Was I the last one to understand Bush's final con game?
"There's no such thing as short-term history." He repeats it ad nauseum, but what the hell does he mean by this? What is he now, a freaking historical philosopher?
I guess I'm getting slow, but it only came to me yesterday. It's so simple: one day, things will be probably be calmer in Afghanistan and/or Iraq, at least for a while. When one or both of those days comes, whether through Obama's good work or somebody else's, the Failed President will spring forth to take credit. (If things then get worse, he'll just say that's new and unrelated.) (1)What brilliance to treat 9/11 not as a criminal matter but as a war with Aghanistan, then abandon the war to go pursue Wolfowitz's insane dream of an Iraq invasion! Peace in Afghanistan, doesn't matter when, a master stroke by Bush! (2) What a genius Bush was to invade Saddam's inward-looking mad dictatorship which had nothing to do with 9/11! Maybe a Nobel Peace Prize for the Great Man.
(3) One day, Osama Bin-Laden will finally die. Bush intends to take the credit. He hounded Bin-Laden, forced him to live a hard life, and Bin-Laden will be dead. See? Another Nobel for Bush, if he lives to see the day.
Short-term history is a pretty simple concept although you can certainly disagree with it. I happen to agree that it's still going to take some time before we can say our policies in the Middle East were right or wrong.
January 18, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Which policies are in doubt for you, then? Attacking a country that didn't threaten us? Pursuing the campaign in a spectacularly thoughtless and incompetent way? Refusing the help of Syria and/or Iran? Sending development managers to Iraq with their first international passports on the basis of how they felt about Roe vs. Wade? Running the war on the cheap? Ripping up defense plans to do things quicker and less expensively, thus ending up with Abu Ghraib? Firing the (armed) Iraqi Army? Refusing to establish an Iraqi intelligence service (which every moderately developed country in the world has)? Or do you reckon Saddam was behind 9/11 after all?
What's the confusion, *specifically?* I'd love to know.
Or are you also going to peremptorily declare Bush a visionary the moment that things (temporarily) calm down?
January 18, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
When asked about the French Revolution one fairly contemporary Chinese leader was quoted as saying, it is too soon to tell.
What Overreach was trying to point out went right over Bill's head. To the point of absurdity, one can always hide behind the "too soon to tell" position.
Good things will always transpire after bad things. To our good fortune, history is rife with examples. This in no way redeems countless catastrophies and atrocities. Nor does it suggest that particular things vile are necessary or responsible for specific things noble.
Sad to say, people like MiddleClassBill will always mistake preceding events as the cause of subsequent ones.
Hey Bill, ask the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, dead children, asked the maimed, asked the displaced. Was Georgie boy’s war good Middle East policy?
January 18, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't leave out the "no attacks since 911." It is like an ax murderer saying he hasn't killed anyone since that one family of 8 that he hacked to death last year.
I would have more empathy towards Bush if he had not been warned; if he had not ignored the warning; and if he hadn't worn his tragic mistake like an Easter Bonnet of pride. How in the world he turned his very own disaster into a plus, and then managed to turn the good will of the world into a festering boil, is beyond me.
Bush deserves nothing but isolation in prison, but perhaps he may at least get isolation. I'm sure there are some "think tanks" that will pay him the big bucks he deserves after enriching all his disgusting friends -- they are the only ones who can stand his tortured speech. But he will surely not be an "elder statesman" since he was never a statesman in the first place.
January 18, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ax murderer is a pretty dumb analogy. It's like saying that because your house has never been robbed, we don't need to have the local police force anymore. Let's just get rid of them.
January 19, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't like saying that at all. You just jump in and throw nonsequiturs around and then step back; never answer reasonable questions. Your comments are starting to bore me to tears.
January 19, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give me a reasonable question and I will answer it.
And since you asked - no I don't love bin Laden. It seemed a silly/rhetorical question but I wanted to answer so you wouldn't accuse me of answering your questions
January 19, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry.
January 19, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
very funny. sorry for the typo.
January 19, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
krcook - innocent people die in all wars. But if your point is that Iraq was a mistake because it was a war, and all wars are bad...well I can't argue that because it's your opinion and you're entitled to your opinion.
January 19, 2009 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
His statement, trying to explain the PREVIOUS one that went over your head, also went over your head. For people to die in a war that was fought for bogus reasons is a tragedy. You sound like Dubya, who is disappointed only that there were no WMD's! Not that he went to war for non-existant WMD's - no. He isn't disappointed that he went to war for nothing; his disappointment is that the whole world knows it!
No one here said that there is nothing worth fighting for. But most of us feel that to fight over something that doesn't even exist (especially when you knew it in the first place) is a criminal tragedy.
OK, now I'm ready to hear you say that I sound like I loved Saddam Hussein. Well, I don't and I didn't. (Just anticipating your usual wimpy remark) Talk about a nonsequitur!
Do you love Bin Ladin, since George let him get away by deliberately calling the troops away when they had him trapped, so George could send them on the deadly wild-goose-chase, otherwise known as Operation Enduring Freedom?
January 19, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's just a flipping troll. Trolling about. Nothing worth of our concern.
January 19, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree that we "went to war for nothing" - I guess that's the big disconnect
January 19, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Based on what we were told in the run-up to the war, what did we go to war for? No cheating, and saying Saddam was a tyrant: That was NOT the justification that was made. No saying that the Iraqis were just dying to have democracy, although they have definitely done that.
Tell me, MCB, why did we go to war? You have to use the reasons Dubya gave. Tough, but I know you won't try anyway. You'll just make another simple-minded statement like, "Well, it was the right thing to do."
War? How can you be so superficial?
January 19, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should start a new blog but I will respond to your comment anyway (even though I don't think it's appropriate to go so off topic).
But I am assuming that your question is war with Iraq as opposed to Afghanistan.
We went to war with Iraq because we thought there was a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq/Saddam.
January 19, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you know why we, as the invading country, were never told about that as a reason for invasion? Granted, once the WMD's weren't found, it was dredged up as an excuse. But excuses are not adequate for a Super Power to invade and occupy a country.
January 19, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was more than just a fear of WMD's possessed by Saddam. The connection between Iraq and al Qaeda went back to the 1990s. You could have read about it in Newsweek or watched it on ABC News.
January 19, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cville - I know you're dying to know where I get my crazy theories. I actually read non-conservative sources such as Newsday, ABC News and NPR. The quotes below all came out before Bush even became president. But if you still want to think that Bush fabricated the Iraq/al Qaeda connection all by himself, (or that I did)dream on.
Here's the clip from Newsweek back in 1999 titled "Saddam & Bin Laden?":
"Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer."
The next is from ABC News in 1999:
"Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. . . . ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad."
And here's what NPR reported that same year:
"Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. . . . Some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets."
January 20, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, it's January 21st and I just got around to reading this. Had more important things to do yesterday.
First of all, the reason we were told we HAD to invade was because of the fear of mushroom clouds as Iraq could kill us with nukes. Second of all, considering that we knew exactly where the leader of Al Qaida was (Afghanistan), it is insultingly silly to say we had to leave him alone to go and invade another country because Saddam Hussain had links to Al Qaida!
The blunder of Iraq in unjustifiable on any front. What countries have ties to Al Qaida besides Pakistan and Syria? Which one would you like to invade next, since you think that is enough justification for an invasion?
I am SOOOOOOO glad Barack Obama won! John McCain thinks just like you do and Sarah Palin doesn't think at all -- we skirted a major disaster on November 4th!
January 21, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
There were many reasons for invading Iraq, including WMDs and Iraq's connections with al Qaeda. All were defensible positions based on the information that was available at that time.
I won't debate the ultimate success in Iraq (that's a whole other topic). But as for the justifications for engaging in the war, I certainly think it was justified.
January 21, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
And by the way, we will all be lucky if Georgie boy doesn't spring a more recent parting gift on the nation.
I think the raid on the U.S. Treasury on behalf of well-born incompetants much like himself was a pretty good trick.
Its Sunday, about noon. I'm waiting for the pardons to come down.
January 18, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The pardons may indeed be colorful. We'll know soon, amigo.
January 18, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing went over my head. I am saying that in my opinion it's too early to tell if our time spent in Iraq will help or hurt the situation in the Middle East.
Overreach has put up too many questions to answer each one.
January 18, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, this is what Bush wants you to say, same as his riff.
Without engaging us to tell us what you're talking about or whether you agree that all their lying about mushroom clouds and whatall was a good thing, you simply repeat his "too early to tell" line. Again, in his case, what he plans to do is wait for some inevitable period of calm in Iraq, then declare that it's no longer "not too early to tell" -- that he saved the world. If you are up for him getting away that con job, have no doubt, he's appreciative.
January 19, 2009 3:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're way too cynical about his "con job".
If you want to have a post to discuss whether or not we should be in Iraq, go ahead. But I didn't think that was the point of your post. You were just really pissed off that he was trying to "con us".
January 19, 2009 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're way too cynical about his "con job".
**Not pissed off, *appalled* at myself for not fully getting this earlier. And Bush is a con artist by nature; it is all about him and has nothing to do with cynicism.
If you want to have a post to discuss whether or not we should be in Iraq, go ahead.
**(1)Thank you, I'll discuss what I want. (2) Since I lack respect for the dishonesty, kookiness, unprepraredness, and dreadfully poor implementation of the Iraq adventure, I won't grant it false dignity by discussing it. It is a very grave American tragedy, not a debate subject: only a very particular kind of poster doubts that.
But I didn't think that was the point of your post.
** It certainly wasn't, you're right. The premise of Iraq being a good idea is beyond ridiculous. I am going to have to kindly sign off with this, as I have come to regard you as a troll smugly repeating Republican talking points as though they had some independent validity. Goodbye.
January 19, 2009 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink