Friday, December 02, 2005


Let's get something straight: Holding out the possibility of troop reductions and calling for patience in Iraq is not a strategy, even if you bind it in book form and pretend it's declassified. So don't be fooled by all those headlines that read "Bush outlines Iraq victory strategy." Just because his speech to the Midshipmen was billed as including the strategy doesn't mean it did. In fact, the speech was just more Bush bullshit (Bushit?).

So, naturally, the White House had to lash out, that being the way the administration addresses criticism, when war opponents pointed out the obvious.

The White House called irresponsible on Thursday those Democrats who said that President George W. Bush lacked a strategy on Iraq, as Sen. John Kerry said a policy shift was needed to reflect realities on the ground.

"Those Democratic congressional leaders who try to suggest that we don't have a plan are deeply irresponsible," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who reiterated it was possible to bring some troops home next year.

A snap poll by CNN/Gallup/USA Today this week said 55 percent of respondents believed Bush did not have a plan to "achieve victory for the United States in Iraq."

Polls in recent months have shown waning public support for the 2 1/2-year war. Concern over the war has also been a factor pushing Bush's popularity ratings to the lowest of his presidency.

Kerry, who lost the presidential race to Bush a year ago, said Democrats, "are all in agreement that there has to be a profound shift of admitting the reality on the ground and beginning to establish a schedule that we can understand on behalf of the American people about transfer of authority."
But Bush stuck to his black and white menu of options, and based his strategy-less strategy on the belief that there are only two outcomes: total victory or what the administration likes to refer to as "cut and run." (Boy, if I had a nickel for every time some jerkoff GOP war hawk with no military background said that phrase ...)

When Jack Murtha called for the withdrawl of troops from Iraq, debate on Iraq went from being "reprehensible" to "legitimate," and now back to "irresponsible."

I guess the administration also considers "irresponsible" the 55 percent of the American public that thinks the war effort is rudderless. I guess anyone who criticizes the administration over the war is irresponsible. From the irresponsible New York Times:
Americans have been clamoring for believable goals in Iraq, but Mr. Bush stuck to his notion of staying until "total victory." His strategy document defines that as an Iraq that "has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency"; is "peaceful, united, stable, democratic and secure"; and is a partner in the war on terror, an integral part of the international community, and "an engine for regional economic growth and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region."

That may be the most grandiose set of ambitions for the region since the vision of Nebuchadnezzar's son Belshazzar, who saw the hand writing on the wall.
Meanwhile, a roadside bomb Thursday killed 10 Marines while they were on "foot patrol near Falluja," the Marine Corps said Friday.

And the war's opponents are irresposible. Yeah.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home