With more top-level Republican indictments coming within days, and the CIA admitting that no disciplinary actions will be taken for its intelligence failures in the lead up to 9/11, and with Bush still seemingly clueless about Iraq and the War on Terrorism-- not to mention the investigation into Sen. Frist’s insider trading scam-- this neocon led nation appears headed in a definite downward spiral.
To briefly touch upon the president’s speech this morning, I just want to say that I have no clue as to why pundits, supposedly experienced in the realm of politics, keep calling for Bush to admit mistakes in the Iraq war. It’s not going to happen. Get over it. This is one of the most arrogant presidencies of all times. They will not admit to making mistakes, at least not publicly. Reaming the president for not admitting mistakes gets us nowhere. In fact, it keeps us stationary. It allows this country to remain in the phase of admitting guilt instead of working remedies to a problem that apparently the president won’t even admit exists. Instead of calling for the president to admit mistakes, how about calling for the president to account for good, solid progress in Iraq. No matter how many schools open, no matter how many people get electricity, no matter how much oil production rises, no matter how many more internet subscribers compared to last month does not matter when 300 people a week are being blown up in the streets of Iraq and close to 2,000 dead American soldiers since the war began over 31 months ago. We should be calling for the president to deal with the now rather than the past mistakes of this war.
The question that should be asked and the only one that should matter is, Mr. President, how are we to gauge the continued progress in Iraq by our valiant military force when military operations and casualties continue to mount without end granted the 31 months, $500 billion and over 1,900 soldier’s lives that have already been so graciously offered to you by the American people?
How much more are we to give and how much more are we to expect; and where is the plan that you are going to lead us with?
We all know the mistakes that have been made. Hold him accountable for our future, that’s the direction we need to go, because obviously the current course from all sides is not getting us anywhere.
I’m sure I’ll have more on Bush’s speech, which again is a collection of greatest hits, later. But actually I’m still waiting on Bush to give a “major speech on the progress of the war in Iraq and the broader conflict against terrorism.” When he does, I’ll have a post about it.
Tags:
Bush's Speech, Iraq, CIA Rejects Discipline, Al Qaeda Plots
10.06.2005
The Question
Posted by Chris at 2:26 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Stated extrmely well. Where is the plan and whenis it time for the people to be served not the governemnt. I want a plan . A plan to get out of Iraq and a plan to help this country get out of what appears to be a downward spiral in general.
Good Post MJ.
Uh, what do you mean by saying Bush is "seemingly" clueless about Iraq/ War on Terror? There's no need for a qualifying adverb, Bush is clueless, period.
Seriously, good post. You're right, Bush is incapable of admitting error.
Good job, keep it up. I'm really looking forward to the next presidential campaign season and another chance to support one of the so called third party candidates.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
Bush has been articulating the plan for Iraq for two years and he reiterated the plan this morning. If you are waiting for a troop withdrawal date, you're not going to get one. Why tip off the enemy?
As to MJ's assertion of arrogance/admitting mistakes, name a President that has ever publicly admitted mistakes. And Monica-gate doesn't count, Buddy.
Did Clinton apologize to the Sudan when he mistakenly bombed that aspirin factory? No. Did Carter ever apologize for his inept handling of the Iranian hostage crisis?
Presidents don't apologize. And yet MJ wants to hold Bush to a higher standard. Why?
StormingAmerican writes 'there has been five years of damning things under the Bush Administration and none have been settled with the American people.' What the hell does any of that mean?
So the CIA is not going to drag George Tenet's name through the mud and blame him for intelligence failures leading up to 9/11? Let's all remember that Tenet was installed at the CIA by Clinton. Bush kept Tenet on the job during the transition and then when 9/11 happened, and all the uncertainty that followed, the President deemed it unwise to replace him at that point.
Bush is being consistent. He doesn't play the blame game. His Administration is not going to get actively involved in finger pointing. It's not their style. MJ, I find Bush to be the very opposite of arrogant. I find him to be gracious to a fault.
And there are five years worth of examples of his graciousness, from praising both Bill and Hillary Clinton, (two of the biggest slugs ever to hold public office) Jimmy Carter, (who has done nothing but insult Bush since '01) and bending over backward to work with the Democrats, who rip him every chance they get.
Earth Rooster, who blogs at RockOutWithYour.blogspot.com, is one of my best friends, said it best...
"How many other presidents have had to deal with this same amount of shit during his term? Let's see, there has been: 9/11, a recession, Afganistan, Iraq, Katrina, Rita, and two--perhaps three--SCOTUS nominees. I am sure that there is more that I have forgotten.
What more do we want from our president? How much of his blood do we need?"
Excellent points MJ.
MJ did not appear to be asking for admittance of mistakes he was just saying let's move on where is the plan. It seems to be nothing more that a large mess. Military actions should be nothing if not succinct. Iraq is clearly a debacle still and getting worse. We can't even recruit to the armed forces at this point and it is a large money sucking hog to all but the people making money off the reconstruction; it’s almost like Iraq is become ...oh that..yeah it's still going on....kind of a mess but eventually it will work out.
I'm waiting for a press conference where he really let's someone ask him questions.
Did Clinton apologize to the Sudan when he mistakenly bombed that aspirin factory? No. Did Carter ever apologize for his inept handling of the Iranian hostage crisis? Surely these are no comparison to the War in Iraq.
I would like to see Bush held to any standard at this point.
His administration does not want to finger point due to the fact that in a large majority of the situation the finger would be pointing there way. Otherwise there fingers would be crippled from all the pointing they would be willing to engage in. That having been said certainly finger pointing is not the way things should work.
I would like to see our president make sound decisions based on facts and not appoint unqualified people to offices that my taxes help fund.
Storming, thanks. I think I have linked to you.
I'm with ya businessman. Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining, show me a plan and no more BS; I completely agree.
Jack, I guess I was being nice :) Though Kent would disagree. Thanks for reading.
Schantz, you know if the Dems don't pick up their slack, I'm with you on this third party stuff.
Kent, I don't know if you just totally misread me or what, but I never said that Bush should admit his mistakes. In fact I state just the opposite. I said the people who are wanting him to admit past mistakes should stop insisting on it. Me holding Bush to a higher standard is crazy, I never said he should apologize, so I'm kinda clueless of how to answer you.
Actually I'm also all for Tenet being blamed on Clinton. You are correct that he was a Clinton holdover. I think the CIA should be hammered for their failures and Clinton's people deserve way more blame than Bush's people who only were there 8 months prior to 9/11. Again, I think you are assuming way too much about me.
But Republicans have to be careful about passing blame on past administrations, because they will surely discover that the most blame falls on Reagan for completely creating both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Reagan funded, armed, shared intelligence and even incited both bin Laden and Hussein. So let's blame away.
"If you are waiting for a troop withdrawal date, you're not going to get one. Why tip off the enemy?"....where did I ever say anything about a troop withdrawal??? I think removing troops now would be the worst mistake ever made. Almost as bad as invading in the first place.
Again, Kent, buddy, you're assuming way too much here. Take a breather :)
Not to mention, and this has nothing to do with your post MJ..... if Monicagate doesn't count why did anyone bother? I think we know that answer.
Alice, you must have snuck in there while I was replying. Thanks for covering for me. And you know I couldn't agree more about the press conferences. To use Kent's words, or his friends rather:
"'How many other presidents have had to deal with this same amount of shit during his term? Let's see, there has been: 9/11, a recession, Afganistan, Iraq, Katrina, Rita, and two--perhaps three--SCOTUS nominees. I am sure that there is more that I have forgotten"....you're right Kent, all that stuff and only 25 press conferences. That's not democracy.
I agree with Alice. Clinton was impeached, what standard should Bush be held to? If it's the Clinton standard then Bush won't last two more months. And his indicted government will last even less. Thanks for reading Alice, you always do me one better.
Lol...I really enjoy reading the discussions in the comments section.
I like the downward spiral comment: I think we are getting old. It's funny, because I think the country is in a downward spiral too, but from a totally different perspective.
About your comment: "No matter how many schools open, no matter how many people get electricity, no matter how much oil production rises, no matter how many more internet subscribers compared to last month does not matter when 300 people a week are being blown up in the streets of Iraq and close to 2,000 dead American soldiers since the war began over 31 months ago."
Well, I disagree. It matters. See a lot of people are more worried about basic necessities. Getting children off the streets and into schools can be very helpful in providing security and order. Opening schools was a huge priority for the Allies after WWII...took care of a lot of juvenile delinquents. Also, education is the backbone of democracy. I would say that is very important...it provides a daily routine that is very necessary for these children, considering all the turmoil around them.
And electricity is also not to be underestimated.
Oil production provides much needed capital to Iraq.
And internet subscribers, tv viewers, etc...that is huge, people are getting a window to the outside world.
Fighting terrorism is not just about getting enough police on the streets. It's changing people's perceptions, widening their horizons, giving them options they didn't know existed, and showing them the benefits of democracy.
Yes, the carnage continues. But I argue that school, electricity, oil production, paving roads, building community centers and playgrounds are doing something towards stabilizing Iraq. It's providing the foundations. Peace will not be won in Iraq, without the Iraqis themselves fighting for it. And without seeing their options, many might remain apathetic.
So, although you may find Bush's listing of those accomplishments as trite in face of the thousands of deaths, I don't.
I would say continual progress is to be guaged in how the Iraqi Security forces perform, in how the judicial system is dealing with criminals, especially foreign fighters. Also in the involvement of Iraqis in local politics, especially women. Measured in how many patients can now be treated in Iraqi hospitals. How literacy is raising or falling. Measured in how many sources of information people have, as opposed to formally being dependant on what the head's of the community said. Measured in films, books, art, etc. coming out of Iraq now. Voices being heard by the rest of the world.
Yes, it is sometimes hard to see this progress through all the blood. Blood being more shocking and gory to us. And this progress is doing a lot in the fight for stability and against those who threaten it.
CVG good to see you around.
What I meant by the progress being overshadowed by the bloodshed is that the progress is not going to be the focus by the American people as long as the bloodshed continues. Just like it's impossible to ask Bush to admit of his mistakes, it's also impossible to ask the American people to ignore the deaths of the loved ones and the spending of their tax dollars. Soldier's deaths and money, the cost of the war, is the priority of this war; it's not going to change and it shouldn't.
Of course progress is being made, I don't doubt that at all. And I agree with everything you say. After re-reading my post, which is something that I should do more often, because of the way I have worded my "none of it matters" ridicule, I understand how it is being taken as me not thinking any of it matters. And that is not at all what I meant to have come across. Simply what I meant, was that the priorities in the war will be the bloodshed as long as the bloodshed continues. It's impossible to rebuild that country if the bloodshed is not stopped.
But I think if we do look at the numbers of all the productivity of progress things do look like they are leveling off, some even in decline- like electricity and oil, so despite all the wonderful things that are taking place in Iraq, the deaths of our soldiers and the pocket book that goes to pay for all of it- the most expensive project in human history- and with 31 months now of fighting, those will be the main gauges of "progress" for our endeavor. Why should not the deaths of our soldiers and our money be at the top?
If Bush and the neocons want the progess to overshadow the bloodshed, surely by 31 months into a war they could have made that happen. Rumsfeld and Cheney both said this war would only last a matter of weeks. They are in charge, and we want results. And the results we want are much, much fewer American deaths and much, much greater fiscally responsibility for Bush's whims.
We can add all the electricity we want, but as long as 70-90 soldiers die a month and $200 million/day of our tax money is being spent for what appears to be a continuing onslaught, then those will be the priorities. Adding the luxuries of life to Iraq is way down the list somewhere.
Thanks for reading, sorry this is long, and thanks for hammering me on something that I should pay more attention to. You always keep me honest. You're the best I've seen.
I have taken quite a long hiatus, so let me ease back in to this.
How can anyone call a leader to "admit" mistakes when a large number of people still beleive otherwise. Seeing mistakes are often time subjective. If Bush and many other people in America see Iraq as a positive direction to the war on Terror, then it it impossible to get anyone to admit is as a mistake.
As with any war, there have been tough times, loss of life, and misdirection. But there has also been progress. 16 of 19 provinces are now insurgent free. That is a major accomplishment, however overshadowed by the strong resistance.
Instead of hearing people try and belittle the administration, I would love for just once to offer real solutions to the "big mistake". But no one will offer any, because it is much easier to blame then to act. So it is obvious we will continue to hear the blame and when another Republican wins in 2008, the blame game will start all over again.
The sad thing is there were mistakes made and this administration is not willing to even consider the fact that they need to reevaluate. It is hard to make suggestions to people who are pretty set on a certain course of action.There is not getting through to them in this instant. Has that not been made obvious by now?
Craig, I do agree with you that Bush is not going to answer to his mistakes. The post on the main page I think gets my point across that I think it's useless to sit around and wait for Bush to do such. I will disagree with "How can anyone call a leader to "admit" mistakes when a large number of people still beleive otherwise." Because actually a large number of Americans do believe the Iraq war was a mistake, the latest polls show about 52% of Americans stating that the war was a mistake. I suppose what you call "tough times, loss of life, and misdirection," other people call mistakes. Of course, you're right, it's all subjective. But I want to get away from the mistake blaming stuff. It does nothing to help the situation now. I do agree that I think the Repubs will win in '08 too. Thanks for reading.
businessman, I had hoped too that Bush would at the very least change policy in his handling of Iraq and produce some very sound results. Publicly he just isn't going to admit to such. And the sad part is that privately he isn't admitting such. I'm for whatever changes the current onslaught in Iraq. Even if that means more military action. Even soldiers admit that probably the biggest mistake made was disbanding the Iraqi army; though Bush hasn't said as much. Thanks for reading.
Graham, I appreciate your insight, especially a British one. Sometimes I think this site gets way too American in its approach to world affairs. I do have to disagree with if only Kerry won. I don't think Kerry would have made that much of a difference with Iraq. He even admitted many times that he would continue on the same course as Bush. Of course I think he only said that publicly and probably after being elected would have done some very drastic changes in policy. So even though I do cringe at the thought of Kerry winning, I do think anything better than the "stay the course" attitude would be a welcome.
What you call basic services, I'm calling luxuries right now. Stopping the madness and the insurgency is the most basic service we could provide. After the country is secured then we can worry about rebuilding, it's pointless to rebuild Rome while it burns. Thanks for reading and I always welome the Euro view on this site.
Joseph, I agree with your second paragraph entirely. But ten years ago I was probably more worried about getting laid than politics. And funny enough, ten years ago Clinton was probably more worried about getting laid too :)
I'm not sure Bush is a dictator, but the neocons would make a good argument. Lincoln one time jokingly admitted that he would risk a dictatorship for a battle victory. I'm sure Bush would admit the same.
The people are the government. I think a lot of times we forget that. But with Bush's low poll numbers, maybe we haven't.
Thanks to all for reading and commenting.
I'm not sure we part ways Graham, aside from thinking that Kerry would have made that much of a difference, I agree and have always maintained that we cannot leave Iraq now. We have to stay and finish the job. We broke it, now we fix it. And I couldn't agree more that the current course we are on is not getting the job done. So I do think with Iraq that we agree quite a bit. And mind the fact that I did vote for Kerry, but I would have voted for a dead goat over Bush.
Post a Comment