The Bush White House confuses me. I can’t figure out if they are evil Machivellian strategizers, power-mad conspirators, complete morons, or just a bunch of people who are skilled at shaping an image but nothing else. My perception of them changes day to day.
Now it’s swinging back toward the “moron” arena as I — and many, many others — puzzle out just what the hell they’re doing in Iraq. Now, there has been a large segment of the population who have complained since this all started that Bush has no plan for peace, no plan for withdrawl, no plan for anything other than making a big splash and “avenging” his father. (I think there are some major family issues there.) I don’t think they’re happy that their predictions have become so much more true than they even expected.
Now that things are getting so much worse, Bush has evidently decided that he’ll continue his practice of letting the buck stop anywhere but with him.
Explosive violence in Iraq and persistent questions about the administration’s handling of terrorist threats before Sept. 11, 2001, have plunged President Bush into one of the most difficult moments of his presidency, as he seeks to maintain public confidence in his leadership while facing what experts say are mostly unattractive options to put U.S. policy on track.
In the face of these challenges, Bush has yielded the stage, remaining largely out of sight at his Texas ranch as others in his administration explain his policies. Bush’s silence in the face of mounting U.S. casualties in Iraq and concerns about the administration’s timetable for transferring power to the Iraqis has brought criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike.
… Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Bush is “absolutely” losing the public at a quickening pace. He said people are flooding him with pleas “to get us out of there.”
“It’s a disquieting feeling people have. They think the president does not have a plan, and he doesn’t. . . . We are on the verge of losing control of Iraq.”
… Only a third of those surveyed by CBS said the war has been worth the cost, down from 4 in 10 a week earlier. Just 50 percent said going to war was the right decision, the lowest figure since the initial combat ended a year ago, with 46 percent saying the United States should have stayed out. The Time-CNN poll found 44 percent saying they approve of Bush’s handling of Iraq, compared with 51 percent in late March.
How does this jibe with his campaign’s portrayal of Bush the great war leader?
Read George Orwell’s 1984. Than read PNAC’s “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”
War and Oil are the neo-con’s money-maker… everything else is for domestic politcal consumption. There is no plan for withdrawal, because they don’t plan on leaving. The current violence plays into their starategy because it gives them an excuse for why they’re staying.
The Project for a New American Century spells all of this out. It’s a grand strategy to extend US global dominance as far into the future as possible. It requires we establish a string of new bases in the Middle East and Central Asia, to secure acces to oil supplies – both of which we’ve now accomplished. It also says there wouldn’t be domestic support for such a strategy without the impetus of a Pearl Harbor like attack on the US to galvanize public support. I know, it sounds like a conspiracy, but that doesn’t mean its not true, especially when you look at how many of its members are Bush’s National Security team.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
US foreign Policy under Bush was thoughtfully spelled out before he took office, by the people he later appointed, and pundits who now shill for him. They are way off base about a spread of democracy at the barrel of a gun, but that doesn’t change their desire for power and control, or their willingness to use violence to achieve those goals.