Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Time Is on Bush's Side

Why Republicans Won't Desert Him

We are locked in a war that cannot be won by military force alone, are facing a weapon that tends to favor insurgents -- time. A majority of Americans think that invading Iraq was a mistake and that things in Iraq are going badly. Administration spokesmen have recently said this disaster could last another decade with the same alacrity as they originally proposed it would last "only a few weeks, months, tops".

A current draft of a Pentagon reads:
The insurgent wins if he does not lose, while the counter insurgent loses if he does not win. Insurgents are strengthened by the common perception that a few casualties or a few years will cause the United States to abandon the effort.
Time would seem to be on the side of the insurgency. With Cheney and Rumsfeld predicting another dozen years, it is definitely not on our side.

But in another sense time is on Bush's side. He has as much as admitted he has no plans to finish what he started in Iraq. He has said that American troops will leave Iraq not on his watch; another, succeeding president will 'preside' over the American exit.

We know how the legacy will run: "Who lost Iraq?" will go the refrain, at least until the Republicans can regain the White House.

So time is on Bush's side. All he has to do is to make it to the January 2009 goal line. In the meantime, he has to distract and deflect public discussion on Iraq from becoming a debate.
Immigration Reform!
Ahmadinejad is the next Hitler!
Etc., etc. Every way he turns, it's the same deal: politics defines policies. Bush is bent on 'working around' his disastrous un-provoked, unnecessary and largely unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq (UULUIOI) and not through it. Iraquagmire blunders on in the interest of the Bush legacy. Cash, casualties, and causality be damned.

After Bush, the deluge.

That is why Progressivism has to win in November: to place oversight and, ultimately, impeachment on the Congressional agenda.

The author of un-provoked, aggressive war must be punished while he is in office if we are to ameliorate the stain and stigma of having become the major threat to international peace. Americans must renounce unprovoked war as a defensible policy. To do so, we must renounce Bush while he is office.

If Bush completes his term in office unscathed, he gets the last laugh.


  1. Ahmadinejad is Hitler if the captain of Swiss Guards is the Pope.

  2. And if the captain of the Swiss Guards is the Pope, what is Bush?

  3. The great Satan, of course!

  4. Instead of the tired equivalencies
    with Hitler, let's understand that
    Ahmadinejad has called for the
    destruction of Israel, and funds
    the Hezbollah and Hamas. At the same
    time, he has thumbed his nose at
    the IAEA and fully intends to make
    nuclear weapons. I hope it doesn't
    come as a surprise, that Israel
    considers Iran a serious threat.
    They would be in denial if they didn't.

    Iran has also stated that if Israel
    attacks Iran, that it will blame
    the U.S.. Which means that the
    U.S. will find itself at war with
    Iran, no matter who is President
    at the time. And Iran will also
    stop the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf region, which will drive the price of petroleum sky
    high. So, whether you think Ahmadinejad is a prince or devil,
    he's going to affect you and your
    life in very significantly ways...
    and not too far off into the future either.


  5. Muggins, I have a sneaky feeling that a "threath" presented by this, unquestionably weird, Ahamadinejad is grossly and manipualtively exagerated. I am quite confident, that when the chips are down, he is not the one who calls the shots in Iran. A president in most countries don't have even half the power than yours does and this is clearly the case with this spooky guy.

    There is this hypocritical double standard that is rampant among your country men, too. Just a quick look at your old Atlas should convince you that the neighborhood where Iranians live is militarized to the hilt and numerous countries surrounding Iran have nukes at their disposal. I don't go lecturing more about these countries since you can find it out by just looking at previously mentioned map. Please, do it!

    Another interesting point is that, to my knowledge, Iran hasen't been an agressor for centuries but have been atacked by it's neighbours and the colonial powers as well. They somehow don't seem to be too war like or agressive to me.

    My final point is the laughable suggestion that Iran could present any danger to the U.S. at all. Even if they were able to manufacture a grude nuclear device within the next dozen years, they would need a real strong fellow to carry it in a suitcase to America. Their delivery capabilities will not reach your homeland within the next 25 yrs., and why on earth would they do it even if they could. If they would suddenly become totally insane and send their sputtering rocket to your direction, the U.S. would powderize the whole damn country into smoking nuclear Armageddon. Give me a break!

  6. Muggins, two questions (options) for you:

    If what you care about is preserving the flow of oil from Persian Gulf and a more reasonable price of petroleum, (for your SUV's and your Hummers) then protest the drive of our warmongering government, hell-bent on starting a 3rd war before it has finished its first two.

    Or, if you are more concerned with pulling Israeli chestnuts out of the fires it has started by ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, then by all means support and follow Bush's rush to brinkmanship and beyond.

    You can choose for yourself, but not for the rest of us.

  7. Again Pekka beats me to the punch, takes the wind out of my sails, gives voice to my thoughts, etc., making many good points, and again, I thank him for it.

    Pertaining to his comments about Iran, I am looking for a reference I ran across recently which told of American assistance to Iran's quest for nuclear power before the overthrow of the Shah.

    What does this prove? It goes to the fundamental importance of Iran, geopolitically speaking, and to the enduring maturity of its people.

    Notwithstanding they are currently led by a warmongering nutcase which they purportedly elected.

    But then that happened elsewhere, didn't it?

  8. Ahmadinejad is a front man for
    the Ayatollah. I only mention him,
    because he's doing the talking.
    I might as well inserted Komenei
    for Ahmadenijad. The problems
    are not the least different.

    The world should have stopped
    the nuclearization of Israel, India
    and Pakistan. It's too late now.
    The fact is, once a country becomes
    nuclear, there is no stopping them,
    because nuclear war is possible.
    That's the whole point of being
    against nuclear proliferation,
    to stop more nations having the
    bomb. It's horrible that those
    other nations have the bomb.
    Do we want more nations to have
    the bomb? None of Iran's
    neighbors are threatening her,
    except Israel, and you have to
    admit, Ahmadinejad continues
    to call for the demise of Israel.

    Iran today, is not the Iran of yesterday.
    There is a competition in the Middle
    East between groups for the control
    of a united Middle East. Al Qaeda
    does not recognize the borders set
    up by the European powers after the
    fall of the Ottoman Empire. And
    the Ayatollah intends on having a
    united Middle East, too, but with a
    Shia Ayatollah in charge, instead
    of the Wahhabis or Sunnis. Thank
    god they are pitted against each

    In order to be current in military
    strategy, you have to come to recognize the potency of asymmetrical warfare.
    The taking down of the Twin Towers,
    the attack on the Pentagon and the
    thwarted further attack on yet another
    point in Washington D.C. demonstrates
    that potency. New York and Wash D.C.
    hadn't been attacked for nearly 2 centuries.
    If Iran becomes nuclear, the U.S. would
    be under threat. Iran is making great
    strides in ballistic missiles, having now
    the capability to reach deep inside Europe.
    They're working on a multi-stage ICBM
    as I type. But, with nuclear weapons,
    you don't need a ballistic missile.
    A container ship will do nicely. The
    reaction to the first nuclear bomb set
    off in any major city, anywhere in
    the world, will be the start of one
    king hell dark age. Mutual assured
    destruction does not apply to religious
    fanatics who believe for the coming
    of the 12th Imam.

  9. Frankly, Muggins, it's becoming increasingly more difficult to follow you. First you say,

    In order to be current in military
    strategy, you have to come to recognize the potency of asymmetrical warfare.

    And then you babble on about symmetrical war.

    Ironic, because it's precisely the fact that Bush took his eye off the ball in our asymmetrical challenge in Afghanistan for his unnecessary symmetrical diversion in Iraq - a ball which is unraveling as we speak - that we are in this current pickle.

    And you want more of the same?

    Bush, a mediocre brat of privilege, never finished anything he started in his life. As president, he didn't finish Afghanistan; he started Iraq and can't finish it (by his own admission!!!). Now he wants to start on Iran, which he won't be able to finish, either.

    Personally, I think it's time you joined the rest of America in disembarking from Bush's Bus.

    It's never going to complete its intended destination.