"... might be dangerous..." ? Bush is an obvious disater for the human race.

I felt like his real accusation was directed at the American people. He might as well say that the people had all the same information he did, so it's not fair for people to be polling against the war now.

Anyone expecting a different shade of brown from Bush when he's spouting to the true believers (amazing to hear the cheers and applause to the same old tired crap) has their head where they can't see daylight.

Same old same old:  I'm right, and anyone who questions me is choosing the terrorists.

Only 38 months, 9 days left...

 

You might be right, wellbasically, in which case, it's complete hogwash.  We've always been kept in the dark about the Global War on Terror and Iraq, hence revelations about foreign based prison camps, about the use of toxic munitions or about the length and difficult of invading Iraq.

And yet, still, I say... if he means us, the American people, and if he's right that we were told everything pertinent before the invasion, then he still has to deal with the fact that, knowing what he says we knew, we were divided on the issue.  I was anti-war, but I don't try to rewrite history to say that the rest of the country was with me.  It wasn't.  But it wasn't against me, either.  Best I can figure by remembering poll data, we were divided within the margin of error on either side.

I want what you want.  What's funny is that it isn't a complicated story to tell.  Before we invaded Iraq, the people of the US were near evenly divided about it, the people of the world were against it and the leaders of our ally countries were mostly against it, but for it in a few key instances.  All in all, that means that Bush is asserting that there was a certainty back then even though all of us who argued about what to do about Iraq in 2002, and I mean all of us on both sides, knew that public and elite opinion were both sharply divided.   Even I knew, arguing against the invasion, that I might be proven wrong and that I might feel like a moron if we invaded Iraq and a plethora of nuclear-tipped Scud missiles were revealed.  But I think we all, on all sides (if we were honest with ourselves) felt uncertainty about that sort of thing.  My point is that, what we didn't find aside, Bush wants to say there wasn't doubt back in 2002.  There was.  It was expressed on record.  Anybody thoughtful tempered their opinions with the recognition that they might be wrong, either way, about Saddam.  Bush wants us to think that the US invasion of Iraq was a universally rational response to what we knew about Iraq after the first gulf war.  But, it clearly wasn't.  Maybe Clinton worried that Saddam would develop and use WMDs.  I hope he did.  I'm glad he did.   It was worth worrying about.  But if invading the place were the only rational response, based on what we knew, then he could have and would have.  He didn't.  Not because he knew Iraq was WMD free.  He didn't know that.  Clinton didn't invade Iraq because, and this is what kills Bush's argument, invading Iraq was simply not the only available solution to our suspicions.  Also, as it's turned out, it was far from the best possible solution.

Ellen, I don't think Bush's "campaign" (if he follows up. something he has not been doing much of) is a non starter if you understand the objective-- all Bush is trying to do is get his base back on side. Given the gerrymandering of the House, and the fact that more Dem seats in Red State Senate races are up for graps than Blue state GOP seats, Bush has surely calculated that all will be well if he gets his approval numbers back to the mid-40's.  If he can keep control of the House and Senate-- even if it is razor thin-- he keeps clear of any real Congressional investigations and can pardon everyone out of any legal trouble on 1/20/09. 

The speech is a sign that the President's political advisors are truly alarmed by the polls that show the American people no longer trust Bush and increasingly believe he lied leading up to the war. The political advisors' hope is that they can change the mood of the public by convincing them that the intelligence was clear to all and everyone agreed on it--including the Democrats who saw the intelligence and voted for the war in large numbers. Because so many Democrats did indeed vote for the war, this argument is the strongest the Bush administration has. Despite being the administration's strongest argument, however, it's still not a particularly strong argument because everyone knows that the intelligence everyone saw (Congress, the public, and even to a large degree other countries and the UN) was filtered through the Bush administration first.

Maybe even more important, though, the public knows that Bush proudly took full responsibility for this war and enthusiastically led the charge in favor of it. Trying to claim now that the Democrats share responsibility equally with him for the war just isn't credible--at least not when he's been loudly making the opposite claim over and over for the past four years. In fact, it may be that this scheme to restore Bush's credibility actually ends up undermining it even more. The Democrats should work to make that happen by pointing out the absurdity of Bush not accepting responsibility for the war and wanting to blame it on the Democrats.

I've been wondering today how worried we need to be about the pushback.  It seems to me there's something fundamentally untenable -- actually, something clearly absurd about a President who, having lost the public trust, attempts to regain it by claiming that his adversaries were advancing the same disproven claims that cost him his own credibility.

It's like the emperor defending himself by saying his opposition also thought he had clothes on.

This isn't going to work -- at least not if we don't let it.  It's the President's job to make the right calls, and his responsibility if he gets it wrong.  The way to bring about the necessary withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq is to keep the debate focused on the President's responsibility, keep him from shifting the burden to his critics, and thereby force him to confront political failure, as well as policy failure, on Iraq.  

.  .  .  the public knows that Bush proudly took full responsibility for this war and enthusiastically led the charge in favor of it.  Purple State

Right on!  Let's stop calling it the War in Iraq and call it by its proper name -- Bush's War. 

that I might be proven wrong and that I might feel like a moron if we invaded Iraq and a plethora of nuclear-tipped Scud missiles were revealed 

I still would not have felt stupid, since that's what the inspectors where there for.

I am still bothered by this meme that even the left seems to have accepted, "these democrats voted for the war, so how can they argue against it now?"

In fact, the congress voted to give President Bush to take all steps necessary, up to and including war.  The fault of the congress was not that they were pro-war but that that trusted President George W Bush to follow the spirit of the resolution and use war as a LAST resort.

Anyone who's familiar with the region will tell you it's [tripartition] a recipe for disaster.

Seems believable to me. That's why I've been arguing that it's about time to enlist the Chinese in the effort to find stability (and deny a new terrorist launching oint) in Iraq:

1) They aren't westerners so they don't come with the same instant negatives from the get go.

2) They have an army large enough to provide security on the street in Iraq.

3) They have an economy large enough (proximate enough) to flood Iraq with products and commerce.

4) They have a vested interest in creating a stable source of crude oil.

I haven't worked through all the morality issues yet, but from a realpolitik perspective it has some appeal.

This isn't going to work -- at least not if we don't let it.

Three words: "Point and Laugh" 

This President is a laughing stock and anyone who stands up for him is a laughing stock. 

Nice.  Complex as it would be to implement, your solution, involving China, is really smart.  You're right about them not being western and not representing the US agenda.  I'd be worried about their presence turning oppressive, since they've oppressed in their own region, but if they could be persuaded or cajoled to behave in an acceptable manner, it's actually a great opportunity to find common ground between the US and China while turning our Iraq adventure into a truly global project.  Also, in the run up to our war, China is one of the few countries that we didn't insult.

Your suggestion is so outside of what the mainstream is thinking that I can't help but think you might have been being sarcastic.  But, even if you were kidding, I see some possibility there. 

My recollections of the run-up to the war don't jibe with yours.  All of Bush's arguments were debunked before the war. 

There was no meeting with Atta and Iraqi itelligence in Prague so there was no al-Qaeda/Iraq collusion to 911 and no international terrorist group that Saddam would sell his WMDs to.

The inspectors said they could not find any nuclear WMD program in Iraq, the Niger uranium records were forgeries and the centriguge tubes story was bebunked, so there was no threat of mushroom clouds.

Saddam might have had chemical/biological weopons (because the US sold/gave them to him when he was our go to man in the Mideast), but he didn't use them in the Gulf War.  But he lacked a delivery system to make them a threat to the US.

Saddam and Osama hated each other; Saddam was one the secularist rulers the fundamentalist Osama wanted destroyed so there was no al-Qaeda/Iraq linkage.

Bush and his PNAC gang of thugs had wanted a war with Iraq from the get-go, and, if memory serves me correctly Wolfowitz had already said that they had picked WMD as the best way to sell the war to the American people and Card said you don't start a marketing campaign (for the Iraq war) in August.

Through the run-up to the war, I was absolutely convinced that Bush and his gang of thugs were lying us into a war with Iraq.  

Oh my god, China in Iraq? This is the axis of evil's (axis of evil being Cheney-Rumsfeld-Bush) worse nightmare. Increasing the skills of the Chinese military and giving them a foothold in the oil rich Middle East?  They couldn't imagine anything worse, short of losing their stock options!

My point of view back then was - the evidence presented about Iraq's threat to the US is pretty thin, but then maybe the Administration cannot put its best evidence out in the public for a variety of reasons; one has to put some faith in the President.

That was unfortunate indeed, especially when we find that in the classified documents the case about Iraq's threat was weaker than what was presented in public.

So, to me, the President is completely responsible for misleading us into this war.

can't you get it through your head that most Iraqis simply do not want any more foreign interference?

That concept has been deeply set in my brain since before we first set foot in Iraq. I (and half the thinking people in the world) were predicting exactly where we are now for exactly the reason you state.

But from what (very little) I know about Iraq, there are two powers right now: the US military and the insurgency. If we stay, we get the status quo. If we leave, there are a multitude of possibilities but all of them involve something that resembles Afghanistan in the 1990's but with a huge supply of oil they can use to fund their adventures; and while the taliban were anti-heroin for some reason- I don't count on them having the same aversion to oil money.

I'm not plotting and planning the take-over of Iraq here. I'm pondering what scenario might involve the least death and oppression.

To steal a line from the right, don't tell me why I'm an idiot, tell me why you're a genius. Give me a solution, not a complaint.

From Bush's perspective, if he can prevent the historical argument from happening, he can continue to weild the political sword of patriotism.

The historical argument ought to be about more than the evidence. When a nation places its faith in a national leader, they ought to have some idea of what that individual is thinking.
In the case of the tightly controlled Bush administration, clues would seem to be very scarce.

Or not.

A column written about Veterans' Day by a Canadian was posted on the Media Monitors Network, and it has been making the rounds in email. It is not just one of the many scatter-shot references comparing Bush to Hitler. It compares more substantial quotations from the two which actually provoke some thought.

[H]ere is an excerpt from Hitler’s Dec. 11, 1941, speech to the Reichstag that contains his reasons for invading the Soviet Union:

“The German people and its soldiers work and fight today not only for themselves and their own age, but also for many generations to come. A historical task of unique dimensions has been entrusted to us by the Creator which we are now obliged to carry out…. I have not sought war. To the contrary, I have done everything to avoid conflict. But I would forget my duty and my conscience if I were to do nothing in spite of the realization that a conflict had become unavoidable. Because I regarded Soviet Russia as a danger not only for the German Reich but for all of Europe, I decided, if possible, to give the order myself to attack a few days before the outbreak of this conflict.

A truly impressive amount of authentic material is now available which confirms that a Soviet Russian attack was intended. We are also sure about when this attack was to take place. In view of this danger, the extent of which we are perhaps only now truly aware, I can only thank the Lord God that He enlightened me in time and has given me the strength to do what must be done. Millions of German soldiers may thank Him for their lives, and all of Europe for its existence.”

[Here is] how Bush prepared the U.S. public for the destruction of Iraq in his Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address:

“In this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again, and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror. Once again, this nation and all our friends are all that stand between a world at peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people, and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility. (Applause.)…


“Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people. (Applause.) Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. …

“We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not know—we do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history. May He guide us now. And may God continue to bless the United States of America.”*

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/22518

Maybe my cynicism is out of control, but the public seems to grasp on the the shortest, easiest to understand story thread. 

I have more faith in the public, less faith in the mainstream media. 

For example, the MSM pretty much single-handedly destroyed Howard Dean's campaign by introducing and playing up ad nauseum the theme that he was "unelectable." This was a new expression in an exciting and surging campaign, introduced in early December after Dean went on the record about "re-regulating the media." Within a couple of weeks we began to see Iowa primary voters, including former Dean supporters, echoing the media using the same expression about Dean. Did they decide this on their own? Were they brainwashed? Or did they perhaps rightfully acknowledge that Dean now faced a serious handicap because of his candid comments?

The media is incredibly powerful. They know it, and the public knows it. 

Being dependent upon a powerful media which frequently serves its own interests first is like walking on mountain trails with a heavy guide on your back. Sometimes he points the way and we are grateful for the extra pair of eyes, the powerful voice. But when the burden leans too far, we may feel obliged to take a few steps in that direction to regain our balance. Unfortunately there are cliffs along the trail. 

Brewmn, i believe that your observation about the media framing this as a "Bush Fights Back" story is astute. The imagery suggests that Bush is under attack, rather than the responsible party.

But i would like to tie in the last point that you made. The alternative to the Bush fights back frame of reference ought to be not about what information was available, but rather about whether Bush knowingly dragged the nation into an unjust and awful war. 

As skeptical as the media has become about Bush, they are leaning away from such an evaluation of history. That is undoubtedly because, while they may gain from generating lots of news stories about the Bush administration, they can't see anything but downside to actually holding him accountable for fundamental crimes. They are corporations, and Bush the ex-CEO has long been the corporation's friend-- less regulation, lower corporate taxes. Exposing the real truth about Bush would be bad corporate policy.

best wishes,
richard myers