Sunday, March 11, 2007

Bush Hides from Pelosi far away in Brazil

So there's a certain amount of cheek in a guy who swears off an addiction and then sends you a $3.2 billion bill with an order for more of the same. Bush fled the whole country so that he could sign a letter to Pelosi and the Congress flying between South American countries, literally in the middle of the night. Man can't even own up to it over the phone. Lie? Six years into his presidency and he still can't count? Still making the same mistake of underestimation that made a ruin of Iraq from the start? Just about anyone could be pleased by this event, except that we are talking about real money and real soldiers. Myself, I'll latch on to this little snip:

"This revised request would better align resources based on the assessment of military commanders to achieve the goal of establishing Iraq and Afghanistan as democratic and secure nations that are free of terrorism," Bush said in the letter.

Revised request?! My figuring abilities are good enough to peg this increase at more than a third of what Bush requested on national television in January. And the Department of Defense is making noise to Congress that 7,000 more troops might also be needed, to extend this surge out beyond the end of the summer. Lovely. See, now you'd be up to more than 2/3, which is blatant false advertising being slapped on Bush's really-gonna-work-this-time plan for Iraq. Just to rub salt in the wound, the U.S. and Iran met face-to-face over Iraq just yesterday, as Democrats have advocated following the Iraq Study Group's report last fall. Rice plans to meet with both Iran and North Korea next month, so it looks like dialogue is in fashion.

"What has changed?" asked one former high-level Bush administration official. "That we finally like these people? That we finally have them where we want them? Or gee, we're at 30 percent [public approval] and we've only got 20 months to go?"

And what of this troop surge in Iraq that is supposed to ensure Republican dominance in American politics? The way it stands, win or loose, if American troops are still in Iraq by the Presidential elections of 2008, that's bad for Republicans. And if American troops are out, win or loose, that's good for Democrats. So Democrats can take or leave a "victory in Iraq," which is the real reason why we don't debate in terms of one. Because seriously, how many years has there been a complete lack of terrorism in Israel, but Bush is going to deliver that in Baghdad? Nice that he's backed himself into a political corner so neatly, since every bomb and every sectarian killing is now Bush's failure written in blood. Rice won't be able to deliver progress on peace with the Palestinians as Israel continues it's settlement of Arab lands, and Bush only made rock stars of Hezbollah after funding Israel's war with (a liberal democratic Muslim) Lebanon last summer. One has to wonder if there's even a strategy Bush hasn't failed at yet.

Hold the press- there is! Bush can veto a military spending bill, now that Bush is against benchmarks for Iraq after he was for them. What is Bush playing at if he thinks this surge strategy will work? Unless Bush would rather be known to history for being bullied by the Democrats than ending his term without being able to make a victory sign on the back of a pickup truck in Sadr City. Since, if he wants to insist that he has cleared all the Islamofacists out of Iraq, I want proof. A litmus test. Bush pulls that off and I'll vote for the Republican in 2008.

Technorati Tags:
, , , , , , , ,

Labels: , , , , , ,


Blogger Viper1 said...

Id hide from her too, so should you if youre really smart.. :)

5:30:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home