A Re-educated German Reminds America of Its History

Philosopher and social critic Jurgen Habermas was born in Germany in 1929. His father was a Nazi sympathizer. Under those conditions, and given Hitler's internal propaganda machine from the early 1930s to the end of the war in 1945, it would have been difficult for a 16-year-old to be immune to the conventional thinking of his surroundings. When the Americans arrived, they fostered a re-education program, particularly among the young. Habermas, in retrospect, was grateful for the ideals that Americans brought to Germany.

In the bizarre post-9/11 world, Bush and many members of Congress tossed out a good many of those ideals. Here's an interview of Jurgen Habermas by Eduardo Mendieta from sometime in 2003 that was published in Logos Journal in August 2004:

What I take to be false is Kagan’s [neoconservative] stylization of US policy over the course of the last century. The conflict between “realism” and “idealism” in foreign and defense policy occurred, not between the continents, but, rather, within American policy itself. Certainly, the bi-polar power structure of the world between 1945 and 1989, compelled a policy of balance of terror. The competition between the two nuclear-armed systems during the Cold War created the background for the towering influence which the “realist” school of international relations in Washington was able wield. But we must not forget the impetus which President Wilson gave to the founding of the League of Nations after the First World War, nor the influence which American jurists and politicians themselves exercised in Paris after the US retreated from the League. Without the US, there would have been no Kellogg-Briand Pact, nor the first international legal proscription of wars of aggression. But what fits least in the militant picture of the role of the US that Kagan paints, is the policy of the victors in 1945, initiated by Franklin D. Roosevelt. What Roosevelt called for in his undelivered Jefferson Day Address of April 11, 1945, was for the world to seek not only an “end to war,” but an “end to the beginning of all wars.”

In that period, the US was at the peak of the new internationalism, and spearheaded the initiative for the creation of the United Nations, in San Francisco. The US was the driving force behind the UN, which (no accident) has its headquarters in New York. The US set in motion the first international human rights convention, campaigned for the global monitoring of, as well as the juridical and military prosecution of, human rights violations, pressed upon the Europeans the idea of a political unification of Europe—initially, against the opposition of the French. This period of unexampled internationalism, loosed, in the ensuing decades, a wave of innovations in the field of human rights, blocked, indeed, during the Cold War, but implemented, in part, after 1989. As of that point in time, it was yet to be decided if the one remaining superpower would turn away from its leading role in the march toward a cosmopolitan legal order, and fall back into the imperial role of a good hegemon above international law.

(snip)

For a European observer and a twice-shy child such as I, the systematic intimidation and indoctrination of the population and the restrictions on the scope of permitted opinion in the months of October and November of 2002, (when I was in Chicago), were unnerving. This was not “my” America. From my 16th year onward, my political thinking, thanks to the sensible re-education policy of the Occupation, has been nourished by the American ideals of the late 18th century.

Under Bush, Americans lost their way for the better part of five years. Visitors like Habermas were startled by what they saw. When the history of our era is written by those who have twenty years from now the facts of what happened from 1989 to 2009 (many of those facts actually available in 2002), Bush, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, Perle and Rumsfeld will be skewered for being so profoundly wrong about the problems the United States has been facing since the end of the Cold War (Actually, our current problems started with the election of Ronald Reagan but that's another chapter in the broader story). Some day a significant number of Americans are going to have to do a little re-education of their own if the qualities that have made our country successful are to be remembered as well as updated. For our first 200 years, Americans had brains but also a good amount of luck. Since 1980 we have made far too many mistakes and most of those mistakes can be attributed to a Hobbesian conservatism that has proven to be a failure. In the next ten years, we'll see whether the Hobbesians still have life or whether Americans are finally ready to move forward.

Bill Clinton and George W. Bush

I have respect for Bill Clinton. He managed to accomplish a few things during his eight years despite a very difficult political climate. I even like the guy despite his bouts of pseudo-Republicanism and episodes of rope-a-dope. But he puzzles me. I don't mind his efforts to build bridges across party lines with people like Bob Dole and the senior George Bush. There has to be some of that in our society despite the efforts of the Republican right-wing leaders who believe they cannot lead unless they divide the country. But if ever there was a dangerous and reckless right-wing president, it was George W. Bush. So I'm puzzled that Clinton seems anxious to make nice with him as well. Here's the Reuter's story that describes a joint event of the former presidents:

Former U.S. Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton traded jokes about life after the Oval Office and took turns defending each other as they shared a stage in Toronto on Friday to discuss global affairs.

I've read other accounts besides this one. What gives? Yes, I know, being president is a tough job, etc., etc. But the junior Bush stubbornly pursued policies in world affairs and economics that makes it clear that he's the most failed president in American history. Okay, given Bill's vanity, maybe he wanted to be the good president next to the bad president. But that's pathetic. Bill knows what a disaster Bush has been. Doesn't he? Do we really need to remind Bill what a failure junior was?

I recently wanted to check something about the Bush years so I went to the library and took out The Lies of George W. Bush by David Corn. Here are some of the lies that Corn mentions:

"I have been very candid about my past."

"I'm a uniter, not a divider."

"[The votes] have not only been counted, they've been counted twice."

"We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September the 11th."

"No one could have conceivably imagined suicide bombers burrowing into our society."

"The bottom end of the economic ladder receives the biggest percentage [tax] cuts."

"We must usher in a new era of integrity in corporate America."

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

"The president has made no decision about the use of force."

"The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it."

"We will prove that someone who is conservative and compassionate can win without sacrificing principle. We will show that politics, after a time of tarnished ideals, can be higher and better. We will give our country a fresh start after a season of cynicism."

"We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations."

That last quote is probably the most painful lie of all.

There were many more lies about Iraq, Abu Ghraib, torture, Gitmo, the 2004 election, Hurricane Katrina, the economy, the U.S. Attorney scandal and much more that are not found in the book. The reason? Corn's book was published in 2003. The lies were already going strong.

It should be noted that Bush made many comments against Bill Clinton in the 2000 election. I know, I know. Bill wants to be statesmanlike and likeable as well. With Hillary Clinton at State, he also has to keep a low profile and be on his good behavior. I just hope he doesn't work too hard at rehabilitating George W. Bush. There are better things he could do.

100 Years? 50 Years? The Price We Are Paying

The war in Afghanistan is now in its seventh year. The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 have a name, al Qaida, and they came from Osama bin Laden's organization in Afghanistan. The Afghan government refused to turn over the terrorists and it made sense to go after this specific group for the specific action they had taken.

But Afghanistan was a winnable war that got put on the back burner so Bush and the neocons could give our nation a war we did not need. And now we don't quite have the resources to finish either war and we have a president and a Republican candidate who wish to turn both wars into political footballs instead of giving our nation a sensible exit strategy. John McCain and George W. Bush find it convenient to see terrorists everywhere. The term 'terrorist' is in danger of meaning whatever these two characters want it to mean.

John McCain has gone a step further by calling anybody who supposedly is a terrorist a member of al Qaida. It's gibberish of course (when McCain speaks of the 'League of Nations' and a '100 years of war,' we know he isn't the sharp man that he once was). The reality is that the neocons and right wing Republicans are still fighting the Vietnam War, the Cold War and, maybe for John McCain, the Korean War and World War II.

Soldiers are dying for the delusions of right wing Republicans. Soldiers are dying because many otherwise decent Americans have stopped paying attention to how often they have been lied to by George W. Bush and John McCain. The McCain/Bush wars are dragging our nation down. You can't spend $100 billion a year and keep letting our soldiers get killed because powerful people don't want to admit they made a horrible mistake.

Icasualties.org has been keeping track of the number of Americans killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan for some time now. Their statistics go back to the beginning of the war and those statistics are grim. Our soldiers are doing their best to serve honorably but they have been misled by the Bush Administration and many members of Congress.

Fifty-Two Americans died in Iraq last month. That's lower than the number killed in April of last year; in fact, the deaths for last month are half of what they were a year ago. But Bush's war in Iraq—or the occupation as some now call it—has been going on for over five years. Last month was better than most months since we invaded Iraq. But there are no good months for the families of those who have been killed. And there are no good months for the Iraqis whether they are pro-American, anti-American or just want everybody to go home and leave them be.

Click on icasualties.org and look at the numbers. The numbers are painful to look at but they are nothing compared to the loss of losing a son or a husband or a father. But look at the numbers. We have the full numbers for sixty-two months. Forty-one of those months have been worse or right at 52 deaths. Forty-one months is almost three and a half years. Twenty-one of the sixty-two months have had fewer fatalities than we had in April. Twenty-one months is almost two years. Almost. By the time a new president sits in the White House, we will have been in Iraq almost six years with no end in sight. Wars are not supposed to go on this long.

Call it a war. Call it an occupation. Call it the Bush empire or colony project. Five years and there are still no honest answers from the White House. And John McCain promises more of the same. We have problems at home and the politicians aren't paying attention. We have problems abroad but we are so tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're getting nowhere. Bush and McCain have talked of attacking Iran. They have both lied about the reasons. They both have tried to repeat the false talking points that led us into war in Iraq in the first place. They lied. The war in Iraq was not necessary. More war is not good for America.

We need to change course. The American people have a choice. It's up to the American people to start thinking about the future. It's time to turn our backs on the Republican way of doing business and rediscover who we are as a people and as a democracy. It's time to bring our soldiers home, retrain them for the difficult years ahead and resume our real role as leaders of the free world and a people who want to leave the world a better place for our children and grandchildren.

Bush's Dismal Approval Ratings in the 20s

In a parliamentary government, President George W. Bush would be gone by now. But we're stuck with the most failed president in American history for another year and a half. Of course, the amazing thing is not Bush's low poll numbers, but the fact that so many Republicans in the House and Senate refuse to hold the president and vice president accountable. They insist on standing by a failed vision that is damaging the United States. Both men in the White House are impeachable. I suspect if Cheney alone were impeached, that action would go a long ways to forcing President Bush to clean up his act.

According to Newsweek, 26% percent of Americans still stand by a man who has done almost nothing for Americans in the last six years:

In 19 months, George W. Bush will leave the White House for the last time. The latest NEWSWEEK Poll suggests that he faces a steep climb if he hopes to coax the country back to his side before he goes. In the new poll, conducted Monday and Tuesday nights, President Bush’s approval rating has reached a record low. Only 26 percent of Americans, just over one in four, approve of the job the 43rd president is doing; while, a record 65 percent disapprove, including nearly a third of Republicans.

In case anyone thinks that's a fluke, here's another poll from the American Research Group:

Over two out-of-three Americans say they disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president according to the latest survey from the American Research Group.

Among all Americans, 27% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 67% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 29% approve and 64% disapprove.

Among Americans registered to vote, 28% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 66% disapprove. When it comes to the way Bush is handling the economy, 30% of registered voters approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 63% disapprove.

And yet, when you watch TV or pick up the paper, Wolf Blitzer, Tim Russert, David Broder and the Washington Post editorial staff still seem to think that Bush is doing a good job. Even Hillary Clinton seems to complain that only if Bush had been competent he might have been all right. Conventional wisdom in Washington and the media towers of New York are still behind reality.

I notice that a third of Republicans now disapprove of Bush. But one has to be careful. Most Republicans who disapprove of Bush disapprove of him for the same reasons as the rest of us. But a significant number of right wing conservatives disapprove of Bush for a strange array of reasons involving various reasons such as Bush's immigration policy, Iran, and the economy. Some right wing conservatives are whining that Bush isn't conservative enough. Some clowns are saying that Bush is actually a liberal since he's for big government, big spending, etc. Sorry, but Bush is no liberal. He's a radical conservative with a strong authoritarian streak (and there are Republicans who want to see more of that authoritarian nonsense; they get plenty of it in presidential candidates like Giuliani).

But what of the two thirds of Republicans who still approve of Bush? How can they approve of a man who went to war in Iraq without a legitimate reason for that war, without a plan, without enough troops, without allies and without an exit strategy? How can they support a president who refused to do anything before 9/11 despite clear warnings of a terrorist attack? How can they cheer a president who let Osama bin Laden get away so he could pursue his bizarre war in Iraq? How can they stand by him? How can Republicans stand by Bush's lawbreaking on a wide range of issues? Why are Republicans silent every time the president ignores the US Constitution for petty political reasons? How can Bush's remaining supporters approve of his behavior after Hurricane Katrina? Katrina, by the way, was simply an indicator of Bush's failure and indifference on a wide range of issues.

I know, I know, human nature is human nature and part of our nature is stubbornness even when we know we're probably not being led well by our politicians. But if Republicans who approve of Bush care about their children and the future of their children, they better think long and hard about continuing to support a man who has been wrong on so many issues and who has put politics of the presents well ahead of our future needs. The future is coming and it's coming faster than most of us realize.

In California, Bush Numbers Plummeting

Despite Orange County, John Wayne and Ronald Reagan, just to name a few conservative icons in my state, California has been trending Democratic in recent years. But even California Republicans are beginning to turn away from Bush for various reasons. The San Jose Mercury News carries the story by Steven Harmon of Media News:

California Republicans, increasingly disenchanted with the war in Iraq, are beginning to abandon President Bush, a development that may threaten the GOP's chances in the 2008 presidential race.

California on the whole trends Democratic, and Bush's approval numbers have always been lower here than elsewhere, but for the first time in his presidency, less than half of Republicans in the state approve of Bush's job performance, according to two statewide polls, driving overall support to all-time lows.

The GOP disaffection comes at a time when Bush's former top campaign strategist, Matthew Dowd, criticized Bush for losing his bond with voters and failing to heed the public's concerns on the war.

In the Field Poll, 49 percent of Republicans support Bush - down from 61 percent in September, while, in the San Jose State University Survey and Policy Research Institute poll, 46 percent approve of his performance - down from 58 percent only two months ago.

I think all Americans are bewildered by Bush. Usually, Republican or Democrat, a president who makes blunders and sags in the polls tries to get his act together and turn things around. Not Bush. For George W. Bush, it's full steam ahead, straight toward the edge of the cliff. Not only is it painful to watch, The Decider's behavior is damaging every one of us and it's going to take time to undo the damage when Bush is gone.

I think John Edwards is right: we can't wait two years for the next president. Every American needs to think of ways of repairing the damage right now, whether, just to name a few, it's cutting down on energy, cleaning up rivers, educating people about the need to reform healthcare, talking about the kind of stupid prejudices that are putting our country at risk, and maybe learning to think again as a community rather than thinking as millions of individuals wondering, "What's in it for me?" We've got to start doing better now.

What Is Bush Hiding This Time?

If the firing of the eight U.S. Attorneys was straightforward and a nonstory as some administration figures and their defenders suggests, then why hasn't there been a straightforward and satisfactory explanation for what happened? Now one of the U.S. Attorneys that was fired was Carol Lam. Supposedly she wasn't aggressive enough on dealing with illegal immigration. One of the people who decided she wasn't doing enough about illegal immigration was none other than Duke Cunningham, the Congressman caught in a series of bribes and prosecuted by Carol Lam. I suppose even crooks have their priorities. Readers should keep in mind that Duke Cunningham was caught by reporters working for the San Diego Union-Tribune, a Republican newspaper if there ever was one but one still holding up a strong respect for the law.

Steve Soto of The Left Coaster repeats a simple observation that many critics of Bush's rope a dope on the U.S. Attorneys have observed:

The “executive privilege” defense already unravels: why assert a privilege for an executive you claim had nothing to do with the decision?

One suspects that George W. Bush and Karl Rove didn't plan on having a defense for the firings because they didn't believe anyone would particularly notice. Now once again the Bush Administration is issuing a series of statements that don't stand up to close examination for more than a few hours and so more statements are issued. I believe in some circles we would find statements of low credibility to be nothing other than lies. In six years, many statements of low credibility keep coming out of the White House. Admittedly, as columnist Cynthia Tucker asserted earlier this month when writing about Scooter Libby and Iraq, it's not always easy to know which Bush Administration statements are lies and which are delusions:

Not a week goes by without a Bush administration spokesperson uttering a sentence or two that stretch credibility to the breaking point. Clearly, though, the most outrageous fabrications and most scurrilous falsehoods of the past six years were told in defense of the decision to invade Iraq.

(snip)

The Bush team knew they could never have sold American voters on an invasion of Iraq just because Saddam had illicit weapons. So they decided to distort, dissemble and lie. The fabrications used to justify the invasion were those linking Iraq to al-Qaida, those claiming Saddam had unmanned drones that could be used to attack American cities, those declaring that Saddam was "actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons," as Vice President Dick Cheney put it.

Perhaps that's unfair to the vice president. Cheney lies so regularly and spectacularly that he probably is delusional rather than dishonest.

(snip)

Among a dwindling group of voters, Bush is still revered as an upright and moral man, still credited with having the values and virtues that any decent person should respect. But morality encompasses more than sexual fidelity, more than sobriety after years of reckless drinking. It also encompasses honor, integrity and candor -- especially in an enterprise such as war.

Bush took the nation to war on a web of lies...

Yes, the word 'lie' is increasingly used in the description of White House behavior. It's unavoidable and a sign of how little credibility Bush and his advisers have these days. No one should expect Bush to clear the air on the firing of U.S. Attorneys anytime soon.

Cheney Must Be Happy: Halliburton Up $43

Bush and Cheney's war in Iraq is a disaster that has done very little, if anything, for the United States. Back when the war started in 2003, I was posting on the AOL message boards and was treated like a traitor for pointing out any number of obvious contradictions. I was actually slow to oppose the war and was bothered by a number of people I respected who supported the war, but by February of 2003, I was against it. I despised any number of outright lies that were becoming increasingly obvious and being bandied about to justify the war and, at the same time, I was particularly bothered by how Afghanistan wasn't going as well as it should have been, partly because of the administration's obsession with Iraq but mainly because the administration didn't seem to take its job very seriously. Osama bin Laden was based in Afghanistan. That's where al Qaida was. I found it disturbing that the Bush administration didn't seem concerned about finishing the job in Afghanistan.

The issue of Iraq has now taken on a larger context and we now recognize that Bush's war was a strategic failure based on a poor understanding of foreign policy and the world. Yes, there was incompetence but the larger failure was the conception of grandiose scheme to remake the Middle East in ways that contradict who we are as a nation and in ways that have little to do with democracy. Bush's policy was riddled with hubris and ideology and nonsense.

In Truthout, Frank Rich of The New York Times can be found once again giving his perspective, this time four years after the start of Bush's folly in Iraq:

Tomorrow night is the fourth anniversary of President Bush's prime-time address declaring the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In the broad sweep of history, four years is a nanosecond, but in America, where memories are congenitally short, it's an eternity. That's why a revisionist history of the White House's rush to war, much of it written by its initial cheerleaders, has already taken hold. In this exonerating fictionalization of the story, nearly every politician and pundit in Washington was duped by the same "bad intelligence" before the war, and few imagined that the administration would so botch the invasion's aftermath or that the occupation would go on so long. "If only I had known then what I know now ..." has been the persistent refrain of the war supporters who subsequently disowned the fiasco. But the embarrassing reality is that much of the damning truth about the administration's case for war and its hubristic expectations for a cakewalk were publicly available before the war, hiding in plain sight, to be seen by anyone who wanted to look.

(snip)

In one of its editorials strongly endorsing the war, The Wall Street Journal writes, "There is plenty of evidence that Iraq has harbored Al Qaeda members."

[In a Feb. 12, 2007, editorial defending the White House's use of prewar intelligence, The Journal wrote, "Any links between Al Qaeda and Iraq is a separate issue that was barely mentioned in the run-up to war."]

(snip)

President Bush declares war from the Oval Office in a national address: "Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly, yet our purpose is sure."

Price of a share of Halliburton stock: $20.50

[Value of that Halliburton share on March 16, 2007, adjusted for a split in 2006: $64.12.]

That last one is my favorite, though Mr. Rich offers many other examples. No bid contracts indeed!

Too many Republicans in Congress, the White House and the media lie to our faces and then deny that they're lying to our faces. Our country, at minimum, needs a two-party system, but it's time to send the Republicans home until they start offering people with more integrity. Integrity or not, even the rubber stampers should be sent home for turning a blind eye to the most corrupt era in anyone's memory.

Senator Webb Gets It

Senator Webb's Democratic rebuttal to President Bush's speech was superb. Terrell of Alone on a Limb offers an excerpt from Webb's speech:

Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues - those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death - we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm's way.

We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us - sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.

The President took us into this war recklessly. ...

There's a weight to what Senator Webb is saying that I deeply appreciate. In firm but respectful language, Webb makes it clear that Bush has violated our nation's trust. Bush will be in office for another two years. Let's hope Bush does no further harm and that the next president is a considerable improvement.

By the way, I'm jealous that Terrell has figured out YouTube and has Senator Webb giving his speech. I solemnly swear I'll take the time to figure it out one of these days. I'm a writer but nobody told me I was going to have to learn multimedia as I get older!

Tom Vilsack Speaks on the State of the Union

When previous presidents gave their State of the Union speeches, things happened. Presidents, of course, don't always get everything they ask for and that's the way it should be. But the State of the Union has always been a chance to show leadership and a president was expected to follow through on his ideas. Oh, and by the way, a president was supposed to be truthful about the state of the nation though admittedly many presidents managed to avoid things they didn't want to talk about. But Bush will always be tainted for saying things his administration knew were not true.

After six years in office, Bush is notorious for not following through on his speeches. Presidential candidate, Tom Vilsack, has some thoughts on Bush and where we are; here's the story from Darwin Danielson of Radio Iowa:

Former Iowa governor turned presidential candidate, Tom Vilsack, today issued what he called a "pre-buttal" to President Bush's State of the Union address tomorrow night. Vilsack, a democrat, criticized Bush based on reports of what the president is expected to say. Vilsack says the president is going to propose raising taxes on the middle class in order to reduce the number of uninsured Americans.

"It's hard to conceive of an administration that continues to advocate for reduced taxes for the wealthiest Americans, and continues to fund billions of dollars to reconstruct Iraq, and then simply asks middle class families to pay more in order to ensure the birthright that every American ought to have, which is affordable insurance coverage," Vilsack says. Vilsack is also critical of President Bush's actions after Bush called in last year's address for the U.S. to become more energy independent.

Vilsack says Bush's energy proposals "were weak and failed to deliver." Vilsack says he expects to hear the president make a similar call this year. Vilsack says the president has been spending time and energy on fighting the war in Iraq "instead of focusing on expanding the economy here in America so the middle class can grow instead of shrink."

For the record, I believe Bush is calling for a tax deduction for health care rather than a tax increase, and the way the deduction is framed, it'll probably just add more red ink to Bush's dismal budget.

Vilsack offers some minor praise for Bush's health care proposals but I think he needs to be careful about trying to appear bipartisan with somebody as partisan as Bush (even if Bush may be trying to steal an idea or two from Iowa). Bipartisanship can be a good idea if somebody like Bush has some good ideas and is serious about implementing them, but Bush's proposals so far sound more like an attempt to play more tax games while helping his friends in the insurance business. Until more Republicans recognize the need to reform their party, I believe Democrats should talk quietly behind the scenes with their partners across the aisle until they're clear on what Republicans are proposing and why—and then talk about bipartisanship if they like what they see.

Tom Vilsack is a thoughtful man and I appreciate his focus on the economy and health care. Unlike a number of presidential candidates, he has a record of actually accomplishing things while governor of Iowa. I look forward to hearing what he has to say in the first Democratic debate where some of these issues will be discussed. Except for those with deep pockets, Bush doesn't appear to have given the economy much thought in the last six years, except when he's trying to help those whose pockets are already deep. Come to think of it, Bush hasn't appeared to have given much thought to anything else in his presidency. And that is a major reason for his failures.

Americans Oppose Bush's Iraq Policy

Bush's speech is a dud. And it becomes increasingly clear that Bush is 'exaggerating' the support that he has for his policy from the military and the Iraqi leadership. Cheney and Bush have become so isolated from the real world that they present the most serious leadership crisis we have had since Richard M. Nixon.
Two out of three Americans oppose Bush's plan; here's the story from CNN:

Two out of three Americans oppose President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Friday indicates.

Nearly two-thirds of those polled also say Bush has no clear plan for Iraq.

(snip)

The president argued that the increase in troop strength would the best chance to succeed in a war the U.S. cannot afford to lose.

Our president has been wrong about so many things so many times that it takes an enormous amount of arrogance for him to say at this late date that he knows what he's doing. It's important to note that the Iraqis don't want a troop surge from us. In fact, an overwhelming majority of Iraqis want us to leave. It's not much of an exaggeration to say that Bush and Cheney are drunk on their own power. It can be argued that someone needs to take the car keys from Bush and Cheney until they sober up and can answer questions honestly and rationally. The sad truth about the speech that Bush gave on Wednesday night is that once again he has not been truthful with the American people.

John Edwards Opposes Troop Surge

John Edwards opposes the extension and escalation of Bush's failing war in Iraq. Here's the story from Joe C. on Edwards own blog:

Senator John Edwards released the following statement today about President Bush's expected announcement Wednesday that he will seek to escalate the number of troops in Iraq. In this statement, the senator calls on Congress to block funds for war escalation.

"George Bush's expected decision to adopt the McCain Doctrine and escalate the war in Iraq is a grave mistake.

"The new Congress must intercede to stop Bush from stubbornly sticking to the same failed course in Iraq and refuse to authorize funding for an escalation of troops. ...

I heard Edwards on Larry King last night and he reaffirmed his opposition to Bush's escalation. Edwards raised the issue that Bush needs to reestablish trust with the American people and his performance failed to do that last night. Edwards has emphasized the need for a political solution.

Last night, Senator Durbin (D-IL) said if there's any kind of surge we need, it's a diplomatic surge. I suspect Edwards would agree with that.

New Year's Resolution: Remember New Orleans

Never forget President Bush's many failures. Never forget that his biggest domestic failure was New Orleans and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Even the Republican Congress couldn't be bothered to address the loss of a major American city and the damage along the gulf coast that is still under repair more than a year later with many areas still neglected. Bush thinks he has a free pass to do nothing for his final two years in office. Americans deserve better. Republicans should join Democrats in demanding action and accountability from President Bush.

Barbara O'Brien, guest blogging at DMIBlog remembers:

In 2005 the winds and waters of Hurricane Katrina flushed the entrenched poverty of New Orleans into the open for all the world to see. And soon after there was much chest-thumping and many heartfelt declarations that we must do something about this.

The "something" turns out to be "bury the problem somewhere else." New York Times columnist Bob Herbert wrote this week,

Sixteen months have passed since the apocalyptic flood that followed Hurricane Katrina. More than 13,000 residents who were displaced by the storm are still living in trailers provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Another 100,000 to 200,000 evacuees - most of whom want to return home - are scattered throughout the United States.

In 2008, Republicans like John McCain will be running for president. What did McCain do for New Orleans? What will the other candidates do? Will the Republicans kept neglecting their responsibilities when they're in charge? Why have Republicans said so little about Bush's failures in New Orleans? We need reform in this country and it's sure not going to start with ultraconservative Republicans.

The 'McCain Doctrine'

I stopped trusting George W. Bush a long time ago. Although Bush could surprise us, all the noise being directed from the White House about a troop 'surge' is probably on the level and Bush will blunder once more in Iraq with the risk of expanding the war. Nobody has been louder about increasing the number of troops at this late date than John McCain. So, thanks to John Edwards, McCain is now saddled with his own words; Greg Sargeant of TPM Cafe has the story:

John Edwards has coined a new phrase that is likely to resonate throughout the Presidential campaign: "The McCain Doctrine." The phrase seeks to wrap the prospect of an escalation of the Iraq war as tightly as possible around the neck of John McCain, the most vocal proponent of a "surge" in troops. According to the Arizona Republic, Edwards hatched the "McCain doctrine" formulation in an exchange with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos on Sunday.

I also saw an article by Joe Lieberman calling for a troop surge. Do either McCain or Lieberman believe, at this late date, that George W. Bush knows what he's doing? Should George W. Bush blatantly ignore the Iraq Study Group? A clue is that a growing number of Republicans in Washington are distancing themselves from President Bush's Iraq policy.

Baker's Iraq Study Group Gives Bush an F

All ten members of the bipartisan group of Republicans and Democrats led by former Secretary of State James Baker may have purged some political language and softened the blow for President Bush but the report card by the Iraq Study Group is a resounding F and the recommendations fly in the face of some of Bush's preferred policies. Bush has no choice but to clean up his act.

Yahoo has the Associated Press story:

President Bush's war policies have failed in almost every regard, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group concluded Wednesday, and it warned of dwindling chances to change course before crisis turns to chaos with dire implications for terrorism, war in the Middle East and higher oil prices around the world.

(snip)

"The report is an acknowledgment that there will be no military solution in Iraq. It will require a political solution arrived at through sustained Iraqi and region-wide diplomacy and engagement," said Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), R-Neb.

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other Democrats said the ball is in Bush's court.

"If the president is serious about the need for change in Iraq, he will find Democrats ready to work with him in a bipartisan fashion to find a way to end the war as quickly as possible," Pelosi said.

The Iraq panel's leaders said they tried to avoid politically charged language such as "victory," on the one hand or "civil war" on the other, but the words they chose were still powerful. The report says the current strategy is not working and lays out example after example where it has come up short.

As if to underscore that the conflict is hurtling out of control, the military reported that 10 American troops were killed Wednesday, adding to the toll of U.S. forces who have died since the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in early 2003.

Americans are tired of Bush's political games and right wing agenda. The hiring of Robert Gates may be a step in the right direction, but it is unlikely to be enough unless Bush brings more qualified, non-ideological help into his administration. The ISG report does not call for immediate withdrawal but make no mistake: withdrawal is in the wind, certainly before the end of 2008. America cannot wait two years for the repairs to begin to our foreign policy. Bush owes it to the American people to start listening to bipartisan advice.