Bush's Solecisms in Iraq

Not since Soviet premier Nikita Khruschev took off his shoe and pounded it at the United Nations has anyone had the effect that an Iraqi journalist did when he hurled both his shoes, one after the other, at President Bush during his new conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki. While Bush talked about the great progress America is making in Iraq, his assailant was having none of it. Nor should anyone else. The flying shoes shouldn't distract attention from Bush's continued delusions about the conflict in Iraq and elsewhere.

Earlier this week, Bush gave an address at West Point, where he hailed the progress his administration has made in battling terror. Along the way, Bush referred to Donald Rumsfeld. one of the architects of the Iraq War, as an "enterprising leader." The future officers should have howled in protest at this reference to the Defense Secretary who sent the troops with in with no real body armor. Instead, they applauded Bush. At his press conference today, Bush was no less delusional. The surge, he said, is "one of the greatest successes in the history of the United States military."

No, it isn't. The surge was only necessary because Bush endorsed a wholly defective plan for battle. In fact, the greatest deficiency was that America had no business being in Iraq in the first place. The surge was only necessary because of the calamitous choices that Bush has made, or allowed his associates to make. Once America withdraws from iraq, the danger of civil war will remain acute.

At West Point on Monday, though, Bush acted as though he was the Winston Churchill of our time, leaving behind a victorious record. The only real difficulty, he suggested, was that "One of the most important challenges we will face, and you will face, in the years ahead is helping our partners assert control over ungoverned spaces. This problem is most pronounced in Pakistan, where areas along the Afghanistan border are home to Taliban and to al-Qaeda fighters. The Pakistani government and people understand the threat, because they have been victims of terror themselves. They're working to enforce the law and fight terror in the border areas."
No, they aren't. Pakistan, which consists of warring fiefdoms, is barely able to keep itself from falling apart, much less go on the offensive against its enemies. The one thing it seems able to export is terrorism, while remaining on the American dole.

But why would anyone expect reality from the Bush administration in its final weeks? As Bush jets back from Iraq, he is returning to a country that seems almost as in bad condition, with a failing economy, rising joblessness, and collapsing production. Bush has never thought small. Instead, his failures have been on the grandest possible scale.

Comments

[Blueboy1938]

Well, one result of the shoe incident will be a tightening of Secret Service security procedures. Given that President Elect Obama has already been the target of assassination threats, his security has already been "adjusted" to address those incidents. Bush is very likely to get more Secret Service protection for a longer time than the standard 10 years, due to the obvious animosity he engenders.

It is interesting that not all in Iraq are enthusiastic about the "heroism" of Muntathar al Zaidi, citing the Islamic stricture of protecting a guest, even though you may not like the person very much. They believe that al Zaidi acted contrary to Muslim tenets and condemn his actions. It is incredible that there are those who actually believe showing such disrespect to the head of a foreign nation is acceptable on any level. Beware the same problem that allowing torture creates with regard to the safety of our own by approving what is clearly an assault rather than merely a protest. The inability to distinguish between these two is troubling, to say the least.

[Dengold]

I supported the decision to topple Saddam, and I'm still hopeful that good will ultimately come from it. Whether we had adequate justification or not will be debated for many years; I'm not as certain of our justification as I once was, and I am respectful of those who think otherwise. But Congress spelled out clearly (something Congress isn't necessarily noted for doing) the reasons for giving President Bush the authority to intervene in Iraq. Those who are unfamiliar with that document would do well to read it. It was a joint resolution, and it offered approximately 20 different reasons for such actions. Interestingly, the idea that Saddam or Iraq had any direct involvement in 9/11 is NOT listed. The threat of WMDs is mentioned prominently but far from exclusively. We had already fought a war against Saddam, and our experience regarding his ruthlessness and his untrustworthiness would have given pause to any U.S. president in the wake of 9/11. I mention these factors not to excuse President Bush; he chose a military option and such choices should always be questioned and examined in a democracy. I often wonder how President Truman must have felt about his decision to use the atomic bomb. I can question the morality of that decision, but could any president have chosen differently in those circumstances? The people of Iraq have suffered greatly; may their suffering not be in vain.

[Robster]

I try to understand when a war is the correct thing, and I guess I see no consistency. For example people like to believe WWII was "the good war", but examining what lead up to- the failures and mistakes and arrogance and lack of willingness of various European nations to negotiate -resulted in the US getting involved. Hitler never attacked us, and the war was not our business but for some reason we allowed 100,000 young American boys to die every year for 3 years so as to fix Europe’s blunder. What were we thinking and was the loss worth it? Who wants to tell the hundreds of thousands of mothers, wives, sisters, fathers, daughters and sons that their sacrifices were worth it? How can we justify our presence in Europe’s continental war(s) when we can't justify Iraq? Just what the hell is the difference afterall ? Anybody?

[geroldf]

Such questions are easy to twist in any direction you want, since everything is connected to everything else.

Consider WWII. Defeating the threat of Naziism and the brutal Japanese Empire was certainly a good thing to do. The battle against Hitler was more than just a battle for Europe: it was a battle for the soul of Western Culture. It wasn't just against the Nazis of Germany, it was against the Nazis in every Western country, and indeed inside the heart of western man. There was plenty of sympathy for the Nazi program in every country, including the good old USA.

But lets not forget that WWII was really a continuation of WWI, and the evil of WWII was a direct descendant of the evil of the first. The US didn't play a role in hatching that evil, but we rescued the malignant perpetrators and then participated in the propaganda campaign to obscure the responsibility of the Allies for planning and starting the war. Thus we became part of that original evil, and helped to bring about the horrors of the World War Part II.

The Iraq war follows directly in that twisted tradition: an unjust war, based on lies. Evil begets evil.

[Edzero]

Robster:

Excellent comments. I recently watched a PBS documentary about German's stealing
art objects from all over Europe. American teams of art and architecture experts went
in these countries to identify what architecture could be saved.

American carpet bombing had left vast areas of cities in shambles. In that war we did
not use the term "collateral damage" when we knowingly bombed cities where the
civilian population resided. We destroy vast examples of great architecture. It was not
unlike "Nam" where villages would be destroyed to save them

A sad economic reality is that 54% ($539 billion )of the world's "defense" budgets are spent by
the US while the next largest (UK and China) are 5% ($59 billion).

When will the human race recognize the use of violence to "solve" is totally irrational
and inhumane?

[sux2bu]

Japan was a direct ally to Nazi Germany, they attacked directly to Pearl Harbour.

Although some congressional reports may not have listed Iraq/Saddam's involvement in 9/11. condi rice said on meet the press "that we can not afford inaction as it may lead to a mushroom cloud "This convinced most americans saddam had to be toppled (while the Saudi's who funded and provided 15 of the 19 highjackers were not asked to help in any way except to provide bogus intelligence). the Iraq argument was so one sided and anyone who mentioned the possiblity that the reason for war is tainted (Hans Blix, El Baredei, Phil Donohue) were villified by the American press and people.

So to recap the differenc between ww2 and Iraq:

a) The Japanese directly attacked american soil and this lead to America fighting the Japanese and their allies - the Nazi's - Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and Saddam was threatened by Jihadists not partnering with them as Bush, Cheney et al said.

b) WW2 stopped the Nazis and crushed Japapn who did attack America - the Iraq war has strengthened Al qaeda and islamofascists aroud the world, it has shrunk America''s credibility with Allies because Rumsfeld felt the old Europe was not needed in a fihgh against "GLOBAL" terrorism.

I hope this simple juxtoposition will prevent such an incredibly ignorant take that the justification for WW2 is the same as the justification to go to Iraq.

[saturnine maniac]

Oh jeez, I don´t know. I guess stopping Hitler eliminating an entire race isn´t a good enough reason for you. Maybe stopping him taking over all of Europe was? Yes, it is sad that 300,000 Americans died, but think of the 6 million Jews that died and all of the rest that could have. Plus, gays and gypsies, and any gentile Europeans who tried to stop him.

[Evisionary]

This war is costing us billions and our own economy is in ruins in part because of it. The Iraqi journalist was right to throw his shoes as so many innocent people, especially children have died.

[Archie1955]

That Iraqi journalist did what a majority of people the world over would like to do and that is give the boot to Bush!

[Chip W]

That's what I see, too. He did what's lots of others would like to do.

[nance72]

The president has made a habit of speaking at Army camps, West Point etc.

Call it a captive audience. Anyone who has EVER been in the service knows that to do anything OTHER than applaud the president of the United States (no matter who he is) would have their stripes stripped so fast their head would spin. Brig time (or latrine duty at the least.)

The Generals are not imune. They want to protect their futures ( also known as PYA) and to protect their retirements.
We've all seen what happens when even top brass, has the brass (pun intended) to disagree with the Administration's policies.

[Galt907]

You obviously missed the true purpose of the Iraq visit: After promising a program to help the auto industry was imminent (repeated several consecutive days), the White House marionettes, announced, while Bush was overseas, that "no help for the auto industry is imminent." The media largely lost that because of the purposefully distracting "Victory Lap" Bush took around his second greatest failure.

[charleydan]

I do not support that war or any wars for a long time. I highly doubt in my generation one will come by that I support.

But for the journalist. Your Fired! When a journalist leaves his post of journalism and expresses his emotions of ideology, his professionalism of reporting is history.

Of course most journalism today is about history because the writers express their beliefs which is fine. But they often leave or twist facts to hold their position. To this they are dispictable. For the truth will set one free, so tell the truth weather it supports your position presently or not.

[daytrip]

Charleydan - Mr. al-Saidi was not assigned to this particular event by his paper. He went because he had a message for the Decider/Liberator, who liberated millions from their homes, families, lives and country - a country now destroyed. No, don't fire this man, he is courageous enough to make news for all of us. He should be spared and hailed a hero. No, he would not have thrown shoes at Saddam. Only the U.S. was ignorant enough to do that. Under Saddam, he had a country, he had all his relatives, he had a home, a job and a life. It is only our perspective that mocks anyone who commits an act of courage and who uses Saddam as a comparative backdrop to those acts. It is a false standard based on a premise that cannot stand up to scrutiny. Thank you, Mr. al-Saidi. Call me if you need more shoes. Until then, if no one has walked a mile in the last 8 years in the shoes you bravely presented, they should not be giving speeches praising the Bush Administration in this forum.

[Devver]

I'm a fan of you, daytrip...­..well put...

[mckathiki]

Right on, daytrip.

[Edzero]

How about putting this act into perspective.

The creator of chaos that destroyed one's country comes in to
pontificate on his great contribution . . .

And a person who has experienced the disaster first hand
makes a political statement that his countrymen endorse
the next day.

And you nit pick about his not being professional.

Change your spectacles. You've got a tunnel vision problem.

[ibsteve2u]

Bush has managed to create the same situation the Republicans have created in America: For a small circle of the elite, things are "great" with a capital "G".

For everybody else....I just wish I could afford to throw good shoes away.

[hippieforlife]

And of course the first time someone hurls an object at Obama you will not blame the reporter, right??

[JustMyWords]

If Obama performs and behaves as badly as Dubya, we'll understand.

[MTOrtega]

Shame the shoes miss their target.

37 days left.

All hell can still break loose.

37 days to go.

To go to, well we'll see just where.

37 days.

January 20, 2009 can not arrive fast enough.

[TheAnti-Bush]

Yes!!!! 1-20-09, baby!!!

[HarvestMoon]

Give that man a cigar! If this would have happened sooner they could have offered it to the US senate and Congress as a training video. Maybe then something would have gotten done...or undone, as the case may be.

[LTCKal]

Enough with the "surge," already! The "surge" is nothing more a number, that is, the minimum number of troops needed to occupy a hostile territory. This number was known at the beginning of the invasion, but Bush chose to ignore it and it cost the lives of thousands. Whenever the word "surge" appears, it should not trigger the idea of success but rather the image of wanton and needless deaths of thousands of our troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

[antiprop1]

The low number of troops used in the initial invasion and occupation of Iraq was caused by two factors:

1) Rumsfeld 's need to prove his transformation of the armed forces from a heavy equipment based force used to fight the Soviets on the plains of Europe to a lighter mobile force used to quell trouble in hot spots around the world. I believe his concept was the correct one, the problem was that he had to prove it to justify his ego-centric brilliance to everybody else.

2)The Neo-cons wanted to prove to America that a Middle Eastern country could be defeated and reorganized with little cost. This would help them to sell their plan to invade all other countries that could threaten Isreal (Syria, Iran) When General Shinseki cast doubt on this plan, he payed the price with his career.

[Project4NuBostonTeaParty]

re "The 'surge' is nothing more [than] a number..."

LTCKal, I agree with your point, but "the surge" is just a teeny-tiny little bit more than a number: It's Marketing 101, writ large.

It's Karl Rove, visiting the synonym dictionary for the thousandth time, finding a word on which he can assign a positive spin (in addition to recasting and expanding its meaning).

It's taking new ownership of the word, probably even setting it up for its inclusion into military manuals.

It's manipulating the public's emotions, opinions and reactions through viral mass communication.

It's genius.

Because BushCo succeeded every time they employed this strategery.

[OmnesOmnibus]

That brave reporter was throwing those shoes for a lot of people. The Iraq War is without a doubt the biggest single blunder in American foreign policy, even worse than our stupid mishandling of Cuba (the worthless embargo and the fiasco at the Bay of Pigs), our wrong headed and unhelpful tilt towards Israel in the never ending Israeli-Palestinian crisis, our failure to enter Berlin before the Russians, etc, etc.

[antiprop1]

Omes
I agree with your blunder analysis except for one. Stalin felt the Russians deserved the prize of Berlin for the suffering of his people during the German invasion of WW2. Check out Anthony Beevor's The Fall of Berlin 1945, a great book.

[mtflyer]

The Russians deserved nothing of the sort. Evil begets evil. The rampage they exacted on Berlin and Eastern Germany was not a temporary revenge but a protracted one that lasted until the Berlin Wall came down and germany was reunited. Patton had the right idea to deal with the Soviets while we had the largest military arsenal instead of waiting until they got the bomb and we couldn't do anything. Same with red China as Mac insisted. More proof that politics almost always outweighs common sense.

[DIAGUY]

Obama is not likely to do everything perfectly , and probably will have many people that dislike him and his policies. I just wonder when 'Barry' gets something thrown at him whether you'll still refer to the 'thrower', as brave ??

[Wake-up]

Why don't you also list all the great things we did and compare the list... The Iraq War was unavoidable, after hijackers started flying planes into our buildings and this could go dawn as the greatest policy in our history... give more time - Rome wasn't built in a day.

[johnb3950]

Wake-up, I guess you are one of those deluded people who think that the Iraq war had any logical connection to 9/11. Just to reiterate the established facts: Saddam Hussein had NOTHING to do with it: had no liking for, or relationship with bin Laden, who despised him for being insufficiently religious. None of the hijackers came from Iraq.

The cynicism and gall of the republicans who threw away so many US and Iraqi lives based on a tissue of lies, will leave them with the blackest of records in the history books, even though they are now trying to blame the intelligence community - whose work they cherry-picked and distorted to give cover for their long-standing plan to grab Iraq for its oil.

[stocky7]

Nike added a new slogan her collection: Bush got swoosh!