ZNet |Iraq | The Cut-and-Run Transition

ZNet |Iraq | The Cut-and-Run Transition : " 


Imagine if, on May 1, 2003 as George Bush landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln in color-coded triumph, someone had leaned over and, behind a cupped palm, whispered that he would not attend the crowning triumph of his first presidential term, the official recreation of an Iraqi government in our image. Imagine if someone had then told him that an insurgency, evidently without a central command, armed with nothing more powerful than Kalashnikovs and RPGs, and made up to a significant degree of ordinary, angry Iraqis (as Edward Wong of the New York Times vividly reported today, 6/28/04) would stop his plans in their tracks; or that our sheriff in Baghdad would, hardly a year later, flee town tossing his badge in the dirt. What would George Bush have said then? Who among his followers wouldn't have had the laugh of their lives?"

The Washington Monthly

The Washington Monthly: "THE OSAMA FACTOR....A conservative trope that's currently skyrocketing up the charts argues that Osama bin Laden wants you to vote for John Kerry. Dick Morris is the latest to play this game, saying — without any particular evidence — that it's 'obvious that Osama and his allies all want Bush out.' Matt Yglesias has the right response:

Obvious how? Was the attack on the U.S.S. Cole an effort to get Bush in office?

Morris's peculiar historiography aside — he can't seem to make up his mind whether terrorists prefer appeasers or hardliners when they're cleverly pulling electoral strings — it's not clear to me that Osama really cares one way or another who wins. Satan is Satan, after all.


On the other hand, if you were Osama in late 2001, what would you be hoping for?


You'd like to see the pressure taken off of Afghanistan, since that's where you and most of your fighters are.



But U.S. troops are bound to be somewhere, and if not Afghanistan then where? Iraq would be nice, since none of your guys are there and you've never really seen eye to eye with Saddam Hussein anyway.



Hmmm, yes, Iraq. Instead of killing al-Qaeda terrorists, something that would retain public support for a long time regardless of cost, American troops will instead be dying at the hands of Baathist insurgents, something the American public will probably soon tire of since it's pretty clear that Iraq poses no actual threat to the United States at all.



And what a great recruiting tool! Americans in the heart of the Muslim world! Stealing our oil! Building a Christian empire!


And then Osama would have awakened from his dream and realized that this would never happen. No American president would ever be so witless. Better get cracking on finding a new cave.


But it did happen, and since it turned out that Osama got exactly the American president of his dreams, surely he doesn't want to take a chance of switching horses now? John Kerry might actually take terrorism seriously, after all.


My guess: Osama knows perfectly well that a terrorist attack in the United States would help George Bush's reelection chances since Americans always rally around their president in times of crisis. He's probably been planning one for the last couple of years."

The Washington Monthly

This is something I have been wondering about for a few months... You gotta think that Osama and the other Islamic fundamentalists are just thrilled with the way things are going in wake of 9-11. For a relatively small amount of money and the sacrifice of a couple of fanatical followers AlQuada has cost the USA Billions in goofy security messieurs, creation of entire new bureaucracies, restrictions on all kinds of freedoms... Not to mention the lives and treasure lost by this administrations misguided attack on a country that Al Qaida kind of considered an enemy....

You gotta wonder if these folks dont want to keep bush in office... He has done so much that makes em happy...

A new book asks the same questions.

An anonymous intelligence officer is about to release a book saying that Bush is losing the war on terror:

Imperial Hubris is the latest in a relentless stream of books attacking the administration in election year. Most of the earlier ones, however, were written by embittered former officials. This one is unprecedented in being the work of a serving official with nearly 20 years experience in counter-terrorism who is still part of the intelligence establishment.


The fact that he has been allowed to publish, albeit anonymously and without naming which agency he works for, may reflect the increasing frustration of senior intelligence officials at the course the administration has taken.

This is the second book written by this guy, but apparently he takes his criticism of Bush far beyond anything he's published before. Among other things, Anonymous say that (a) we probably aren't close to capturing bin Laden, (b) Bush and Tommy Franks screwed up big time by not going after him with massive firepower at Tora Bora in 2002, and (c) al-Qaeda is probably stronger than ever right now. And then there's this:

Anonymous, who published an analysis of al-Qaida last year called Through Our Enemies' Eyes, thinks it quite possible that another devastating strike against the US could come during the election campaign, not with the intention of changing the administration, as was the case in the Madrid bombing, but of keeping the same one in place.


'I'm very sure they can't have a better administration for them than the one they have now,' he said."

Is U.S. like Germany of the '30s?

Is U.S. like Germany of the '30s? : "They have in common a demagogic appeal to the worst side of a country's heritage in a crisis. Bush is doubtless sincere in his vision of what is best for America. So too was Hitler. The crew around the president -- Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Karl Rove, the ''neo-cons'' like Paul Wolfowitz -- are not as crazy perhaps as Himmler and Goering and Goebbels. Yet like them, they are practitioners of the Big Lie -- weapons of mass destruction, Iraq democracy, only a few ''bad apples.''

Hitler's war was quantitatively different from the Iraq war, but qualitatively both were foolish, self-destructive and criminally unjust. This is a time of great peril in American history because a phony patriotism and an America-worshipping religion threaten the authentic American genius of tolerance and respect for other people"

He dont know much about history...

Bush Watch: "'How will history see your decision to go to war against Iraq?' asked Woodward of Bush.

'History? History? We won't know. We'll all be dead,' responded Bush."

Washington Post on Bush's torture methods

Boing Boing: A Directory of Wonderful Things: "This Washington Post editorial about the methods of torture that the Bush administration approves of is all over the blogosphere, but I think it's important enough to post here.
Before the Bush administration took office, the Army's interrogation procedures -- which were unclassified -- established this simple and sensible test: No technique should be used that, if used by an enemy on an American, would be regarded as a violation of U.S. or international law. Now, imagine that a hostile government were to force an American to take drugs or endure severe mental stress that fell just short of producing irreversible damage; or pain a little milder than that of 'organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.' What if the foreign interrogator of an American 'knows that severe pain will result from his actions' but proceeds because causing such pain is not his main objective? What if a foreign leader were to decide that the torture of an American was needed to protect his country's security? Would Americans regard that as legal, or morally acceptable? According to the Bush administration, they should."

Thank you and Oh my god!... help us!

low culture: "But here's a notable selection from what President Bush had to say re: the whole Iraq boondoggle in this weekend's chat with Brokaw:

BUSH: “I think it's fair to say that, you know, that the enemy didn't lay down its arms like we had hoped.”

BROKAW: “And you were not greeted as liberators like Vice President Cheney said that you would be.”


BUSH: “Well, I think we've been -- let me just -- I think we've been thanked by the people of Iraq. And I think you'll hear more of that from people like Prime Minister Alawi and the foreign minister, who both have repeatedly, ‘Thank you for what you've done, and by the way, help us.’"

Bush/Zombie Reagan 2004

Bush/Zombie Reagan 2004: "It's Morning in America... Again!


Difficult times call for great leaders -- men of vision, strength and courage. Men like George W. Bush and the shambling, reanimated corpse of Ronald Reagan. Welcome to the official Web site of Bush/Zombie Reagan 2004, Inc., home of the new Republican presidential ticket!"

Calpundit: Texas Republicans Redux

Calpundit: Texas Republicans Redux: "Consider this. Suppose that very serious, very miltant communists took over the New York State Democratic party and wrote a platform advocating, say, nationalization of key industries and confiscatory taxation of all income over $50,000. And suppose that one of these New York Democrats had enough support in the party to become House majority leader. And then, finally, suppose that as communist influence spread throughout New England and beyond, Democrats pretended that nothing was amiss. A few communists here and there are harmless. Most of them don't really believe that stuff anyway, and we're just compromising with them on a few minor issues. Honest.


Republicans would — rightly — be aghast and would refuse to accept bland assurances that nothing serious was going on. And what I want is for the vast majority of decent mainstream Republicans to understand that something very similar is happening to them, and to insist that their party marginalize and repudiate the Texas strain of social destruction currently growing like a cancer on their right wing. It's been done before, and it can be done again."

The Washington Monthly

The Washington Monthly: "The Texas Republican party is meeting again this year, which means the Texas GOP platform is once again in the news:

A plank in a section titled 'Promoting Individual Freedom and Personal Safety' proclaims the United States a 'Christian nation.'


....Also new this year is a section declaring that the Ten Commandments 'are the basis of our basic freedoms and the cornerstone of our Western legal tradition.'


'We therefore oppose any governmental action to restrict, prohibit or remove public display of the Decalogue or other religious symbols.'


....As delegates prayed and sang, oversized religious images, including Jesus on the cross, were displayed on the hall's giant video screens. Christian clergymen took turns leading the prayers, some with political overtones."

President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief - Center for American Progress

Click for a list of 20 issues where George says one thing and then says another.

President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief - Center for American Progress: "From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then Governor Bush said: 'I think credibility is important. It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations.' But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says."

They lied... thats why.

War and Piece: "As devastating an indictment of the CIA's pre-war Iraq intelligence as the Senate Select Intelligence committee is likely to make, and as devastating as the 9/11 commission report will likey be for Tenet and the FBI, it's not only incompetence in the administration that hurts Bush -- and there's plenty to go around. It's that Americans resent those in the Bush administration who deliberately, willfully deceived them. People like Feith, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and members of Feith's and Cheney's staff. As they say, it's not the mistake, it's the cover up, the specter of real deceit, that outrages people. "

here is an unbiased opionion of George's presidency....

Are we doomed to another 4 years of Bush?

I suspect there will be another devastating attack (or series of attacks) on American soil before the election, and that despite Bush co's obvious incompetence and ideological lunacy on virtually every policy front, the SOB will be reelected, and by a significant margin.


And if you thought Bush's first term was a bitch, just wait for the sequel. Don't expect to find out that this crowd are really simply sanctimonious plutocrats, genuinely interested only in slashing taxes for the uber rich, and willing to cast off the relgious right and the rest of the nutjobs now that they've won reelection. It's not going to happen that way. They're going to put the pedal to the metal on all three major policy fronts: economic, social, and foreign policy, no matter the consequences - and believe me, there will be consequences. Indeed, it's going to be an epochal disaster for the country.


Expect a grand push for deeper tax cuts, deep spending cuts (on social programs), cuts in environmental and other regulation, cuts in labor and workers' rights, and a push to make all these cuts permanent. Expect ever more medieval judges to be nominated to the courts, and between one and three Supreme Court Justices, in the Scalia/Thomas mold, and quite possible an overturn of Roe V Wade, and other Major Bugaboos to the right. Expect legislation curtailing civil liberties that goes far beyond Patriot Act II. Expect a draft to be reinstated sometime in 2005, and potentially an expansion of interventionism in other parts of the Arab and Muslim world, including the invasion of at least one more Arab state (Syria? Iran?) - no matter what the rest of the world thinks.


And expect that some combination of all these things will be dynamite to social and civil order in this country. In fact, expect political violence. It may begin with some precipitating event, or series of events - another terror attack, followed by the resintatement of the draft and riots in the inner cities, for instance - and when one mixes in the prospect of economic collapse (after another terrorist attack, a total shakedown in the housing market, the devaluation of the dollar, or some combination) it is an ugly portrait indeed.


Just a few years ago, if someone had pitched this scenario to me, I would've recommended that they consider a career writing apocalyptic, dimestore science fiction novels, or increase their dosage of Prozac, but now I feel just as eminently dismissive of those official voices in Washington and the press who see an imminent return to moderation, and a politics of consensus. It will come ultimately, but not until things are wholly FUBAR in this country.

Abuses at AbuGhraib began within two days of soldiers arrival?

OxBlog: "CALL IT A HUNCH: The WaPo has an interesting analysis of the time stamps on the Abu Ghraib prison photo. One fact that really struck me was that soldiers in the 372nd began to abuse prisoners within two days of arriving at Abu Ghraib.

That being the case, it's very hard to imagine how the abuse could have taken place without some sort of green light from either military intelligence or superior officers. Yes, it is possible that these few soldiers were so sadistic that they leapt at the opportunity to commit human rights violations. But the alternative is too compelling to be ruled out."