The Blue State

The truth about Bush's speech tonight

Let's make a few things clear about President Bush's 9 PM ET address to the nation.  He will announce the redeployment of 30,000 US troops by next summer, including 5,700 soldiers by the end of this year.  In a nutshell, between 130,000 and 135,000 troops will remain in Iraq until the end of his presidency.  That is not a course change.  It is yet another swindle that could cost another one thousand American soldiers their lives between now and January of 2009.

Also, what we are talking about here is not even a legitimate withdrawal.  The military is stretched to a breaking point, and the President does not have anymore troops to send.  So, he has one of two options:

• Reinstate the draft.  Thus Sparking a major youth protest movement in this country that would ensure the erosion of Republican Party support among the younger age demographic for an entire generation.
• Let the surge run out when no more troops are available, and then declare success.

In the end, especially with this White House, it all comes down to politics.  Therefore, Bush will choose the former, not the latter, and use a slight change in troop numbers to reinforce the phony notion that the mission was a success.

Lastly, John Edwards had the courage to buy two minutes of airtime on MSNBC during the first commercial break after Bush's speech.  It is courageous because we all know that Edwards, compared to Obama and Clinton, is having trouble competing in terms of money.  Yet, he is looking beyond potential primary voters, and is paying for airtime so that he can speak to the entire nation.  No, not just voters in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina.  Not just to potential undecided progressive voters.  He will speak to everyone -- voters and non-voters alike.  When you make the mistake of voting for maybe the most disastrous war in US history, you had better try your absolute hardest to set it right and prove to taxpayers that you learned your lesson.  Since 2006, Edwards has done just that.

As for Bush, he will wait it out until January of 2009, and hand this mess to the next commander-in-chief.  Tonight, when John Edwards calls on Congress to end this war, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi had better be listening.

Petraeus is not immune to criticism

Can't stand the heat?  Well, you know the rest.

Throughout the two long days of hearings, a number of GOP lawmakers criticized a MoveOn.org ad that challenged the credibility of General David Petraeus, who is the front-man for Bush's latest public relations push to continue the war.  MoveOn is just one of many progressive activist groups that considers Petraeus as partial to the White House political strategy team.

So is Petraeus fair game?  Presidential historian Richard Kohn says conservatives shouldn't be shocked when people don't believe what Petraeus says, especially since the general does Bush's bidding:

Any credibility problems that Gen. Petraeus has are partly his ownmaking--because he allowed himself to be pushed forward by theadministration as kind of a front person for them and has been engagedin a constant dialogue with the press since he went to Baghdad. Had hebeen much more quiet, got on with fighting the war and told people towait for his report to Congress, it would have been less likely that hewould have had to suffer these attacks in the press and from Democraticsupport groups.

President Bush no longer has Karl Rove.  Tony Snow is leaving as well.  He needs a new PR guy to sell the war.  The Administration is trying to wait this war out until the end of this term.  Without Petraeus to hide behind, Bush would be in trouble.  So when progressives criticize the general, it is no surprise that Republicans go nuclear.  Petraeus is the very last guy they have to parade in front of the cameras.

Cartoon: Oh Really?

(Click for larger view)

By Andrew Wahl.  Andrew Wahl writes for the Wenatchee World, and has his own web site with all of his weekly cartoons.

Here is Andrew's weekly commentary:

This week’stoon, “Oh, Really?” [Archive No. 0730], was inspired by the blunt,fantasy-world assessment Bush delivered to Australian Deputy PrimeMinister Mark Vaile earlier this month about the situation in Iraq:“We’re kicking ass!” In researching this toon, I was stunned by 1. Theobvious disconnect Bush often seems to have with “reality on theground,” and 2. The sheer number of times he’s offered variations ofthe “We’re making progress” quote over the last four-plus years.
    In other news, a bit closer to home: Following an eight-plus yearrun at The Wenatchee World — the last six as features editor — I’vedecided it’s time to step away. To be honest, I never expected to leavedaily newspapers, but it’s become increasingly obvious that it’s time.I’ve let the paper know I plan is to finish out the rest of this year,then will head in a new direction with the new year.
    So what does 2008 hold for me? Full-time cartooning, if everythinggoes right, including more editorial-cartoon projects and my firstcomic-book work since 1993’s “Darkseed & Other Defamations.”(Details on those new projects soon.) I also plan to start graduatestudies via a distance degree program offered by Kansas’ Fort HaysState University. It’s a liberal studies master’s program with aconcentration in history; I’m pretty sure editorial cartooning willplay into that endeavor, as well.
    As for what else? I don’t really know yet. But if any of you knowof any interesting part-time or freelance gigs coming up in 2008, keepme in mind.
    I must admit that this career change is a little scary, but like Isaid, it’s time. And I’m sure when it really hits me that I’ll havemore time to spend at the art board, life will be good.
As always, feel free to stop by the OtWP Blog to sound off about thisweek’s cartoon. New to the blog this past week: a review of “Ultra:Seven Days,” a graphic novel by the Luna Brothers.

Till next week,
Andrew
toon@offthewahl.com

South Korean president goes at it with Bush

Korean president Roh Moo-hyun's frustration over the US' policy towards North Korea reached a boiling point during a press conference with President Bush on Friday:

The tense moments with Roh came as the leaderseach made statements to reporters after their meeting. Roh concludedhis by questioning why Bush hadn't mention the issue of the war's end.

"I might be wrong. I think I did not hearPresident Bush mention a declaration to end the Korean War just now,"Roh said through an interpreter. "Did you say so, President Bush?"

"It's up to Kim Jong Il," Bush said.

Roh pressed on. "If you could be a little bitclearer," he said, prompting nervous laughter from the U.S. delegationand a look of annoyance from Bush.

Of course, the White House quickly backtracked:

The White House acted quickly to downplay the awkward exchange.National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe, said "there wasclearly something lost in translation during the photo op."

Didn't look like it to me.

Even though the South Korean President's exchange with Bush may have irked the older generation in his country, since they have always been warm to US policy, it underscores how lonely the US is in the world community.  Britain is withdrawing from Iraq.  South Korea is now angry.  Japan and Australia might be Bush's biggest allies.  However, the anti-war protests in Australia all week long will put pressure on Prime Minister John Howard to distance himself from Bush.

Bush: "I've got God's shoulder to cry on"

In the new book Dead Certain, President Bush told author Robert Draper that he often cries to God:

I've got God's shoulder to cry on. And I cry a lot, Bush told John Draper, author of  Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush. I do a lot of crying in this job. I'll bet I've shed more tears than you can count, as president. I'll shed some tomorrow.

CanWest News Service said Draper interviewed Bush six times for the book.

Bush told Draper he would never be able to make decision on war if he was still drinking. Exercise helps. And I think prayer helps, he said. I wouldn't be president if I kept drinking. You can get sloppy, can't make decisions. It clouds your reason, absolutely.

This is not the first time Bush has touted his relationship with God.  In 2003, Bush told Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas that God told him to attack Iraq:

"According to Abbas,Bush said: 'God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, andthen he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I amdetermined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me Iwill act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focuson them.'"

He must worship a different God than I.

Bush lied about Iraqi de-Baathification being unintentional

What a wild rhetorical ride this has been over the last few days!

Late last week, I cited evidence that the Bush Administration encouraged looting after the fall of Saddam Hussein in order to help downsize government and privatize it for defense contractors. 

According to a book on newsstands starting today, Bush said his policy all along was "to keep the (Iraqi) army intact" -- in other words, Bush was never kept in the loop about de-Baathification.

That turns out to be a lie.  Paul Bremer, the former had of the Coalition Provisional Authority, saw Bush's quote and disputes it.  Bremer says Bush gave him the OK to fracture the remaining elements of the Baath government:

A previously undisclosed exchange of letters shows that President Bush was told in advance by his top Iraq  envoy in May 2003 of a plan to “dissolve Saddam’s military and intelligence structures,” a plan that the envoy, Paul L. Bremer, said referred to dismantling the Iraqi Army.

Mr. Bremer provided the letters to The New York Times on Monday afterreading that Mr. Bush was quoted in a new book as saying that Americanpolicy had been “to keep the army intact” but that it “didn’t happen.”

“We must make it clear to everyone that we mean business: that Saddamand the Baathists are finished,” Mr. Bremer wrote in a letter that wasdrafted on May 20, 2003, and sent to the president on May 22 through Donald H. Rumsfeld, then secretary of defense.

One day later, Mr. Bush wrote back a short thank you letter. “Yourleadership is apparent,” the president wrote. “You have quickly made apositive and significant impact. You have my full support andconfidence.”

In the end, both Bush and Bremer are guilty.  But by leaking this information to the New York Times, Bremer is reminding everyone that this was Bush's decision too.  He had complete control over what happened, and was in constant contact with Bremer.  It was not as if Bremer screwed him over.

Lastly, the words, "You have my full support and confidence" really underscore Bush's indifference to detail.  Disbanding the Iraqi army was a huge decision.  Where were the tough questions?

Bush says his "unilateral arrogance" made world better off

The book titled "Dead Certain" -- written by Texas author Robert Draper -- will be in stores on Tuesday.  Part of the ideas expressed in the book are based on an exclusive person-to-person discussion last December between Draper and Bush.  According to the site Editor and Publisher, the Washington Post and New York Times were the only newspapers given advance excerpts of the book.

After skimming through a bunch of strange statements by Bush, such as his desire to create the Freedom Institute, I came across a jaw-dropper.  It pertains to Bush's decision-making skills:

..he said he saw his unpopularity as a natural result of his decisionto pursue a strategy in which he believed. "I made a decision to lead,"he said. "One, it makes you unpopular; two, it makes people accuse youof unilateral arrogance, and that may be true. But the fundamentalquestion is, is the world better off as a result of your leadership?"

Are we to take from this quote that Bush is proud of being arrogant?  If so, let's remind ourselves what the word "arrogance" means:

an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions

Interesting, especially the phrase "presumptuous claims or assumptions" -- like about weapons of mass destruction; or that we would be greeted as liberators; or that the oil money would finance the reconstruction.

A Walk Down Memory Lane with Michael Chertoff

With the news that Michael Chertoff may be Bush's top choice to replaceAlbert Gonazales, I thought it would be appropriate to post this video of his(what I believe to be) incompetence. So sit back and watch the show, then askyourself "is this the guy that deserves or is qualified to be the next AttorneyGeneral  of The United States"? I'm sure if he is chosen, the petitions will start flying again (hopefully).

Tim Russert exposed the lies that came from the administration after Katrina

The Pentagon's new spin room

Even with the departure of Donald Rumsfeld, the Pentagon is still acting as the White House's political arm to sell the war.  During the month of September, when General Petraeus reads the White House's Iraq report to Congress, the Pentagon's spin machine will be more active than ever.  According to NBC, the Defense Department is getting ready to unveil its new spin room:

For the Pentagon, getting out Iraq informationwill now include a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week Iraq CommunicationsDesk that will pump out data from Baghdad — serving as what could beconsidered a campaign war room.

Accordingto a memo circulated Thursday and obtained by The Associated Press,Dorrance Smith, assistant defense secretary for public affairs, islooking for personnel for what he called the high-priority effort todistribute Defense Department information on Iraq.

President Bush is good at winning elections -- of course, only with Karl Rove by his side.  But when the controversial White House adviser leaves at the end of the month, the Administration will be left with a much less experienced PR team.  So it should come as little surprise that this PR operation is mostly being undertaken by the Pentagon, not just the White House.

In related news, this weekend President Bush claimed that the surge was still in its "early stages" -- even though the new strategy was implemented last February.

Vietnamese stunned that Bush invoked them to keep Iraq war going

Aside from all the historians across the country who have been scratching their heads ever since Bush's VFW Convention speech, the Vietnamese people are down-right offended.  Earlier this week, to help justify the indefinite continuation of the Iraq war, President Bush invoked Vietnam:

"One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America'swithdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonieswould add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 'reeducationcamps' and 'killing fields,' " Bush told a receptive audience at the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention.

As Bush did before the war, he is trying to justify the continuation of the war on humanitarian grounds.  In other words, we are helping people by remaining at war.  It takes Bush's loyal 23% to rhetorically spin a talking point like that while maintaining a straight face.

The Vietnamese were not to thrilled though, especially regarding the claim that less people would have died if the US had stayed in Vietnam:

People in Vietnam, where opposition to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraqis strong, said Bush drew the wrong conclusions from the long, bloodySoutheast Asian conflict.

"Doesn't he realize that if the U.S. had stayed in Vietnam longer,they would have killed more people?" Vu Huy Trieu of Hanoi, a veteranof the communist forces that fought American troops in Vietnam, saidThursday. "Nobody regrets that the Vietnam War wasn't prolonged exceptBush."

U.S. troops could never have prevailed in Vietnam, he said.

"Does he think the U.S. could have won if they had stayed longer? No way," Trieu said.

Besides, for the White House's sake, it's not a smart political strategy to have President Bush give revisionist history lessons.  They are so easy to refute.