Sven's picture

Eggsackly, Captain K. These

Eggsackly, Captain K. These fools are more interested in some BS executive power play leftover from the Nixon days (and most likely a plethora of defense contracts) than actually improving security.

What gets me is that despite all this bluster about prosecution, the Bushies are too chickenshit to even kick the NYT out of the WH press corps. It's recurring theme - they talk tough about Social Security, against the creation of DHS, etc. etc., but they always back down with even the whiff of a challenge.

They attacked Iraq because it was weak, not because it posed an actual threat. They thought they could hide behind the military's skirts and project an aura of strength and resolve - a tidy little Falklands episode for the reelection campaign. They're not "staying the course" in Iraq out of fearlessness; they're just too chicken to acknowledge their error and try something different. 

If only they'd recognize this basic truth, the Dems could expose the Bushies as simpering cowards they really are. Unfortunately, the Dems have proven it's possible to be even more craven than the Dubyaheads. 

 

Andy Axel's picture

They attacked Iraq because

They attacked Iraq because it was weak, not because it posed an actual threat. They thought they could hide behind the military's skirts and project an aura of strength and resolve - a tidy little Falklands episode for the reelection campaign. They're not "staying the course" in Iraq out of fearlessness; they're just too chicken to acknowledge their error and try something different.

Admitting failure and defeat would set Republican idealism vis-a-vis military power back 30 years.

The stakes are really high at this point. Pulling back would mean conceding, essentially, that they had no path to victory in the first place. It would be admitting that they underestimated the will of the Iraqi people. And it would feed speculation about their motives and their competence (as if those weren't at issue right now).

I honestly believe that this administration thought... no, BELIEVED... that overthrowing Hussein would be the only precondition necessary to installing the sort of client state that they had envisioned. They were oversold by the in-exile Iraqi National Congress and by their surrogates advising the administration (see also: the American Enterprise Institute), and totally blew every rationale for going to war.

I don't know that they had "Falklands" in mind as a model, and certainly, we'd have ended the engagement in 2003 when Bush said "mission accomplished," all other things being equal. Problem is, beyond the mission to topple Hussein, there was nothing else planned. They were nation-building by fiat.

My opinion -- this is the inexplicable, fantastic hubris of the New American Century crowd coming home to roost; they know it, they just don't want to admit it. It's too bad that it's come at the expense of 2,500+ Americans KIA, 18,000+ Americans wounded, and at the expense of billions of dollars of [borrowed] treasure, and at the expense of our credibility throughout the known universe.

____________________________

"The iPod was not developed by Baptists in Waco." -- G.K.

edens's picture

And we would be the Argies

And we would be the Argies in your Falklands analogy?

Sven's picture

I have the Falklands stuck

I have the Falklands stuck in my head because of this:

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade·.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." 

[...] 

Bush's circle of pre-election advisers had a fixation on the political capital that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher collected from the Falklands War. Said Herskowitz: "They were just absolutely blown away, just enthralled by the scenes of the troops coming back, of the boats, people throwing flowers at [Thatcher] and her getting these standing ovations in Parliament and making these magnificent speeches.

Bombs and Jesus. I think that just about sums up Bush's political insight.

 

 

edens's picture

Figured you had Maggie in

Figured you had Maggie in mind. But there's also this:

(link...)

Argentina was in the midst of a devastating economic crisis and large-scale civil unrest against the repressive military junta that was governing the country in the period leading up to the war. The Argentine military government, headed by General Leopoldo Galtieri, decided to play off long-standing feelings of nationalism by launching what it thought would be a quick and easy war to reclaim the Falkland Islands.

captainkona's picture

LOL!

Since certain members of the press and some well placed whistle-blowers are the only way to keep track of the illegal activities of the Bush Regime, I'm not surprised the Scum are upset.

 What better way to hide your crimes than silence the investigators?

I wonder if the Right has considered the possibility that if they had elected a decent, honest, respectable individual to the office of President, there would be little need for "leaks"? 

 

AJ's picture

What "illegal activities"

What "illegal activities" are you referring to? The NSA programs to monitor international banking activities are not illegal.
(link...)

Indeed, on 9/24/01, there was an editorial in the NYT calling for just such a program.
(link...)

I clearly recall screams, yells and whining shortly after 9/11 demanding to know why everything possible was not done beforehand to prevent such an attack. The 9/11 Commission concluded that there was a massive failure by our intelligence agencies, mostly due to the various agencies not being able to share pertinent information. Jamie Gorelick herself authored the legislation making that so. Oh, but she served under Clinton, so her contribution to the failure can be overlooked.

Just like Project Echelon can be overlooked since it was Clinton's thing ...

My, my. Such hypocrisy. And ignorance. But I do understand that sufferers of BDS have a tendency for delusional thinking. Tis a pity, really ...

Andy Axel's picture

Playground punditry

My god. More of the same -- Clinton's fault, Clinton's fault, Clinton's fault, Clinton's fault, Clinton's fault, Clinton's fault, Clinton's fault, Clinton's fault, Clinton's fault.

Where'd you GOP types learn your debate tactics?

If 9/11 had happened on Clinton's watch, there'd have been impeachment hearings convened on 9/12.

It must be really convenient to be able to blame Clinton for everything.

Tell me, to what standards of accountability should *this* administration be held? Hm?

Or is that failure of accountability also Clinton's fault?

(And quoting the City Journal? The paper whose publishing committee includes Peggy Noonan and Bill "Nickel Slots" Bennett? There's a reliable source. Ignorance indeed.)

____________________________

"The iPod was not developed by Baptists in Waco." -- G.K.

Brian A.'s picture

Jefferson

Looks like we not yet received many votes from the Rightist side of the blogosphere.

A reminder to those people:

[W]ere it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

Thomas Jefferson, 1787

Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Local Media Blogs

Shopper Columns

Local News

News Sentinel

State News

Wire Reports

Site Statistics

Last 7 days:
  • Posts: 27
  • Comments: 530
  • Visits: 15,497
  • Pageviews: 41,916
Last 30 days:
  • Posts: 102
  • Comments: 1495
  • Visits: 45,837
  • Pageviews: 116,643

TN Progressive

Nearby:

Beyond:

At large: