Friday, January 19, 2007

It's still about politics, but it is also about blaming someone else.

I am still convinced that the goals of Bush's "new plan" for Iraq are strictly political, but as I was working on that post, I kept thinking that something was amiss even more than usual with a Bush administration plan. The more I read, the more it seemed that there was just nothing about the plan that was designed to succeed. There did not seem to be a way for anyone to even try to polish this turd. Even Tony Snow has resorted to bringing up other topics when asked about the plan.

And by the way, anyone who has been a regular reader here knows how I felt about the previous White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan. He was my #1 whipping boy. I miss Scotty Boy, and not because I miss criticizing him. I miss him because Tony Snow makes me want to vomit every time I hear him speak. What a slimy scumbag. At least with Scotty Boy there were times that you could see he knew he was speaking pure bullshit and had some regret over it. Snow has no conscious. He is the most shameless flack I have ever seen. But I digress...

The "new plan" for Iraq is so worthless, I have to wonder why in the world Bush ordered it. Sure, it makes it look like he is doing something, and that appearance is oh so important to Bush, but I felt like there was something else going on. As I was re-reading one of the articles I featured in It's all about the politics, one particular passage took on a new meaning for me. The article was "In Baghdad, Bush Policy Is Met With Resentment," and the passage in question was
A Shiite political leader who has worked closely with the Americans in the past said the Bush benchmarks appeared to have been drawn up in the expectation that Mr. Maliki would not meet them. "He cannot deliver the disarming of the militias," the politician said, asking that he not be named because he did not want to be seen as publicly criticizing the prime minister. "He cannot deliver a good program for the economy and reconstruction. He cannot deliver on services. This is a matter of fact. There is a common understanding on the American side and the Iraqi side."
When I first read this passage, I did not think it remarkable because I thought from the start that Maliki could not deliver on these matters. But then I realized there was another possible meaning and explanation therein.

Stay with me here...The "new plan" announced by Bush is heavily dependent on Maliki and the Iraqi government. In other words, the only way it can succeed is if the government, led by Maliki, does everything Bush has said it must do. If there is little or no chance of Maliki and the government doing these things, there is little or no chance the plan will succeed. Now, Bush has implied that there will be consequences if the Iraqi government does not meet the "benchmarks," and the obvious evidence and past experience strongly indicates that the benchmarks will not be met.

And maybe--just maybe--that is exactly what Bush wants to happen because then he has the excuse he has been desperately seeking to get out of Iraq AND blame it all on someone else. Bush has never accepted any responsibility or blame because hey, he always listened to the generals. The absence of WMD and ties to Al Qaeda were not his fault because he was just going on what the intelligence showed. And now he just might have the chance to get out of Iraq because now he can claim that it was all the fault of Maliki and the Iraqi government. Don't you see? It will not possibly be America's fault. We will not have cut and run. We will have done everything we could to help the Iraqis, but they just wouldn't help us to help them.

Sound crazy? Well, consider a few other things. Remember the quote from Secretary of State Rice in the preceding post? Rice testified before the Senate that Maliki's administration was on "borrowed time." If that was true, then why in the wide, wide world of sports would Bush then announce a plan that depended on Maliki's administration doing so many things? That makes about as much sense as Bush saying that only Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and then announcing that we then need to send 20,000 more of our troops to do something only the Iraqis can do. Also, in an interview on "60 Minutes" which aired this past Sunday, this exchange took place between Scott Pelley and Bush:
PELLEY: Do you think you owe the Iraqi people an apology for not doing a better job?

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.

PELLEY: Americans wonder whether . . .

BUSH: Yeah, they wonder whether or not the Iraqis are willing to do hard work necessary to get this democratic experience to survive. That's what they want.
(emphasis added). Well, those ungrateful, lazy Iraqis. Tell me that Bush is not trying to sell the American public on the idea that if there is failure in Iraq, it is the fault of the Iraqis. I mean to say, all we did was invade their country and allow it to become FUBAR without doing squat to rebuild it, get the economy going, provide electricity, water and food, etc. But Bush takes no responsibility for the lack of security, the lack of planning, or the sheer bloody incompetence and corruption of what his administration has done, and instead questions whether the Iraqis are willing to do the necessary hard work.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the Bush administration is trying to get Maliki out and have a government put in place that will do what Bush wants and says is necessary. However, if Maliki is tossed out as prime minister, how could anyone think that a new government will be in place quickly. Anyone who thinks that is possible needs to review just how long and difficult the process of getting the Maliki government in place was. If Maliki goes, there is likely to be more than a bit of chaos in the Iraqi government, which will increase the chances that the Iraqi government will not do what Bush says is necessary, meaning that the chances for the "new plan" failing become greater.

And that could be just the excuse Bush has been looking for.


Blogger Ray said...

From the beginning, wasn't this really all about installing a government beholden to Washington which would give us leverage in the Middle East? It was never about WMD or terrorism directly, it was about a base of control from which we could launch our attacks against terrorism and countries that have WMD, such as Iran.

1/19/2007 11:07 AM  
Blogger WCharles said...

"From the beginning, wasn't this really all about installing a government beholden to Washington which would give us leverage in the Middle East?"

I think that was part of the true reasons--and by now it could be the main reason. However, I think there was something else involved. Before the war started, I read something about the core group of neocons (like Wolfowitless, Perle, Kristol, etc.) wanting to establish democracy in Iraq because ultimately that would provide the best protection for Israel. See, democracy was supposed to automatically spread throughout the entire Middle East, and that would then get rid of all of Israel's enemies. I'm not kidding. They actually believed that would happen. That was when I realized these people were certifiably delusional.

1/19/2007 11:38 AM  
Blogger Ray said...

And just how successful has Russia been implementing democracy? How often do you read of Russians, typically pensioners, bemoan the loss of their former socialistic society which took care of their basic needs? I would think the former Soviet Union would be an example of the popularity, or lack, of democracy and that it is not a slam dunk.

1/19/2007 12:01 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home