“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.” I Cor. 13:1
I have to apologize to you readers because every time I hear George Bush speak on the television, I feel like I’m being lied to and it bothers me. On the other hand, I love to hear Bill Clinton speak. I know that he has lied to the American people too, but for some reason it just didn’t bother me as much as it does when George does it.
So I’m going to try to do my best to demonstrate a little charity but unfortunately, it is going to be laced with a health dose of conspiracy theory.
As I sit here trying to figure out why we are sending more troops to Iraq, the best that I can come up with is that Mr. Bush is delusional. Honestly, though, I can’t bring myself to that conclusion. All that I’m left with is the conclusion that this is a deeply cynical political gambit to keep the Republicans in power. Perhaps from a solipsistic point of view, Republicans losing the white house might the worst thing for the country that Mr. Bush can imagine and it justifies the lives that he is putting at risk. That’s really the best charitable explanation that I can come up with. The less charitable theory is that the Republicans like the power that a war president has and would be happy to have an extended sort of conflict as long as the casualty count is manageable.
So here’s how that theory goes.
If the US pulls out of Iraq now, we’ll save US lives but there is likely to be a very bloody civil war including the sort of ethic cleansing we’ve seen in other parts of the world when new political boundaries are being drawn. We could help mitigate some of that violence by helping to partition the country in a more peaceful way, but even that may not help. Any admission by the white house that our original goals are no longer attainable in Iraq will surely cost the Republicans the white house in 2008.
The only choice to preserve the white house for the Republicans is to make front-runner John McCain right. He has been an advocate of overwhelming force from the very beginning. If we are able to pour enough American troops into a small enough area like Baghdad, we may be able to change the nature of the fighting from open warfare to the sort of low boil conflict we see in Israel. With that sort of “progress”, John McCain could squeak out a victory. We’ll still be Iraq with no clear exit strategy, but the Republicans will have retained executive control and all the war powers that entails.
Don’t be surprised to see Ms. Rice also moving closer to Mr. McCain in the near future. Why else would heavy-weight John Negroponte take a demotion to a deputy position at the state department? This is preparing the way for Rice to gracefully exit and hit the campaign trail.
I believe that if the Democratic ticket starts looking like Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, you’ll see the Republicans respond with a ticket of John McCain and Condoleeza Rice. I wish I could claim credit for this idea, but I read it first in a John Hughes column in the Christian Science Monitor.
Whatever happens, I do pray for the protection of everyone in that region. An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God is speaking to us all including George. That message remains one of harmony, peace, and love. If we listen with humility and obedience, we might just learn something.
You are not alone in your thoughts about the lies from Clinton (pretty non-impactive for the American people and produced a few good laughs) and from Bush (Sons, daughters, civilians – including children are dying).
I come from a military family – dad in 3 wars, a “lifer”; my son-in-law is also a “lifer”, so believe me when I say I am NOT anti-military, in fact I will always treat a military person with respect and thank them for their service. I am honored to personally know my father and son-in-law. I can’t express the feelings I get when I see a soldier in uniform – “Proudness” comes to mind but doesn’t give the feeling justice.
It became increasingly obvious to me during the Viet Nam military action that the US really wasn’t about “saving the rest of the world” from tierany, oppression, famine and disease. Oh, we use these honorable and notable causes as “titles” but in reality, unless there is something in it for us, we won’t bother. We talked about the oppression and torture that Saddam imposed on his people and used that as an excuse. Of course there were no WMDs. During the Gulf War in 1991, Schwarzkopf could have easily taken Saddam out – Schwarzkopf had Saddam in his sights, but by then we had Kuwait safely back under our control – so our oil was safe, and well, Saddam did keep the civil wars down by inflicting oppression and torture on the people, so we really didn’t want to get that involved. Americans celebrated an honorable victory and or oil was safe.
It was the same in Viet Nam, only the war did two things – it bolstered our economy which lead us into the affluent 1980s and it secured our rubber supply – tires, tires, tires, etc… But, 58,239 were killed in action; 128,000 were wounded, 14,000 are STILL missing in action and there were 230 reported incidents where Americans were killed intentionally by another American – it’s called “Fragged in Action”. By the way, in case you don’t remember, we lost that war – hard to win when your Air Force and Special Operations are only allowed to seek and destroy the enemy in areas where they clearly are not.
The Government of the United States of America needs to be truthful and transparent to the American people whom it serves. It needs to do that NOW if it wishes to keep the American people loyal and committed. Bush talks about God, but his actions sometimes mirror those of what I envision the anti-Christ doing. Lord, my Savior, pray for us!
Be weary of “non-partisan” candidates that used to be Republicans – wolves in sheep’s clothing. Check out the candidates – ask the hard questions and most importantly remember we’ve been lied to – for quite a while and somewhere WHO we are got lost. Perhaps that is why Americans are so hated in the International arena.
MKL is right. Heaven forbid someone messes with our oil supply. World News Tonight aired a segment on Niger’s militant forces who threaten to blow up oil fields. Royal Dutch Shell pulled its employees out of there. It went on to say that the militants are protecting their land in the Delta. The ending comment by Charles Gibson was how much of a threat are they to our oil supply?
The Niger’s militants in the Delta are predominantly Catholic Christians who are fed up. No one is listening to them about what is happening to their land. The delta area is where Lake Chad, equivalent to our Lake Erie, is drying up from global warming. The pollution is horrible due to the oil processing plants. The government is supposed to divvy up the profits but those in that region have seen nothing. They are starving, their health is threatened by pollutants, their ground is useless for growing and that’s all we Americans care about. How will the militants impact our oil supply. Watch these people become our enemy.
I think the entire world would be refreshed by getting rid of big oil. Without sending a single troop, starting a single war, terrorism would disappear in the sand. With no demand for oil, middle eastern countries have no infrastructure for much of anything. They are powerful through oil only. Witness the latest drop in gas prices. Consumption is down. The news reported it’s because people are simply watching their energy consumption. Imagine if we switched to alternatives altogether. Just don’t look to coal. Those industries go hand in hand and as far back as the mid 1700’s. If we change, let’s go forward not backward. Give a new generation a chance with a totally new economy. I think big oil has enough at $1146 per second net income last year. That in itself should just make us mad.
MKL and Ria,
Thanks for your comments.
It’s interesting that you bring up energy policy.
I was talking with my wife Terry in the car today about the administrations big fear, which is that Iraq fractures and somehow Islamic radicals gain control of some or all of Iraq oil. The same thing was parroted in Jack Kelly’s column today.
First of all, it is highly unlikely that al-Qaeda is going to end up controlling any Iraqi oil, regardless of what happens in Iraq. That oil revenue is what all of the Iraqi’s are currently killing each other over. If you think for a minute that they are going to let some punk foreign jihadist steal it from them, you are seriously mistaken.
But I also think getting control of some oil reserves might be the best thing that ever happened to the radical Islamists. Sudden and immediate wealth may be the best weapon that we have. The corrupting power of money may not taint the top leaders, but it will surely affect everyone else. More than anything else, the comforts of the western lifestyle are the most effective melting pot. Our ability to broadcast the consumer lifestyle world-wide eventually brought down communism and it will ultimately bring down the radical Islamic movement too. They just have to make a little more money so that they can afford Dish TV and the home shopping network.
Jeff
“The only choice to preserve the white house for the Republicans is to make front-runner John McCain right.”
Oh My Gawd, pardon me while I barf real quick…
“Front-runner” is an Associated Press/United Press International sound-bite of no significance whatsoever – especially when one listens to the twisted jargon coming out of the left side of John McCain’s mouth. He may have spent some time in a communist re-education camp, but he obviously didn’t come out of the experience unscathed. He never met a supra-national entity he didn’t worship. He never met an AIPAC lobbyist or an illegal Mexican whose a$$ he wouldn’t kiss. He never met a patriotic American he could identify with. Front-runner? I think not, or HOPE not…and God Help America if I’m wrong. Send that man packing back to Arizona…
Al Qaeda? When are thinking people going to stop looking for foreign stooges for all that ails our American existence? Trust me, our ailments are much closer to home than the mountains of Afghanistan, and we need to look at D.C. first for the prime suspects…
“Be weary of “non-partisan” candidates that used to be Republicans – wolves in sheep’s clothing.” Oy. Now we’ve got trouble. Let me get this straight…politicos of the former “right” are threatening those of us who retain the rightward stance? Those of us who used to vote Republican who have let the party pass us by are now the enemy, eh? Those who don’t fall down at the altar of Emperor Bush, Dubya, are somehow less than human? Wolves in sheep’s clothing? Enemies whose opinions aren’t worthy? Further explanation, please…
Erich,
Thanks again for expressing your opinion.
You clearly don’t have very high regard for John McCain, but I don’t think there is any question that he is leading all other potential Republican candidates for the Presidency. I happen to share a lot of your concerns about McCain, but I’m not a Republican, so I’m not going to be involved in who that party chooses.
In this particular post, I was just trying to figure out why the Bush administration would opt for the troop surge in Iraq rather than some sort of timetable or benchmark formula. The one thing these guys are very smart about is political positioning. So why would they take what appears to be a huge tactical risk going into the 2008 election cycle? I mean power is what political parties are all about. That’s the first thing they think about when they get up in the morning, the last thing they pray for when the go to sleep, and the one thing that dominates their dreams (All political parties).
Clearly the Republicans lead by Bush are promising that something in Iraq is going to change as a result of adding more troops AND they are willing to be held responsible for the consequences. Since there is a very large possibility that nothing will change and if anything it will just get worse, this particular move has the potential of handing the White House to the Democrats and increasing the existing Democratic majorities in Congress. That’s why you see a lot Republicans up for election in 2008 runnning for cover.
All I could come up with is the McCain strategy that I outlined. Nothing else really made much sense.
At this point, we’ll just have to wait and see since the “surge” has already begun.
Jeff
Ever since Dubya, Commandant-in-Chief, began playing with his soldiers in the middle east the flag-waving and hand-wringing began in earnest in this country. While we beat our brains trying to make sense of it all the reality is it’s nonsensical. 3rd World dictators who pose no threat to America aren’t our business. But Dubya obviously answers to no man, and feels he can do whatever he wants with his troops because he’ll soon be term-limited out of the oval office. Our congress certainly hasn’t done their part to rein in this rogue executive (which is one of their primary responsibilities) as he and a host of his predecessors have been acting under the War Powers Act. Congress couldn’t declare war on the Koreans, the Vietnamese, Grenadians, Somalis, Afghanis or Iraqis but nearly unanimously approved “resolutions” giving the president a free hand in those matters. Congress has the power of the purse – to shut off funding for these illogical war-games – but they won’t exercise that authority and they won’t annul the War Powers Act either. There isn’t a whit’s bit of difference between the Republicrats’ actions on the issue: any president can do whatever he wishes. You can’t get any more unAmerican than that…
Erich,
Obviously I’m not a fan of the invasion and occupation of Iraq either and have been a vocal critic of both President Bush and his policies.
What I’m also curious about and have the opportunity in this blog to explore is why he continues to pursue a policy that now appears to be very high risk. Getting into Iraq was a “slam dunk” and pretty much accomplished all of his political objectives. If he were as politically cynical as he sometimes appears to be, I would think this same analysis would have had him cutting his losses and figuring out how to blame Iran and the democrats for th failures in Iraq. Instead he has taken a road that only has one very narrow window of success and inextricably ties him, his administration, and the Republicans to all of the failures in Iraq so far.
It’s just very interesting.
Jeff