Bush Speech: Iraq Another Korea
Again with the mission creep. I don't know how many times Mr. Bush has expanded our goals in Iraq, but what he's offering tonight takes it around the bend and back again.
On an enduring relationship with Iraq that requires many fewer American troops:This vision for a reduced American presence also has the support of Iraqi leaders from all communities. At the same time, they understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship -- in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops.
Mr. Bush can throw in the "fewer American troops" pony, but the the highlighted section above is ominous. What it implies is that Mr. Bush is about to enter into an agreement with the Maliki government that will extend beyond his presidency and commit the U.S. permanently to Iraq. This was obviously the plan all along, especially when you take in the largest embassy on earth, and the football-long bases for troops.
Korea is the model? Only in Bush's little mind. We haven't taken serious casualties in Korea since the late 1960s. Does anyone believe casualty rates will plummet with Bush's new Operation Enduring Nightmare? Just for the record, Bush has been hinting at this for a while (via email from a friend):
"Korea may be Bush's model for Iraq, officials say""President Bush is looking at the decades-long U.S. troop presence in South Korea as a model for a future U.S. role in Iraq, senior administration officials said Thursday." [CNN, 9/13/07]
-----------
"With Korea as Model, Bush Team Ponders Long Support Role in Iraq"
"Several visitors to the White House say that in private, he has sounded intrigued by what he calls the "Korea model," a reference to the large American presence in South Korea for the 54 years since the armistice that ended open hostilities between North and South." [The New York Times, 6/3/07]
-------------
"Bush envisions U.S. presence in Iraq like S.Korea"
"White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush would like to see a U.S. role in Iraq ultimately similar to that in South Korea." [Reuters, 5/30/07]
---------------
"White House envisions 'Korean model' in Iraq"
"President Bush would like to see the U.S. military provide long-term stability in Iraq as it has in South Korea, where thousands of American troops have been based for more than half a century, the White House said Wednesday." [The Seattle Times, 5/31/07]
---------------
"S. Korea Eyed as Model for U.S. Troops in Iraq"
"White house spokesman Tony Snow said last week that President Bush looks to South Korea as a sort of model." [NPR, 6/10/07]
This new plan for a permanent commitment in Iraq, not just a long-term presence that has been Bush's launching pad to tonight's gem, should not go unchallenged by Congress. Of course, we're likely to hear a chorus of we don't have the votes blah-blah-blah instead.
Oh, as an aside, the military isn't fooled by Bush's Iraqi hearing pageantry. The military are supporting the Democrats in droves. Sign 'em up and get 'em to run for office.
Iraq as another Korea?
Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse.
Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
They don't care about Congress at all--this is a long game to amass unlimited power in the Executive branch. They've always treated Congress badly--even when it was GOP. And they also are dumping it on the next president so that that person is only a one-termer stuck in Iraq and with no money to do anything that helps people here, and then they return to power. From Nixon thru Reagan to this Bush--it's all about executive power and enriching friends and eliminating the idea that government is an entity that actually works for all Americans.
They will be leaving the WH (if they do at all, that is) with thousands and thousands of "loyal Bushies" in every single Agency and Department--all hired solely for partisan purposes and at all levels.
The media and the GOP won't let the next president (if it's a Dem) use any of the power. The media and the GOP won't let the next president fire all those thousands of "loyal Bushies".
And now because of Iraq, there's no money to fix infrastructure or healthcare or anything.
I've noticed you don't usually get much of a response per blog. Either your liberal pals don't understand you or they really don't care what you have to say. Maybe a little of both.
Are you that naive Taylor? Did Bush promise to be in and out of Iraq in less than 5 years? If you believe that, it’s time to grow up and read a few history books.
Oh, like we didn’t know this.
9/11 he does just what he was asked (ordered) and moved all American troops to Qatar and out of Saudi Arabia.
Were we surprise then?
No! Then he tells us we are going to have to stabilize the region. Afghanistan, Kuwait then on to Baghdad. Then he tells us that this may be a multi-generational war.
Please people!
The man tells you his every step!
From his own MOUTH!
And we are surprised?
Really???????
I’m not.
All the best
Knute
PS, now the best part. Bin Laden will say nothing.
Bush likes to compare our efforts in Iraq to Korea. He would like to be thought of as Truman, who was criticized at the time and the then later thought more highly of by historians and the public at large. However, Truman warned the public of the military-industrial complex. Bush, on the other hand, rewards his private sector friends at every turn. Bush's presidency with all its dishonesty and arrogance and war making, will not be resurrected by history, but forever loathed. I can only hope it becomes a model for what a presidency should not be!
Truman created the unconstitutional CIA and dropped the only atomic bombs that have used against a real target. The comparison may be more valid that most want to admit.
But at least Truman had a little sign on his desk that read "The Buck Stops Here". bush has one too, but he keeps it in his pocket *wink wink*
The reason Bush keeps the troops in is because they have not finished the mission.
And they cannot finished the mission because Bush never told them what the real reason for invading was and what the objective is.
In order to win you have to have a clear cut goal and objective. The troops have no clue what it is so they never will be finished.
I just wonder if Bush knows.
I think he's angling for a cameo on the cast reunion of M*A*S*H. That makes more sense than anyone wanting to refight the Korean War.
it's too bad that Bush's total knowledge of the Korean Conflict probably does come from MASH reruns. I'm sure the subtle anti-war theme goes way over his head.
He's worse than Major Frank Burns.
Even Republican Congress-people ought to realize that BushCo is sabotaging THEIR political careers by refusing to act in any productive way until the clock runs out. No one in Congress will benefit by being saddled with a war which has been deliberately set up to fail by its instigators.
Purple Girl's observations regarding the Decider's state of mental health or lack thereof may actually be relevant and useful. I'm not sure why Congress is so squeamish about confronting BushCo's obvious criminal behavior with direct accusations, but perhaps they would consider looking at his state of disassociation, lack of contact with reality, delusions, denial of obvious facts, hearing voices in his head, etc. He is plainly suffering from a severe breakdown; he looks like the film of Hitler emerging from his bunker to encourage the 12-year-old boys who were the last to defend Berlin against the Soviet invasion. Kind of twitching, mumbling, repeating meaningless phrases, insisting that he's on the brink of a great victory as his empire crumbles around him.
See? We don't have to impeach him, just have him committed. Then impeach Cheney - he has no excuse.
The criminal act at this point is the failure of Pelosi and Reid to step up to the plate. Neither has the courage to act upon an impeachment action or to press treason charges against President Bush and his administration. This farce has held center stage far too long - it is no longer about the troops, the fear of "terrorists follwing us home," or either political party. It is now about the cowardice of our elected officials. Stop with the "you don't support the troops" arguments. The military executes tactics. Despite the shifting sands of politics, our military, day in and day out, executes mission after mission with honor and courage. Civil government executes strategy - the Bush strategy is whatever randomly pops into the President's brain - I leave it to the armchair shrinks to ponder how that brain functions. While the Bush Administration stubbornly ignores the issue of Afghanistan, our country is frantically shouting "no no, turn around, the boogey man is over there." Iraq as the shining beacon of freedom in the Middle East? Not gonna happen. What has happened is that our country is still vulnerable to attacks from Al Quaeda - and thanks to President Bush, there are a lot more of them now. He created a nursery to incubate more terrorists and now we are supposed to embrace the President's assurances that by fighting "them" there, "they" can't follow us home. "They" don't have to follow us home - "they" can just pick Americans off on the streets of Baghdad. Courage is doing the hard stuff, even if it means personal sacrifice. Too bad Pelosi and Reid can't see beyond their own political careers. Is there a Presidential candidate who truly will say "no more?"
Bravo. Bush is seriously disturbed. On the other hand Cheney is certifiably mad. Have to reach down deep in the chain of command to find someone who isn't off his rocker. Meanwhile I saw Guiliani on TV tonight and his eyes were like psychedelic cartwheels popping out of his head while he spieled contradictory lies to Sean Hannity. Fred Thompson is deeply involved with shooting his feet off. Seems he doesn't remember much about the Terri Shiavo fiasco so doesn't have an opinion and while he doesn't think the fed. gov't. should be too involved with education benchmarks he voted for No Child Left Un-Screwed Up. It sure is ours to lose. But we may just do that if Hillary Clinton can't figure out that huge bundled contributions from West Coast Asians might just deserve a second look.
Dear Ms. Marsh,
Spot-On post!
With great hubris Bush is a legend in his own mind.
Agape.
As far as I'm concerned, it's the same old song with a slightly modified tune http://www
whistlingfish, so am I. And speaking of apologies, every Democratic Congressperson who voted to give bush authorization to attack Iraq should apologize to those Americans who begged them not to do it (me, for example).
Bush has never once apologized for his war.
Bush owes the American people an outright apology for his war.
Bush does not get it: IF YOU UNDERTAKE AN ACTION BASED ON FALSE INFORMATION AND THAT ACTION ENDS UP KILLING PEOPLE, YOU APOLOGIZE.
Plain and simple.
Bush, we are waiting for the apology that must be forthcoming.
If and when a Democrat is elected president, I want to see the United States make a public apology to the Iraqi people and the world.
An apology is the LEAST which can be afforded to the Iraqi's, considering the hell wrought upon them by the U.S. for the last 16 years.
_
We will apologize for giving them the vote.
Enough already with incessant calls for "apologies
It's infantile and meaningless ! And doesn't begin to address the crimes of this war.
How does an official apology not address the crime of the Iraq war? In my opinion, it is the very first place to begin to account for responsibility, as well as facilitating any possible healing process, both for Iraqi's and Americans. And then afterward, the Hague Tribunal prosecuting the American war criminals.
_
I resent the comparison of the Iraq invasion to the Korean Conflict, was he there what the hell does he know about the Korea Conflict. The man is a war criminal, and should be tried as such along with other enablers.
I think the comparison they are trying to draw is with the time frame. We've had troops in SK for about 50 years now. "It's hard work."
Whenever I see pics from this particular episode of shame in the history of the United States of America, all I can think of is:
"Mission Accomplished"
and, a la Bevis and Butthead..
"Hehehe! He's got a WOODIE! Hehehe!"
And I can't help but feel that it ought to be the other way around...
Getting naughty,
- Maedb
I can't even bare to watch his propaganda anymore. He has so many and varied personality disorders and neurosis he should be able to be 51/50'ed and admitted to a psych ward for emergency treatment. He is definitely a danger to others and if he keeps talking he may becomes a danger to himself. Just tell him he's the decider at the Funny Farm and he'll settle in nicely.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
