Tag: Iraq

This week, the liberal Web site buzzflash.com noted in an unsigned editorial that “not one — not one — of any of Bush’s children or his nieces and nephews have volunteered for service in any branch of the military or volunteered to serve in any capacity in Iraq. Not one of them has felt the cause was noble enough to put his or her life on the line.”

Buzzflash is circulating a petition demanding that “Either the Bush Kids Put Their Lives on the Line for George’s ‘Noble War’ or the Troops Come Home.”

Publicity stunt or not, it does raise a question. If the sacrifice is so noble, has the president urged his own children, or enlistment-age nieces and nephews – of which there are eight – to join the military and fight in Iraq?

I called the White House to pose this question and was somewhat surprised to learn that none of the supposed liberal baddies in the White House press corps had ever asked the president or any of his spokespersons that question.

Spokeswoman Dana Perino couldn’t find that this question had ever been asked. She said she’d have to check and call back. And she did later Tuesday afternoon with this prepared statement: “There are many ways for people to serve their country and to help make the world a better freer and more peaceful place. The president is grateful to all of those who have answered the call to service whether it’s in the military or in another capacity and members of his family have done both.”

That didn’t really answer the question.

Click here to sign the Buzzflash petition.

“The worsening of the situation in Iraq is the most pressing issue for Bush and the GOP. For a month or two, there has been a theory circulating among those that watch polls that the American public can be broken down into four distinct groups: those that have always been against the war; those who were for it but now believe we’ve blown it and should pull out; those who supported the war, believe the invasion was successful but think that the aftermath has been completely blown, yet would hate to see us withdraw immediately and lose all we’ve invested; and those that have always been for the war.

“Pollsters say that the first group — always against — makes up about 30 percent of the electorate, while the second group — those that started off in favor of the war but now see it as a lost cause — includes about 20 percent. These two categories total half of all voters in opposition.

“The third group — those that are conflicted because they see the effort as doomed and casualties increasing, yet still hate to see us ‘cut and run’ — makes up another 25 percent. The last 25 percent remains supportive. What this means is that only a quarter of the American people are standing behind Bush on the war. The other three-quarters are either against him or highly critical of how he has handled the conflict and/or the aftermath. “

— Charlie Cook, writing in the National Journal

“I foresee an inexorable decline in the polls as Americans discover to their horror that, given the right to choose their leaders, Iraqis will choose the same sort of fundamentalist madmen that their neighbors in Iran tend to choose …

“Worse, this is likely to come at a time when the special prosecutor in the Valerie Plame case releases his indictments. If Patrick Fitzgerald wants to be a real SOB — and that seems to be his sole purpose in life — he could quite easily indict at least two of Bush’s key advisers for violating their oaths concerning the handling of classified information.

“If that scenario is not bleak enough for you, consider oil prices. They could keep soaring as the winter heating season begins. It was the gas crisis of winter 1974 that set the sour mood for Richard Nixon’s demise that summer. Imagine $4-a-gallon gasoline prices at the same time Bush remains bogged down in Iraq while fending off the Plame prosecution.”

— Paul Mulshine

“As long as Mr. Bush’s fantasies, self-delusions, false optimism and surrealistic take on the world are passed along with little or no correction by the mainstream media, a passable base of public support for the war can remain and Americans will continue dying in a hopeless cause. It’s that fact behind the missing analysis that is critical.”

— P.M. Carpenter

Proof (as if any were needed) that you have to be mentally challenged to support President Bush and his war:

In one heated moment, members of the pro-Bush crowd turned on what they mistakenly thought were a group of anti-war protesters, cursing them, threatening them and tearing down their signs. A police officer rushed the group to safety.

If you’re guessing that the two groups were the Paste-Eaters and Mouth-Breathers, you are close. One group was Move America Forward; the other called itself Protest Warriors.

Keith Olbermann uncovered something interesting about Move America Forward last week:

[…]

Time Magazine:

This has been a tough summer for the Bush Administration. While the President tries to relax on his five week Texas vacation, he’s had to contend with deteriorating military and political conditions in Iraq, a Woodstock-like peace protest at the edge of his Crawford compound led by Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan, declining public opinion polls (that are echoed by “even worse” internal polling, says one Bush adviser), high oil prices and a recognition that things are not likely to turn around anytime soon. A senior Bush official attributes the president’s collapsing poll numbers to “high gas prices and a lot of anxiety about the war” and acknowledges “that’s not likely to change anytime soon.” A cruel summer is likely to fade into an autumn of discontent as congressmen like [Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), who has renounced his support for Bush’s war] come back to Washington having heard complaints from constituents.

“The harsh reality is that if left to run its own course, a civil war in Iraq would result in a hard-line, radical Islamic mini-state in southern Iraq, with extremely close ties with Iran; a Kurdish state in the North engaged in its own internal civil war between rival factions; and Baghdad reduced to a modern-day Beirut, divided into fortified Shi’a and Sunni communities at war with one another. It would all be “governed” by a weak central authority lacking the means to effect any meaningful change.

“Worst of all, from the American perspective, is that the Sunni population of Iraq, disenfranchised and impoverished, would be compelled to embrace radical Islam, providing a perfect recruiting and training ground for the forces of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

“This is the future of Iraq should the Bush administration continue to “stay the course,” as the President recently promised to do. There is no elegant solution to offer up as an alternative. The fact is, the number-one threat faced by the United States from Iraq today is the creation of a lawless, non-state entity among the Iraqi Sunni that serves to feed a regional and global anti-American Jihad.”

— Scott Ritter, whose dire predictions in 2003 for the outcome of the U.S. invasion of Iraq have proven to be preternaturally correct

Recently, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) summed up President Bush’s lack of strategy for success in Iraq by saying that “staying the course is not a policy.” Now, in an editorial for the Washington Post, retired Gen. Wesley Clark argues against pulling out of Iraq while there is still a chance for success – and offers a brief outline of steps the Bushes could (but won’t) take to turn the crisis there around.

In particular, Gen. Clark excoriates the Bush team’s hamfisted excuse for diplomacy in the Middle East and strongly urges them to bring the stakeholders to the table:

Adding a diplomatic track to the strategy is a must. The US should form a standing conference of Iraq’s neighbors, complete with committees dealing with all the regional economic and political issues, including trade, travel, cross-border infrastructure projects, and, of course, cutting off the infiltration of jihadists. Iraq’s neighbors should be asked to assist. This will also provide a better opportunity for meaningful back-door discussions of Iran’s nuclear program, Syria’s interests in Lebanon, and Turkish interaction with the Kurds in Iraq. The US should tone down its raw rhetoric for US-style democracy as an answer to all problems and instead listen more carefully to the many voices within the region. A public US declaration forswearing permanent bases in Iraq would also be helpful in engaging both regional and Iraqi support at this point.

Wes is blogging at TPM Cafe next week.

President Bush has been too busy reading and raising money on his vacation to meet with “Peace Mom” Cindy Sheehan, so now the Iraq war protester says she will try to influence members of Congress, starting with the most powerful – and most odious – man in the House, Majority Leader Tom Delay.

“I think our first stop might be Tom DeLay’s office,” [Sheehan] said, surrounded by supporters. “I just wanted to let him know so he’ll be in his office when we get there…”

A spokeswoman for DeLay said his schedule was already set and did not plan to change it to meet with Sheehan.

The DeLay’s spokeswoman then earned her salary by using the Karl Rove-approved spin Republicans are instructed to use when discussing Cindy Sheehan:

“Mr. DeLay disagrees with those who believe we should give the terrorists the timeline they want and simply cut and run from the war in Iraq,” said DeLay spokeswoman Shannon Flaherty.

“One … phrase that has become higher profile with Mr. Bush, the repetition about the dead, that we will honor their sacrifice by completing their mission, was the exact terminology today. Is there a point at which one of the protesters, even if it was only a dozen protesters, or a Democrat, or both, comes out and says, Hey, wait a minute, that phrase basically says, We‘re going to honor their sacrifice by sacrificing more of them?”

— Keith Olbermann