Pickett’s charge
I was working on another post, entitled, “How is the War in Iraq like a Frontal Lobotomy?” (answer–false advertising), but really, I’m not that interested in the history anymore. I’m more interested in the “surge”. I’m interested because the “surge” is a classic example of a loser’s strategy, and it is about to be put in place by a bunch of losers. The “surge” is about saving face rather than achieving an objective, and, let me say it right here, it’s a guy thing. It’s like “going down fighting”, except that those who are going to be going down aren’t going to be those who want to save face.
People always comment on how stubborn George W. Bush is, or how stupid he is, or how ignorant he is, but what they don’t comment on is how selfish he is. Clearly, the face that is being saved in this probable “surge” is his face, and that’s how he wants it. He is willing to sacrifice any number of troops (and we don’t know what that number will be, but it could be high) and any number of Iraqis (certainly a higher number, because the American troops will throw off all restraint) in order to say that—Well, what?
One thing I have always wondered about Bush, that I wonder even more now, is what is the source of his power over these people, that come hell (Iraq) or high water (Katrina), they do what he wants? Does he throw things? Does he hold his breath and turn red in the face, so that they worry he’ll have a stroke? Does he hit people? Does he shout, “Off with his head!”? Does he send high level dissenters to Gitmo? (I wish he would, so that they could come to experience and understand conditions there). Do they just defer to him because of the office of the Presidency? (No one did that with Bill Clinton). Why would anyone feel allegiance to George W. Bush? It’s a mystery, and it’s a mystery that is killing people every day.
how can he POSSIBLY be saving face NOW after all this crap? He’d save a lot more face, and gain some respect back if we pulled out of Iraq NOW. But Nooooooo…
I like the Al Franken joke:
Bush said at the RNC convention, “Some people say that I have a swagger. In Texas, we call it ‘walking.'”
In the rest of America, we call it being an a-hole.
there is no “war” in iraq other than the civil war being waged by the sunni and shiite, one side being supported by saudi’s and the other by iran. we should simple move to our bases and let it play its way out. the iraq’s have to want peace and freedom enough to fight for it…just as other free ppls in the world have. but if on the other hand they want to be under a islamic shroud of religous control then thats their business… but we are not at war with the iraqs and our dumb azz president should stop making sound like we are in an orwellian “us vs. them” kinda of way … its getting very boring.
#2 – If there were ever an expert on being an A-hole it would certainly be Al Franken.
All the moderate Arab states are stating that as long as troops are in Iraq we are preventing an Iranian takeover. We’re in this mess now, and will be for some time. The region has been destabilized too much. You can bet your ass no other moderate Arab country will volunteer to keep the peace, and neither will the UN. The fact is we’re there now to protect the borders, not to keep internal peace. You’ll probably see a troop withdrawal away from hot spots and into more secure areas. There’s really nothing they can do anyway.
#5
It takes one to know one eh?
how can he POSSIBLY be saving face NOW after all this crap?
Exactly, there is no saving face on anything even if he could, i think he would stay the course. I reject the premise that Bush is doing anything out of the ordinary especially saving face. He is still up to his old stunts, the old look at my other hand trick, example being the Iraq study group being his other hand, and the trick hand being the military report which was almost certainly going to be the only one he will even consider.
Um… yes!
(I was tempted to leave it at that, but my step-father is a retired history teacher and recently sent me a rant against the NeoCon men, immigration, and other things, all bundled up as American political history since 1970. The part on truthiness is particularly germane…)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
Read this whole attachment on truthiness. It is my new favorite word. It so definitively describes the way Republicans… have operated in this country since before the Reagan Adm. and the Repo Party conspiracy with the retard, reactionary, fundamentalist Christian right. The Republican Party at that time set up “think tanks” to arrive at truthinesses that “prove” that what the Retard Right fears, and feels in their gut is the absolute truth, and that they (the Repos) are the ones to set up programs to allay the fears and strive for the things that the RRs believe “in their gut” to be true.
Unfortunately, a whole lot of what they feel or fear in their gut is not the truth. Just truthiness.
And this is what we have spent our tax dollars on since the Reagan Administration. That and on making the Repos richest patrons more wealthy.
My money’s on his saving face. And that’s going to be bungled just like everything else has been.
“Why would anyone feel allegiance to George W. Bush?”
Because more people in the USA than this author cares to admit are JUST LIKE George Bush. He represents the worst of America’s economic and political belief system, which right now dominates all else. “Fuck all of you, what’s in it for me (and my family and rich friends)?” That is what has driven EVERY decision made by the federal government and its leaders for the past six years.
What a wonderfully informing piece of news analysis. Jane Smily seems to have a penchant for ill-witted jokes and poorly constructed analogies, but without these her “analysis” would only make a paragraph and I’m sure Ariana Huffington demands more. My only wish is that she would devote the page space towards explaining why there will be a “surge” in troops, instead of her spouting political disdain. Oh and to the Editor, it would still be much appreciated if you’d post a story that shows the political and cultural progress in the Middle East (Currently pending democratic reforms in Egypt maybe?)
#7 – Yes, Al would be the expert.
The really sad thing is that no matter what faults GW has, he’s thousands of times better than Algore or Kerry would have been or Hillarius would be.
Everyone should just chill and have another beer because we’re all doomed.
Maybe Little Bush is just trying to make his father look much more wise in his own decision not to invade Iraq during Gulf War I. By the time this is over, George H. W. Bush is going to look like a genius for deciding not to push on to Baghdad, and what we see happening now were among his reasons.
Apparently, both George and Barbara Bush were carriers of the recessive gene for the disease known as “Texas Swagger.”
Relax. The new Democratic Congress is going to take care of everything…
THATS what Im worried about.
feeding the trolls again huh Uncle Dave?
#15 & 16
And if they screw up, then they’re out. Thats the whole point to who we are.
If Congress was negligent in overseeing Bush, we the people were just as responsible for keeping them in.
Besides how could a Democratic congress do worse? Christ how could a bunch of deranged syphilitic monkeys do worse than the Republicans in this war?
Wow. You’re pretty worked up. Have faith in your elected officials, STA.
#9
as if the democratic party has a monopoly on truth? You forget the Carter and Clinton administrations? Ted Kennedy? Please, keep your warped biased rhetoric bullshit to your self. If all you can see is republicans doing bad, then all you’ll see is democrats can do no wrong. And that’s just not right, let alone TRUE.. Get your head out of the sand, or your ass; whatever the case might be for you.
rctaylor believes in moderate Arab states. Probably still hasn’t figured out who replaces the tooth with a coin under his pillow either.
#20
Lies are lies, but which one had worst consequences… Clinton’s Lewinsky lie or Bush’s WMD lie?
#22
wrong question. Which is worse, Clinton’s giving the Red Chinese our missile technology or Bush trying to save the world by giving the lunatic Muslims American targets that had armor, helmets and machine guns?
Clinton was let off with just the Lewinsky affair, because his theft of 900 FBI files of Republican politicians gave him leadership of the Republican party.
The WMD’s went to Sunni Syria, to be used in a future war with Shiite Iran. Hussein was thinking ahead, beyond the current conflict. Bush finally caught the drift and pretended the WMD’s didn’t exist, so he didn’t have to attack Syria.
If we yanked out of Iraq, it would look like Viet Nam after we pulled out — millions killed. Only this time, half the world’s oil would stop, bringing the entire world economy down with it.
she almost had me up to “set up reparations for the Iraqis.” who do we pay, the ones being tortured or the ones wielding the electric drills?
will this be about saving face? I doubt it. I mean, I think Dubya genuinely wants the Iraq war to succeed, whatever that means at this point. and I think he believes that if we start evacuating troops, even after the “we tried our best” surge of troops, the sectarian violence that will follow will make the last year look idyllic by comparison. and whether or not he actually cares about what happens to the Iraqis, the final Sunni-Shiite showdown will simply emphasize the depths of the Bush Administration’s failure.
Consider what are basically the three remaining options:
(1) surge followed by withdrawal
(2) stay the course (with some new PR dressing – “we’re training more troops!”) plus maybe a surge. keep this up until January 2009, after which it is the next guy’s problem. The next guy, Republican or Democrat, is going to have to get the US out. Period.;
(3) skip the surge and withdraw ala the Iraq Study Group.
Only (2) lets Dubya blame the inevitable failure in Iraq on someone else. I think that is the most likely option.
#23
Please, provide proof of your statements from credible sources.
If we yanked out of Iraq, it would look like Viet Nam…
If Bush hadn’t pulled the lie about the WMD, the U.S.A. wouldn’t be in this mess.
#23 – Timbo.
Comparing the Clinton-Lewinsky debacle to the war in Iraq is not only ignorant, it is immoral… far more immoral than anything Clinton did while in power. How can any moral person compare lying about a blowjob to lying and deceiving to send the country to war, at the cost of 1000’s of killed, tens of thousands permanently injured, 100’s of billions of dollars directly spent (and 2.3 TRILLION in indirect costs). ONe resuilts in national emabarassment, the other in world chaos.
Timbo – you are scum. You dare compare the two events, and that makes you scum.
Timbo.. defend yourself, or are you in the same league of the utter cowards passing themselves as our Presidential leadership, leaders that are not looking out for the country’s welfare and benefit, but instead for the betterment of their political allies and more than anything right now, their so called ‘legacy’ .
So defend yourself… show us one single piece of credible evidence… ANYTHING besides ‘this talking head said so’, to support your WMD went to Syria claim. ANYTHING CREDIBLE.
You can’t, you stupid baseless conspiracy regurgitating monkey.
#25 – First off, Clinton attacked Iraq in the 1990’s because he believed their WMD capabilities were a national security threat. Did he lie? Secondly, the American soldiers in Iraq are seen by the majority of Iraqis as yes “occupiers” in a loose sense of the word. but also as a 3rd party arbiter. Currently, American soldiers are taking efforts to stop, with a debatable level of success, unlawful secritarian violence that is prevalent in about 3-5 provinces. These actions help to keep some Sunnis in the country, but the majority of them will end up leaving Iraq with hopes of returning in the future. If the U.S. were to immediately withdraw more Sunnis would be killed before they could cross the boarders.
Finally, “if Bush hadn’t pulled the lie about the WMD, the U.S.A. wouldn’t be in this mess,” yes… and Saddam would still be oppressing the Iraqi population, flaunting international law, while at the same time harboring and sponsoring well known terrorists.
#27
Your description of events sounds so similar to David Irving’s nonsense about WW 2.
Would you care to offer a refute that is not so outlandish?
18, BUT what are the choices…
90% of the time we are only given 2, and The people IN those groups, vote MORE then any other, FOR THEIR OWN.
#29
1. Clinton’s order to bomb Iraq
Operation Desert Fox was a result of Saddam and his regime hampering the U.N. Inspectors in their work in trying to find WMDs. It was not because of a perceived “national security threat”.
2. How U.S. troops are perceived
The American (and allied) troops are seen as invaders, and that’s not in a “loose sense”. And as for the sectarian violence… it was the Sunni’s that started it, and they’re still fueling it, so don’t paint them as victims of this conflict.
3. Bush being the hero for removing Saddam
Okay, Saddam was a nasty guy, but so are for instance Kim Jong Il and Than Shwe. And talking about Kim Jong Il… doesn’t he actually have WMDs?! And doesn’t he oppress and starve the population of North Korea?! Wouldn’t that be a reason to invade his country?! What’s holding Bush back?
And as for Saddam harboring terrorists. Yes, he might have had a couple of them inside his country, but so did/does Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya etc. Why didn’t Bush invade their respective countries? And no… Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before the U.S. invasion.