the Truth

"I want to know the truth," President Bush once said concerning the Valerie Plame affair. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of." And today, the culmination of over three years of truth-finding ended when Bush commuted Lewis Libby's conviction. This means Judith Miller will spend more time in jail for honoring her sources than the person who obstructed justice and perjured himself in the investigation.

The pathetic move by the president does not surprise anyone. I don't find the move disturbing as much as the all the presidential rhetoric used at the outset, and the tactics used in the interim. The sense of outrage is palpable across the country. While the rest of us go to work, pay our taxes, and keep the country running, the president and his man gallivant around as war leaders while keeping the inner workings of their organization hidden behind a wall of obfuscation. To say nothing of accountability, the American people rarely even get an explanation for their government's incredibly inept results.

"I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive," Bush said in a statement. "Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."

This "excessive" prison sentence was handed down by a Republican appointed judge, after a three year, exhaustive investigation started by John Ashcroft, and prosecuted by Patrick Fitzgerald who was appointed by Ashcroft's office. The case went through so many conservative hands it is hard to imagine any verdict reached as "excessive." And, in what seems to be a fitting metaphor for the last six years, the truth found in that long investigation is immediately discarded by the Bush administration, which opted instead to honor loyalty. The mantra apparently is that this administration will claim deal with the truth inasmuch as the search for truth can be coerced for political gain. Any unfortunate findings can be quickly erased with the stroke of a pen--whether they are global warming facts, or members of the administration convicted of a felony.

No, Libby was no the leak. No, he was not the person the prosecution was originally looking for. Conservative pundits latched onto this and called the whole thing a witch-hunt. Which is to say it is just unfair to go after anyone who obstructs justice and/or commits perjury if the original trial was not about them. This notion stems from the party who claims to know something about family values.

Bush vowed to "take care" of the person involved in the leak. Both Dick Cheney and Karl Rove have been closely linked in the case yet Bush has shown no interest to expedite any investigation in those key members of the administration. Libby took the hit instead and is spared by the president. But, really, how much can expect from a man void of a realistic, cohesive long view? I do not find it surprising at all that today is the four year anniversary of another great Bush bloviation: bring 'em on. Bush once laid down the gauntlet with those choice words; and, as it turns out, everyone was ready for the challenge except the White House.

Bush was once heralded as a man of integrity. A decisive war-time president. A straight talking Texan. We now know none of those things are true. Like Libby, perhaps, we too have been set free. We now know the truth that Bush once claimed to seek. The Libby issue effectively blows away any hint of the former caricature that was the strong, post-9/11 president. All bad things can be blamed on partisan politics and witch-hunts but did such things shrink Bush? Or was it his own, indescribable contempt? Some horrors need no embellishment.

"Saved" Stem Cells Headed for Destruction

Apparently the only thing President Bush cares more about than saving lives is not saving them. Yesterday Bush vetoed, for the second time, a stem cell research bill. Today congress blocked the administrations request for $89 billion to develop a new generation of nuclear missiles.

Could the juxtaposition be any more evident?

About the stem cell bill, Bush said yesterday, "If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers for the first time in our history to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line."

Supporters of the veto seem to care little that the embryos that Bush ceremoniously "saved" are slated to be discarded anyway. Instead the hopes of millions of Americans, and the potential for scientific advancement, wastes away on a paper thin federal budget. Not that there's any money to spare in the budget anyway, with $90 being asked to enhance our nuclear arsenal.

The perpetually heated and contentious stem cell issue is mainly fueled by ignorance, which is exactly why it somehow finds its way onto voting ballots come election time where wide-eyed, sheep-like voters can weigh in on the issue. The rhetoric is heated, it boils down to a simple matter of life and death. With such a clear moral and ethical objective, and a divine mandate, why is it not reprehensible for potential life to be created and remain frozen in IVF clinics? Why is it not abhorrent for that potential life to be discarded and destroyed?

Those who find Bush's veto comforting are deluding themselves. There is not even a debate in anything other than the partisan sense of the term. The veto has not saved any lives. The stem cells in question will be discarded. Therefore the only thing that has been stopped are potential cures for fatal and debilitating diseases. Where's the moral or ethical ground in that?

Saving Scooter

William Kristol, he of the Orvill Reddenbacherish neoconservative ilk, has made no secret his desire to see I Lewis "Scooter" Libby receive a presidential pardon. But Bush does not appear to be listening, and so in the latest edition of "The Weekly Standard" Kristol advises the president, again, to go for it.

It's always dicey when one petitions for a convicted felon to be pardoned by the president. One does not simply go about such a thing lightly. There are many factors to consider. How does someone like Kristol, who represents the party of family values and ethics, also take the side of someone who perjured himself, obstructed justice, and made false statements during an investigation?

Typically the spin-control involves pointing out a similar grievance from the opposite party. For example, when Mark Foley was found to be courting under-age congressional page boys and House Speaker Dennis Hastert knew about it all along, the Republicans immediately recalled the Gary Studds scandal in-which the Democratic congressman had sex with a 17 year-old page. That scandal had its day in court 25 years ago and invokes little contemporary outrage.

Still, Kristol tries a similar move in his attempt to save Scooter.

"Of course, Sandy Berger, national security adviser to Bill Clinton, hid original documents on his person, took them out of the National Archives, destroyed them, and lied to investigators. One might think of this as 'creating a problem.' But Berger got no prison time and a fine one-fifth that imposed on Libby."

You know you're hurting when your first line of defense is "hey, they do it too." It's also pathetic to see such a high-powered Republican mouth-piece once again dragging out the bogyman Clinton administration. No one cares about Bill Clinton anymore, and who can even tell you who Sandy Berger was (National Security Advisor) except these neoconservatives? Clinton is gone. Propping him up as a straw man only to beat him down was at its climax ten years ago. The world has moved on, neoconservatives have not, which is why, perhaps, they seem so completely lost these days.

Kristol goes on to say that "Libby's sentence--to say nothing of the original prosecution--is unfair and vindictive." This echoes a very popular conservative line of thinking, one that strikes a deep vein of paranoia and fearfulness.

Erik on the blog Redstate echoes the vibe when he says, "To me, Scooter Libby was the victim of a partisan witch hunt. He, at most, got his timeline mixed up when he went before the grand jury and was inconsistent with his prior statements to the FBI. To Mr. Lindorff, it was intentional."

A witch-hunt? A political circus perpetuated by an over zealous attorney and an activist judge and probably, carefully concealed communists? Maybe they're right. Maybe Libby has been made an unfair example, the sacrificial lamb for a sinful administration. He did his duty and took the fall. He got pinched for his more powerful brethren. A patriot, maybe the man deserves not jail time, but a pardon.

I dearly hope the president succumbs to this line of "reasoning." A pardon of Libby would be such an obnoxious display of loyalty over values that whatever is left of the paper-thin, self-righteous atmosphere around the president will be blown away by a public outrage with the power of corona discharge. And why not? What brought this presidency down was a level of arrogance that bordered on blindness. This was an administration, and a political party, which sought to consolidate its power and run itself like the mafia. Except the mafia actually gets things done rather than masquerade around.

And so, I predict there will be no pardon for Libby. Forget all the logic that says this president, with his hobbled administration, abysmal approval ratings, and crippled foreign and domestic policy cannot afford the political capital to pardon Libby. There is another reason: a complete vacuum of leadership at the White House. To pardon Libby would require a certain amount of courage in the face of overwhelming odds. I have never seen this president play it that way. When the going gets tough he sticks every time. This is George W. Bush, the leader who rubber-stamped for a Republican congress; the guy who has propped up bloated and inept government institutions; the man who could not even fire Donald Rumsfeld before the 2006 elections. He is a self-serving, unimaginative heir. His time will now be spent salvaging a mangled legacy with missile defense or immigration reform and Libby can go to jail as the tip of the vast and corrupt White House iceberg.

Word of the Day

Word of the day to describe the Bush presidency: fugue.

Fugue - n - A pathological amnesiac condition during which one is apparently conscious of one's actions but has no recollection of them after returning to a normal state. This condition, usually resulting from severe mental stress, may persist for as long as several months.

Bush's foreign policy has descended into a fugue state.


Thanks to Sidney Blumenthal's latest article on Salon.

Enhanced Background Check for Guns Gains Momentum, Ron Paul Dissents

What do Democrats, the NRA, and President Bush have in common? A desire to see a federal gun control act that enhances background checks come into law. The bill is designed to improve states reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check aimed to prevent gun purchases by certain people, including criminals and the mentally ill.

The bill was formed in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings where Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people before taking his own life. Cho was ordered to undergo mental health treatment and should have been barred from buying the weapons he used in the slayings. However Virginia never forwarded that information to the NICBC.

If the bill moves through congress and the president signs it will be the first gun control measure since the assault weapons ban was passed in 1994, which the president recently let expire.

The NRA is reportidly on-board with the measure because it does not add any extra preventions from owning a gun, only to enhance the current system of checks. Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president, agreed – provided lawmakers do not try to attach a lot of other gun control amendments to it.

"If this bill is kept in its present form, I predict it will pass the House and Senate and be signed into law" by President George W. Bush, LaPierre said. "But if they turn it into a gun-control wish list, we will withdraw our support," LaPierre said, adding he believes such a sweeping measure would be rejected.

The only dissenting vote came from Ron Paul, Republican from Texas, who described the bills as "a flagrantly unconstitutional expansion of restriction on the exercise of the right to bear arms.''

Four Years Ago Iraq Mission Accomplished

Four years ago today combat operations in Iraq ended, marked in a speech by President Bush on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln May 1, 2003. Bush, who rode in the back of an S-3 Viking which landed on the carrier, spoke in front of a large banner which declared "mission accomplished" and began the speech by declaring an end to major combat operations in Iraq.

"In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed," Bush declared. He also noted the destruction of the Taliban in Afghanistan. "You are homeward bound," Bush said to the men and women aboard the Abraham Lincoln.

And, as if in a dream, it all turned out to be exactly as the President said. The banner was perhaps a premonition. The war, like wars of old, ended with the words of the President. Like World War Two, it ended on the deck of a mighty ship. The symbolism was acute. American marines, soldiers, sailors and airmen returned home and grew old with their families. They watched their children grow old with them. They drove their cars under the haze of beautiful American summers. They spent Christmases decorating trees and gathering family members in front of the fireplace.

Iraq moved from years of oppression and division and became a healthy model of Democracy in the Middle East. Iraq influences the entire region as it once did. The oppressed peoples in neighboring countries see what is happening and the call of freedom resonates in every heart. It rings across the entire Middle East. Iran's days of sponsoring terrorism and seeking nuclear weapons are over. Israelis and Palestinians live side-by-side in a two-state solution long advocated by President Bush. The Middle East, long a hotbed for crisis and violence, has become a flowering Democracy ruled by peace.

And I trace this all back to that fateful speech by our stalwart President. His bold vision, enacted at a moments notice, with only the slightest logistical thought, with merely a moment's logical reflection, has changed the world forever. It all started with Iraq. Americans were able to wage war and go shopping at the same time. The Iraqi oil revenues paid for it all.

President Bush Meet Sanjaya Malakar

My anxiety over President Bush falls in correlation to how low his popularity ratings go. The more people disgusted with him the less I feel I have to vent on my blog. I've now come to regard him as a Sanjaya: an unforeseen anomaly of the system. One who fooled us, slipped in under the radar, and wrecked the place before we ever knew what hit us.

But, after six weary years, it looks like Bush has finally jumped the shark. Oh sure, we still have the war in Iraq, which may now be responsible for over 600,000 deaths and a mass exodus of over a million Iraqis. Sure, he is still in power for another 18 months and he still shows an unwillingness to make any prudent command decisions but I think America has finally seen the light.

When both the House and Senate pass a bill calling for a timetable for withdrawal and the President threatens a veto I don't even feel a twinge of excitement anymore. Scoffing at the electorate's wishes is just his way.

When Alberto Gonzalez is revealed to be a liar and the President refuses to hold him accountable I am not even surprised. Rewarding loyalty over competence is the first priority of the Bush White House.

When Dick Cheney lurks behind a hedge during a Bush press conference I don't even find it interesting. Cheney is just a creepy guy.

What is worse than negative press? No press. And I think that's the realm that Bush and the neoconservatives have fallen into. It's not that they're not bungling the war, ruining the future stability of the Middle East, and in-debiting the country for future generations, it's that the on-going bungling is hardly newsworthy anymore.

The neoconservative thought that enthralled so many Americans after 9/11 was this: That America should be filling the cold-war vacuum with it's power, setting the peoples of the world on a natural course towards Democracy. Iraq, for it's continued insolence, became the unwitting subject of such ambitions. It was believed that freedom would sprout where a dictator was removed. High thinkers like Richard Perle thus claimed Iraq a suitable candidate for Democratic reform.

Six years later I think we can rule the test a failure, the policies not just inept but unjust. To invade a country and remove its ruling powers with no plan for rebuilding is not just lazy, it is criminal.

My hope is that we have learned there are limits to our power. It's not how we can wield such power, but when, and why. These, and other unasked questions fall into the realm of judgment which someone like the President has never had any need for. Even now, after crashing the nation on some ill-advised joyride his father brings his lawyers in to help.

No one wants to view their president as a bungling fool. I certainly don't. But let's face it, anyone who demands to be recognized as "the decider" and then rattles off one mistake after another deserves a little chiding. When put to the test he has become a running gag in the daily news and is now held in contempt now even among his own party.

It's hard to imagine what could happen in 18 months that would surprise me. If tomorrow I were to pick up the paper and read we have invaded Iran I wouldn't be too stunned. That is where we have sunk to and why no one really cares anymore: the more insane the less surprising. What would be a real shock is to hear some true wisdom and leadership come out of the White House. Until then I am going to try to think about better things. In 18 months it will all be over, and Bush's place in history will be secure. Then, like the Romans, we will work on blotting it from our memories, like sewing salt over the ruins of Carthage.

Richard M. Nixon or George W. Bush?

Such is the barometer of our times: everyone is now political. What was once a distant echo sounding every election year has now become an all-consuming pastime. With two years to go before the 44th president is sworn in potential candidates are already jockeying for position. I was surprised to find myself engaged with a coworker over who would be remembered as the better president: Nixon or Bush? Strange days indeed.

I went with Nixon of course. Watergate would barely register by today's standards. Would we even be surprised to learn today that the current administration staged a break-in at DNC headquarters then covered it up with a series of lies? That would be the least of our worries compared with the constant summoning of decrepit behavior over the last six odd years. Alas, what will be said of George W. Bush by future historians?

I will give a little credit--the Bush presidency will be historical. I've always thought that political scientists will study it for years as some sort of twisted model for success. Imagine the Machiavellian genius involved to get someone with the intelligence of a water-cooler elected to the highest office in the land. That is either a severe indictment on the American populace or an incredible feat of black magic. The truth probably lies in tearful a mixture of both.

If anything the Democrats seem to take the electorate too seriously. Why did people hate John Kerry? He was too verbose. Why is Al Gore hated all the more? He is too preachy. Yes, this response from a self-proclaimed nation of Christians: too preachy. The Republicans don't waste time trying to figure Americans out. They go right to the prime motivators of any human: fear and selfishness. They happily exploit the results fueled by emotion and declare harmless rogue nations a threat to "homeland security" and gay and lesbians a plague on marriage and family.

The neoconservative movement is one that works by believing and convincing others there are threats everywhere. They mix that in with a little religious fervor and elections become the perfect crime. Scared white people run to the polls to vote for the party that has vowed to protect them. At its apex the movement managed to staff the halls of congress with sex freaks and scam artists, and put a dim-witted fool in the White House, surrounding him with born again brethren from their ideology.

They scared up enough votes to enact policies that would later prove their downfall. Believing threats are everywhere makes it very hard to identify the actual threats. While they dusted off the Iraq war plans in early 2001, Al Qaeda was getting ready to prove that the worst thing is not an insane leader thumbing his nose at the United States but a cabal of motivated, anti-Western followers. Such an idea never even breached the consciousness of neocons consumed with their own superiority. A bunch of peasants living in caves could never strike a blow to the homeland. Or could they?

9/11 proved to be a major blow to neoconservative thinking that nation-states posed the greatest threat to America but even after this their thinking did not change at all. Bush declared a "global war on terror" and proceeded to invade Afghanistan, then moved on to Iraq before finishing the job. Afghanistan is resurgent and Iraq has become the stuff of nightmares. Somewhere Bin Ladden is free. Still, the worst thing any neoconservative can do is to admit failure which is why you see John Bolton still declaring with utter confidence that the only mistake was not taking Saddam Hussein out sooner.

The frighteningly simplistic neoconservative policy you have been witnessing for the last six years is that America should take the opportunity afforded by the collapse of the Soviet Union to move unilaterally in the world against anyone who does not respect our foreign interests. Why Saddam out of all the terrible dictators? Saddam was the thorn in the neocon's side for thumbing his nose at us. Enter our very own tragic figure: the younger Bush ready to avenge the mistakes of the elder. The rest is history.

Even if you take the best-case scenario in each of the administration's massive and consecutive failures the result is still appalling. In each case it comes down to simple reasoning: either they sincerely thought they knew what they were doing, or they didn't know. When either option ends in disaster I'm not sure it matters.

The latest, a string of federal prosecutors fired for political reasons is hardly new or news. Was this a planned act of the administration or something that just occurred? Ultimately, does it matter? Should we be more upset that the administration seemed surprised, or that they knew all along? Is the administration completely out of control or in complete control? In these times, I'm not sure which is the better answer. At least Nixon's crimes were intentional. With Bush and co. you don't know if they planned to ruin the country or if all just happened like a terrible, unforeseen accident. That's the problem with electing people you wouldn't trust to do your laundry to steward your country.

The Difference Between a Dubya and a Washington

Once upon a time an American president stood up to dedicate a battlefield cemetery, noting with great humility that nothing he said would add any substantial value compared to what the soldiers who struggled there had already done. That was then, this is now.

Once, Abraham Liconoln struggled to find the words to convey his respect for what the 46,000 fallen soldiers had done at the three-day Battle of Gettysburg. Their sacrifice, the same as any asked to give their life for their country, was breathtaking, and Lincoln understood how meager his words would sound in comparison. Today our war is compared willingly, politically, with wars of the past. Today our President compared the war on terror to George Washington's long struggle that gave birth to our nation.

"Today, we're fighting a new war to defend our liberty and our people and our way of life," said Bush, standing in front of Washington's home and above a mostly frozen Potomac River. "And as we work to advance the cause of freedom around the world, we remember that the father of our country believed that the freedoms we secured in our revolution were not meant for Americans alone."

Such words cheapen the struggle of war. If the sacrifice of the soldier can not stand on its own, if it has to be packaged and sold by the President as one of historical importance, it sounds alarming. Bush is the type of person who, after a child sincerely gives a gift, feels the need to explain the gift, when it is obvious to everyone, and thus cheapens the entire event. This is probably because he himself doesn't really understand the nature of such things.

Abraham Lincoln seemed to understand it perfectly. He did not care if his words were remembered in 1863. In-fact, Lincoln did not want what he said to stand in the way of the sacrifice Americans had made. In less than 300 words, delivered in two minutes, Lincoln summarized the sacrifice of American soldiers by saying almost nothing, by hesitating to make any comparisons or clarifications, by pointing-out that the real message was what the fallen soldiers had done, and what they felt they were dying for.

George W. Bush is our Edward Everett, who, before Lincoln, spoke for two-hours, and almost 14,000 words. His bombastic speech is little remembered, and in comparison to the humble speech that followed, is viewed with contempt; Everret, the main orator for the ceremony, used the dedication of Soldiers' National Cemetery at Gettysburg as a chance to be heard.

Bush does not hesitate to make comparisons before their time.

"I feel right at home here. After all, this is the home of the first George W. I thank President Washington for welcoming us today. He doesn't look a day over 275 years old," Bush said to laughter. "In the end, General Washington understood that the Revolutionary War was a test of wills, and his will was unbreakable," said Bush.

Of course there is almost no comparison between the first George W. and the second. In-fact, I can hardly think of a greater contrast. The first George W. was, above all else, capable, thoughtful, and his integrity was never questioned. His farewell address was a primer for America and a warning on involvement in foreign wars, political factionalism, and debt. He said things like, "The
nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave." I don't even need to mention the obvious juxtaposition to our current President George W.

Washington knew he could not defeat the British, and that wasn't his goal. Instead he had to win enough to get the French involved in the war. In the process he lost many battles but won just enough, at key moments, to allow Benjamin Franklin to gain French support. Had he tried to crush the British head-on, unwaivering, with no retreats, no compromise, the Revolutionary War would have ended almost as quickly as it began. But the British were un-coordinated, and over-confident, a mind-set that mirrors closer to our own arrogance. Perhaps we are the bloated Empire facing a determined enemy that wants rid of foreign intervention. Perhaps these are things our President should have though of, before wondering how he'd compare in history.

The Civil War deeply saddened Lincoln. His words reflect a president with a heavy heart, enduring a war forced upon him. I see no such reflection from President Bush who seems almost pleased to be a "war president" or "Commander n' Chief." He constantly reminds us what a good job he's doing, and how his dedication makes this whole thing worthwhile. Lincoln viewed the sacrifice of American soldiers and, when the time came, compared to what they had already done, could barely bring forward any words. He noted simply that their death, their "last full measure of devotion," dedicates us all, not the other way around.

Bush 'certain' Iran suppling weapons in Iraq, and by 'certain' he means 'there's no proof'

Consider the opening paragraph of a new AP article form White House correspondent Terence Hunt:

President Bush said Wednesday he's certain the Iranian government is supplying deadly weapons used by fighters in Iraq against U.S. troops, even if he can't prove that the orders came from top Iranian leaders.

That, really, is all you need to know. That should be enough to terrify every American who considers sound judgment a virtue. Because, as we have all painfully discovered, all it takes for this President to do something horrifying is a hunch, a sneaky suspicion, a gut feeling. No proof is necessary for the man who has spent so much time ignoring facts about global warming, stem cell research, evolution, and foreign affairs..

And so you get this:

"I'm going to do something about it," Bush pledged, displaying apparent irritation at being repeatedly asked about mixed administration signals on who was behind the weaponry. "To say it is provoking Iran is just a wrong way to characterize the commander in chief's decision to do what is necessary to protect our soldiers in harm's way," Bush said.

Uh, oh. Bush is getting irritated again. Nothing gets the President more worked up than a request for some evidence. You might as well ask him how he knows Jesus Christ is the son of God.

Bush spoke a day after Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cast doubts on the claims that higher-ups in the Iranian government had authorized the arming of Iraqi Shiite militias. Pace told reporters that materials used in some of the munitions could be traced to Iran, "but that does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this.

Peter Pace? What does he know? The only fact that matters is that many people around the White House are clamoring for a war to start. This is exactly how you do it: up the rhetoric against your target to bolster support, then, regretfully, take action. This type of thing happens all the time.

The usual suspects are already getting on-board, rattling their cold, limp sabers. Richard Perle has already said, "I have very little doubt that Bush would order “necessary military action” against Iran. The American Enterprise Institute has chimed in as well with Joshua Muravchik saying, “Make no mistake, President Bush will need to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities before leaving office."

Don't you see? The world through the eyes of a shadowy think-tank member sees less than two years to start another war. The clock is ticking. Some people are saying war in Iran may begin this spring.

Meanwhile White House Press Secretary Tony Snow has been instructing journalists to " calm down" after being asked a few hard questions. Calm down, indeed. Is there any reason why we should trust this administration with any judgment call? Give me one thing they have been right about? Even the recent North Korean agreement is essentially the 1994 framework established under the Clinton administration which Bush demolished after taking office.

It's not even a matter of trust. Why should we believe this administration is even telling the truth? Or even capable of it? After all the scandals and lies, half-truths, half-cocked assumptions, half-assed leadership; after what we have seen in the ongoing trial of I Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff of Vice President Dick Cheney, why should we believe this administration on anything?

There is just precious little time left for Bush, Cheney, and the neoconservatives to make up for those eight years of peace and love under the Clinton administration. They only have two years left to piss on the rest of the world. There's no time for facts. There's only time for the agenda.

The Truth Shall Set You Free (If The White House Doesn't Supress It)

Two thousand years ago Jesus walked around as the ultimate pragmatist, claiming that truth would set people free. Recent testimony about how the Bush Administration has suppressed scientific information on global warming has become a sad metaphor for how far we have fallen.

The life changing “truth” Jesus spoke of was knowledge through a relationship with God. From what I can tell he never tried to trick anyone. He hardly ever even asked for belief. He trusted that with enough information people would make the right decision. Compare that to the way President Bush has operated on a myriad of topics, but in this case global warming. His tactics finally saw the light of day today in congressional hearings.

Federal scientists have been pressured to play down global warming.

Climate scientists frequently have been dissuaded from talking to the media about their research.

Interview requests of climate scientists frequently were "routed through the White House" and then turned away or delayed.

Scientific findings have been edited by the White House to reveal more positive findings.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has asked for those documents and, not surprisingly, the White House has been slow to hand them over.

The shady behavior among a supposed Christian administration is one thing. But a fear of science is not exclusive to the White House. In an incredible example of cognitive dissonance, Americans spend almost $6000 per person on health care, and yet more than half also reject the theory of evolution. We happily enjoy plastic surgery, air travel, and longer life spans, and 13% have never even heard of global warming. Our daily lives are lined with the benefits reaped from science and yet so many of us are deathly afraid of it.

Which principle of Christianity sets it in opposition to science? Why is an increase in knowledge feared? I don’t recall Jesus ever hiding knowledge. In-fact, most sermons you hear probably revolve around Jesus’ role in expanding God’s revelation, and then letting people make their own decisions based on that information.

Christianity should certainly not be opposed to pragmatism. Anyone can say they love God. Christianity says you can’t claim to love the unseen if you can’t love that which you can see. And so you get the command: who ever loves God must love his brother. Had John faced this current group of believers maybe he would have said asked how some can claim to love God while fearing facts? The church has done more to discredit itself by consistently fearing truth than any group of anti-religious zealots ever could.

The worst, perhaps, is acceptance of science only when it is convenient, a sad extension of many people’s faith. And that, perhaps, is why so many are disgusted with organized religion. So many of its fiercest supporters fail to see a disconnect when people who have devoted a lifetime to studying God can somehow find a way practice things that would shame even the sickest of people. Their reaction does not indicate any appreciation of newfound truth, but, rather, frustration at getting caught.

Scientists have now embraced what Christians should have been cherishing: truth. God only knows how you are supposed to elicit sincere appreciation by blocking knowledge. What is not hard to recognize is how such thinking corrodes life itself. Many Americans are racked with an impressive mixture of guilt, ignorance, and incompatible beliefs, and, in a reversal, their lives are bound by their thinking, or lack of it.

Bachmann to Bush: Call Me?

I guess I wasn't the only one who noticed representative Michele Bachmann acting like a low-rent groupie at the State of the Union address. My actual thought while I watched her grip Bush's elbow and shoulders was "he's a married man." And I don't even give a shit about that kind of thing.

News of her inappropriate behavior towards the president has spread across the internet and into mass media.

Like others who wanted "face-time" with the president, she claimed her spot in the chamber early in the day--like she was waiting in line for Metallica tickets. When the president entered she greeted him with exuberance, much more so than the normal bullshit that goes on during this sort of thing. She touched him while he passed as if he were Jesus Christ. But then, after the speech, she made her move. Bachmann had her hands on the president for a good 30 seconds while he tried to talk to people on his way out of the chamber. Finally, he allowed her to kiss him on the cheek, to which she blurted, "He kissed me in Minnesota, too."

Maybe it's love, Michele.

At least she got an autograph for making such a fool out of herself. I'll bet she was something before electricity. Bachmann replaced Republican Mark Kennedy in the November elections, but apparently wishes to continue his tradition of shameless debauchery towards the president. I've been fired for less touching than that. No wonder Laura looks completely out of it all the time. I actually feel bad for her.


See the video here: MN Congresswoman can't keep her hands off Bush

NY Times: Michele Bachmann's death grip

No means no: Michele Bachmann feels up president



Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, The Random Yak, and Sujet- Celebrities, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

State of the Union: Speculative

I just finished watching Bush's state of the union speech, a time-honored tradition where the President gives his honest assessment on the current state of our great nation. I was so drunk by the time it was over.

I was happy to see they assembled Cheney for his sixth public appearance. He didn't look too happy to be out of his hyperbolic chamber though. His mask hastily fastened on, his head crudely welded to his exo-skeleton. Oh well. Glad to see Pelosi survived over 60 minutes of Vice Presidential exposure. Makeup blocks radiation?

Did Bush really say the government had to spend money wisely? It's always good to open with a joke.

Is the first lady suffering from some type of facial nerve damage? She looked like she was sitting on a gag buzzer the whole time. BUZZZZ. Smiles, everyone!

When is the last time Supreme Court justices heard this much speculation? If stricken from the record the speech would have consisted of the President clearing his throat and waiting for the applause to die down.

Let's see...No Child Left Behind, tax cuts, immigration, screwing America over....yep, all there.

Bush just came out against foreign oil. I guess he was serious about our addiction. Looks like he's going to fight it the way any good Christian would--lots of prayer, and some guilt. Seriously though, this oil thing has to be addressed. Not just because it puts us in bed with people who are sick of us, but there's that whole "global climate change" thing, which must be the new administration approved euphemism for "global warming."

I noticed Bush and Cheney drank their water at the same time. That's how in step these Republicans are. Spooky. I'll bet it was an inside joke to leave madam speaker out of the loop.

Is McCain sleeping?

Since we can't measure success by anything in Iraq, we will now measure it by what didn't happen: I guess we've thwarted various terrorist attacks in our global war on terror. However, terrorist attacks and violence we not only did not stop but helped cause are not an indictment on our current policy. It's neat how that works.

Wow. Bush just made Dick Durbin disappear!

Do the terrorists really hate freedom? Or are they tired of seeing their countries played like puppets? I'm sure all this terrorist stuff started when a bunch of idiots in caves thought, "You know who sucks? Those Americans. Freedom sucks! Let's destroy ourselves and others to stop it!"

Chertoff shaved his mustache. He almost doesn't look like the guy who helped ensure one of the biggest man-made disasters in American history.

Now Bush is babbling about building free societies in the Middle East. I'm just half-assing it at this point but don't you think that's what they're pissed about? How much dignity and freedom have we suppressed in the Middle East through the Cold War to keep the region an anti-communist block? Or, a cheep source of oil? When are we going to be done using the Mid-East as our political science lab project?

Cheney just started laughing hysterically. Man, he's weird.

I'm tired of people, especially anyone remotely linked to this administration, pontificating about what would happen in Iraq if we pulled the troops out. It's not that they're right or wrong, it's that no one knows. Especially not these people who have proved grossly ignorant on the entire affair. Bush is confidently predicting what will happen in Iraq, and the guy will probably get locked in a closet on the way out of the building.

That said, we're going to increase the size of the military. What this country needs now, more than ever, is more of those "Marines" commercials. My attitude is, if you're willing to put your life in the government's hands after this five year long commercial of incompetence, nothing I say will stop you. I'm going to stop worrying so much about it.

We've vowed to stop Iran from getting "nuculer" weapons, what ever those are. It's the nuclear ones we should be concerned about. Pwned.

Oh, here's the human interest segment! The president introduced Wesley Autry as a humble guy who saved a stranger in the New York City subway. As the audience started to applaud Autry jumped from his chair, raised his arms out, made a slow circle, basked in the glory and, before sitting his ass back down, gave the president some mad props. For real. That's about as humble as we get these days. I look forward to his book deal or motivational speaking tour.

Thomas Jefferson discarded the practice of giving the speech in-person because he thought it was too monarchical. Instead he wrote the speech down and sent it to congress to be read by a clerk. This continued until 1913. Watching all the pomp and circumstance today I think Jefferson was on the right track.

Dude, having Ted Nugent close the show probably wasn't the best idea.

Too Much Terror?

A recent report showed that since Christmas more Americans have died in New Orleans than in Iraq. This was used by some to show that Iraq is not a raging civil war, but is, in-fact, safer than some places in America. Needless to say I did not find much comfort in the comparison. Have we gone from measuring Iraq against ourselves to measuring ourselves against Iraq? This report is indicative, and the facts seem to bear it out: Iraq, the grand front in the war on terror, seems to be a much higher priority than many elements of our own country. It seems to make little sense to do everything we can to protect ourselves from rogue organizations when in the process we end up doing far-more damage than they could ever hope to accomplish.

How terrifying is terrorism? In a recent poll Americans ranked it as a greater threat than global warming. It is already the dominant issue for potential presidential candidates, while we channel trillions of dollars to attempt to fight it. Indeed a widespread dismay and suspicion over terrorism has set in across the country. John Muller's uses this as the base for his book A False Sense of Insecurity. The book suggests that perhaps we have an inordinate fear of terrorism. To make the point Muller points out terrorism is actually less harmful to Americans than peanut allergies. However, most people understand the inherent difference between death by peanuts, and death by terrorism. And that difference is right where we expect the government to step in: to protect us from people out to kill us. But I think we also expect the government to act to the appropriate degree. Muller's effort raises a valid question: are we trying too hard in the war on terror?

The terrorists have only one angle and that is to strike fear into as many people as possible. From that perspective the White House has done an incredible job of PR for them. On October 21, 2004 Vice President Dick Cheney told us we were "far better off" fighting in Iraq than "fighting them here in the streets of our own cities." He uttered the very same statement just three months ago. This type of rhetoric is typical of the administration which has allowed a nervous mind-set to settle in across the country. Such paranoia is no-doubt what prompted Glenn Beck to ask congressman Keith Ellison whether or not he was "working with our enemies." You see, Ellison, along with being a natural born citizen, is also a Muslim. The enlightened founding fathers never had to fight a war on terror.

And the key strategy in fighting against terror seems to be to terrify citizens and use that fear as the reasoning for invading Iraq, or suspending various civil liberties. In their wildest, terror-filled dreams did the 9/11 planners ever think the United State's renounce freedom itself? While they succeeded in scaring us, the death of American values has been an unplanned terrorist victory. Today some people are so worked up we are expected to pay any price to fight terror. Perhaps this would explain a recent article which stated even if we loose 6,000 Americans or more in Iraq it will be worth it to avoid another 9/11. On such reasoning our contemporary society flows. President Bush recently painted the war as the "ideological struggle of our generation." We personify it to a level unimaginable by even the most zealous terrorist. We have currently committed over half a trillion dollars to fight it in Iraq, or about eight times our annual education budget. We fear terrorists much more than uneducated citizens. Sowing irrational concerns to an poorly educated public equals big returns at the polls but it also plays into the wrong hands.

Experts agree that the real threat is not another 9/11, but that a rogue organization will acquire a nuclear weapon and detonate it in a highly populated area. Along those lines how effective has Iraq been? Our own government releases reports saying we have increased the pool of potential candidates who would use WMDs against us. So, while our false sense of insecurity boiled over into the invasion of Iraq, we may not be concerned enough about how ineffective the invasion has been. Terrorism needs to be addressed in the right way, not in an overblown, hyperventilating paranoia. The price we have paid is enormous, not the least of which has been handing over our identity and ignoring the needs inside our country. We vowed we would never allow the terrorists to change us. But have we lost ourselves trying to change the terrorists?

This piece also appears on BlogCritics.

Trackposted to: Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, Perri Nelson's Website, Mark My Words, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, basil's blog, DragonLady's World, Common Folk Using Common Sense, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Sujet- Celebrities, Rightwing Guy, Wake Up America, The HILL Chronicles, Faultline USA, third world county, Stageleft, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox News, Dumb Ox News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, OTB Sports, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Bush Educator-in-Chief? Life is Now Officially Worse Than Middle School

In-case you missed the Bush interview on 60 Minutes allow me to sum it up: I'm the Prez, so fuck off. The President answered questions on the only things that matter to anyone, anywhere, anymore: the war in Iraq, terrorism, mistakes, and how the world is a better place without dictators who have a tenuous grasp on reality (hypothetically, of course).

The questioning began on the current lack of support for the war in Iraq. Bush said failure in Iraq would embolden the enemy. It would provide a safe heaven for terrorists. It would empower Iran. If we fail in Iraq the enemy would follow us here.

(Interviewer Scott Pelley gave Bush a good deal of time to dole out enough rope to hang himself by. If losing in Iraq is that dangerous, if Iraq is that essential to global security, shouldn't we have given it a little more thought from the beginning? And that is exactly where the interview went.)

PELLEY: But wasn't it your administration that created the instability in Iraq?

And then the President tried to explain how Iraq was unstable before we invaded.

BUSH: He was a significant source of instability.

PELLEY: It's much more unstable now, Mr. President.

BUSH: Well, no question decisions have made things unstable. But the question is can we succeed. And I believe we can.

(The President had just defined "success" as not empowering Iran, not providing a safe haven for Iraq. Before we invaded Iraq was Iran's sworn enemy, and a secularist country most terrorists hated.)

After discussion various Presidential mistakes Pelley asked if we didn't owe the Iraqi people an apology.

BUSH: That we didn't do a better job or they didn't do a better job?

PELLEY: Well, that the United States did not do a better job in providing security after the invasion.

BUSH: Not at all. I am proud of the efforts we did. We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude, and I believe most Iraqis express that. I mean, the people understand that we've endured great sacrifice to help them. That's the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq.

Then Pelley asked Bush about al-Sadr, who every expert knows is running the Maliki government.

PELLEY: You don't fear that al-Sadr's actually running the show?

BUSH: He may wanna be but, no, I don't think he is.

Then Pelley went to the video of Saddam's execution. Saddam's was executed to shouts of "Muqtada!" But Bush didn't make the subtle connection that while the Maliki government hanged Saddam, the Iraqi people themselves saw it as the hand of al-Sadr moving. Also, the President, who governed over 131 executions in the state of Texas, seemed uncomfortable viewing capital punishment at work.

PELLEY: Well, you keep saying "parts of it." What do you mean you didn't wanna watch the whole thing?

BUSH: I wasn't sure what to anticipate beyond the yelling and stuff like that. And I didn't . . .

PELLEY: You didn't wanna see him go through the trapdoor.

BUSH: Yeah. Yes. I didn't.

(Yeah, capital punishment is unwatchable isn't it?)

Then, the conversation turned to The President's new plan.

PELLEY: Do you believe that the House has the constitutional authority to prevent you from the troop build-up? Can they stop you?

BUSH: By not funding the troops I suspect is what you're referring to.

PELLEY: That would be one . . .

BUSH: I assume that's one of their options. I will fight that, of course. 'Cause I think when you got a soldier in harm's way, they deserve a full support.

(In other words, if, hypothetically, a delusional president ordered the invasion of a country, and that move turned out to be such a disastrous mistake he ordered more troops in to correct it, he has a blank check from congress.)

Bush then talked about how the Democrats have no plan and that, ironically, it's not the Democrats's responsibility to have a plan but he wants the Democrats to explain why their plan will work.

Pelley told Bush that most Americans feel he hasn't been straightforward with the country.

"On which issue?" the President asked.

And Pelley started to rattle off issue after issue until the President stopped him.

(Ohhhh, those issues? Bush, of course, then rejected the entire line of thought.)

PELLEY: You seem to be saying that you may have been wrong but you weren't dishonest.

BUSH: Oh, absolutely.

PELLEY: When was it that you first found out or it dawned on you that, indeed, there were no weapons of mass destruction? And I wonder, did you think, "What have I done?"

BUSH: I wondered what went wrong, because you can't conduct this war on terror unless you've got good intelligence. And so the first thing I did was I put a commission together to take a good, hard look at what did go...

(Actually, civilians came up with the idea of the 9/11 Commission, which the president rejected. The Democrats picked it up and finally the President caved and agreed to let the commission go forward. After that the President gave CIA Director George Tenent the Medal of Freedom.)

PELLEY: I wonder if you feel like you've been ill-served by your Cabinet members, [Defense Secretary] Mr. [Donald] Rumsfeld, perhaps even Vice-President [Dick] Cheney. Wrong on WMD. Wrong on the connection between 9/11 and Iraq. And now you're in a fix. And I wonder if you look back and wonder who let you down.

BUSH: Let me correct something on this connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. That was never the case in this administration. You know, I always said we never had evidence that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on 9/11. And so I don't know who continues to say that.

PELLEY: The vice-president suggested there was a connection, not necessarily 9/11, but certainly to al-Qaeda.

BUSH: [Al Qaeda’s Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi was in Iraq. But rather than debating the past, let me get back to the question.

PELLEY: Yes, sir.

BUSH: The vice-president's been a great vice-president. And Don Rumsfeld did a really find job as Secretary of Defense. Quite the contrary, I feel like this country is blessed to have those kind of people serving.

PELLEY: Vice-president involved in these war plans?

BUSH: Absolutely.

PELLEY: As much as he ever has been?

BUSH: Oh, yeah, sure. I mean, I rely upon my National Security Council, and I expect everybody to make contributions, and I expect to hear everybody's opinions. And when I make up my mind, I expect them to salute and say, "Yes, sir, Mr. President."

PELLEY: Final question. How can you escalate the war when so many people in this country seem to be against it?

BUSH: The best way to succeed at this point in time is to increase troops in Baghdad to stop the sectarian violence so that a political process, an economic process . . . so that the will of the 12 million people that voted in Iraq can be realized.

(The will of 12 million Iraqi's trumps the will of the American people.)

BUSH: Scott, sometimes you're the commander-in-chief, sometimes you're the educator-in-chief, and a lot of times you're both when it comes to war.

(Did Bush has just appointed himself Educator-in-Chief? Sweet Jesus...life is now officially worse than middle school!)

BUSH: I believe there ought to be a Palestinian democracy.

(There is a Palestinian democracy. Just no Palestinian state.)

BUSH: I think it's interesting that in the midst of all the troubles, that there are people who are actively fighting a form of government which is beneficial to people, and that's democracy. We are in an ideological struggle, and it's a really classic ideological struggle, and Iraq is part of it. And it's very important for me to not only continue to explain why I believe we can be successful in Iraq but explain to people that what happens in the Middle East will affect the future of this country.

(BUSH: Cheney sings that to me when he tucks me in at night.)

Links:

he entire 60 Minutes transcript

The Shameless President on 60 Minutes

Educator-in-Chief

I found one dissent:

What Liberal Media?

Fallout Over Bush's New Plan

President Bush unveiled his new plan last night and the backlash has been swift.

Some Republicans immediately opposed it.

News analysts seemed stunned.

A poll found that only 36% of Americans support Buh's new plan.

I took a moment to formulate my own thoughts on the news, in an article called on BlogCritics called "Plan 9 From Iraq". It's currently at -4 on Reddit, which means its probably right on point. On Digg and Netscape it's at least in the positive. I invite you to judge for yourself and participate in the dialog.

It seems that everyone is alarmed about the escalation--not just in Iraq, but also concerning Iran. Bush is calling for a widening of the offensive in the Middle East. On NPR I overheard a Senator declare that "this is the worst policy blunder since Vietnam." Do you think it's crazy to be alarmed about war with Iran? We thought the Iraq talk was crazy once too. But the President has a knack for making the unimaginable very real. People once found it compelling that he paid no attention to polls. And now?

Bush's New Plan: Escalation in Iraq, Strike Force for Iran

President Bush unwrapped some late Christmas gifts tonight: 20,000 more troops to fight in Iraq, and a carrier strike force to intimidate Iran. Bush addressed the country tonight and laid out his new plan for expanding the ongoing war in Iraq. Bush called the conflict as the "ideological struggle of our time" and said more troops are needed to secure Baghdad.

His plan to increase the troop total in Iraq comes as a surprise to no one. Bush also spurned most of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations (but managed to invoke the report's name a few times) and wide-spread public opinion against sending more troops. But the biggest news is Bush's plan to broaden the military, increase the number foreign affairs advisers for various "nation building" activities, and a carrier strike force to keep Iran in check. Rather than turn to pragmatism, Bush sounded more imperialistic than ever.

These goals fly in the face of the public opinion which has turned steeply against the war. At this moment each American needs to ask one simple question: do you trust the President's judgment? Would you trust him to fix your plumbing? Do you trust him to navigate the complex and tenuous Middle East? Do you trust your son or daughter's life in his hands? The answer is no. After four years, 400 billion dollars and 3,000 lives, the President cannot ask us to escalate our trust in him while he escalates troops in Iraq. If America is the greatest country on earth we are well within our rights to demand better from our President.

Bush on New Iraq Plan: My dog ate it

President Bush emerged from his ranch in Crawford, Texas to give reporters an update on his new plan for Iraq. Bush, who plans to unveil his plan next month, gathered with Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and national security adviser Stephen Hadley. Gates and Pace reported their findings from a trip last week to Iraq.

"We had a real good session late last evening. A lot of brainstorming. A lot of ideas. I wrote them all down on a legal pad. I was all set to give you people a summary of what we had come up with so far, but, when I woke-up I discovered Barney had eaten the report,"Bush admitted, citing the well-known White House dog as the culprit.

"It was either Barney, or Laura. I've narrowed it down to those two," Bush continued. "Laura usually doesn't eat paper products. I have a strong suspicion it was the dog."

Bush then vowed to return to deliberations and not emerge until the plan was hammered out, again. "Honestly, it probably wont be as good as that first plan. That was a real barn-burner, the one the dog ate. But, I think if we re-trace our steps we can come up with something close. Anyway, we're going to go back and try again."

As criticism mounts over his handling of the war, among the options Bush has been considering is a short-term "surge" in U.S. forces to help contain rampant violence. There are currently 134,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Democrats say November elections in which they took control of Congress from Bush's Republican Party reflected public discontent with the Iraq war and desire for change.

But Bush, who prides himself on sticking to decisions, has brushed aside a proposal from a bipartisan panel to ask U.S. foes Iran and Syria for help in stabilizing Iraq and is said to be looking closely at a temporary troop increase.

Sen. Joseph Biden, the Delaware Democrat who will be the next chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and other Democrats already have expressed opposition to a troop increase. Biden also lauded the president's recent remarks.

"The man just has no shame, does he?" Biden commented. "His dog ate it? Are we to believe that his dog ate the plan? That's messed up. However, even that wouldn't surprise me, if the plan even existed. What is even more likely is that he never had a plan to begin with."

Today Sen. John Edwards, who has entered the race for president, called his vote for war in Iraq a mistake. "You see, I voted for war in Iraq, but that was before we all discovered such a war would be completely misguided and mis-run. Factoring that in it was a mistake to give this president authority to go to war. And now I wonder, did Barney also eat the original war plans? Did Barney draw them up? What a joke, this interview is over."