August 21, 2006
Bush at his press conference today, placed the imperious power of his presidency ahead of the will of the American people and declared his intention to "stay in Iraq" as long as he's president.
Q Mr. President, I'd like to go back to Iraq. You've continually cited the elections, the new government, its progress in Iraq, and yet the violence has gotten worse in certain areas. You've had to go to Baghdad again. Is it not time for a new strategy? And if not, why not?
THE PRESIDENT: The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society. That's the strategy. The tactics -- now, either you say, yes, its important we stay there and get it done, or we leave.
We're not leaving, so long as I'm the President. That would be a huge mistake. It would send an unbelievably terrible signal to reformers across the region. It would say we've abandoned our desire to change the conditions that create terror. It would give the terrorists a safe haven from which to launch attacks. It would embolden Iran. It would embolden extremists.
No, we're not leaving. The strategic objective is to help this government succeed. That's the strategic -- and not only to help the government -- the reformers in Iraq succeed, but to help the reformers across the region succeed to fight off the elements of extremism. The tactics are which change. Now, if you say, are you going to change your strategic objective, it means you're leaving before the mission is complete. And we're not going to leave before the mission is complete. I agree with General Abizaid: We leave before the mission is done, the terrorists will follow us here.
And so we have changed tactics. Our commanders have got the flexibility necessary to change tactics on the ground, starting with Plan Baghdad. And that's when we moved troops from Mosul into Baghdad and replaced them with the Stryker Brigade, so we increased troops during this time of instability.
Q You keep -- you keep saying that you don't want to leave. But is your strategy to win working? Even if you don't want to leave? You've gone into Baghdad before, these things have happened before.
THE PRESIDENT: If I didn't think it would work, I would change -- our commanders would recommend changing the strategy. They believe it will work. It takes time to defeat these people. The Maliki government has been in power for less than six months. And, yes, the people spoke. I've cited that as a part of -- the reason I cite it is because it's what the Iraqi people want. And the fundamental question facing this government is whether or not we will stand with reformers across the region. It's really the task. And we're going to stand with this government.
Obviously, I wish the violence would go down, but not as much as the Iraqi citizens would wish the violence would go down. But, incredibly enough, they show great courage, and they want our help. And any sign that says we're going to leave before the job is done simply emboldens terrorists and creates a certain amount of doubt for people so they won't take the risk necessary to help a civil society evolve in the country.
This is a campaign -- I'm sure they're watching the campaign carefully. There are a lot of good, decent people saying, get out now; vote for me, I will do everything I can to, I guess, cut off money is what they'll try to do to get our troops out. It's a big mistake. It would be wrong, in my judgment, for us to leave before the mission is complete in Iraq.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.htmlThis is an amazingly arrogant course for Bush to choose in light of public opinion which shows that Americans want to see the occupation over and done with, in most cases by year's end as the WH and their generals were hinting just a few months back. Not only are his generals sending reports back that the country is slipping into civil war, the troops on the ground have been questioning what their mission actually is.
Bush acted as if it was some strange thing that someone running for office would appeal to the voters with a promise to cut off the funding that feeds Bush's militarism to "get the troops out". That's the function of Congress, besides the blathering and posturing that gets more intense the closer we get to the elections. The only way to restrain Bush from continuing the deployment of troops in the numbers he has committed to Iraq is for Congress to exercise their oversight responsibilities and reign in the money that supports the failed mission.
It's interesting that Bush is now saying that
he'll continue the occupation. It's as if he's saying he's going to proceed independent of the will of Congress, as he regularly does with his 'signing statements' attached to deliberated and approved laws which pass his desk.
The manner in which he blithely dismissed the notion that his Iraq mission has failed with his personal assurance that we could trust his thinking, without his even acknowledging any of the grave and immediate obstacles to any of his stated goals and ambitions there, is a reflection of the power Bush has amassed by just imagining, asserting himself, and waiting for the challenges he knows from experience will not come from the present pack of congressional cowards.
So, now we have a declaration from Bush that the "strategic objective" (I guess this is to substitute for a 'mission') is to help the Iraqi government "succeed". Also, Bush declared that our soldiers were there to help "reformers across the region succeed to fight off the elements of extremism." But, who are these 'reformers' in Iraq? Certainly not the prime minister who openly equated the US mission with some 'Zionist' crusade, nor Maliki, who had to be goaded into including Hizbollah in his condemnations of violence in Lebanon.
What is our democracy's role, our government pledged to protect and defend our own laws and values, in protecting and defending Maliki's Shiite dominated regime that Bush has so obliquely defined as a legitimate democracy? When does our military support for Maliki skew the will of the Iraqis, whose participation and determination of the direction and control of their government should not be restricted to the voting process they endured under our armed occupation and control?
Where is free expression and opposition that are the hallmarks of true democracy to manifest in the face of our military's heavy-hand which is propping up the existing regime? Surely Bush can't be allowed to continue to sell his nonsense that democracy can flourish and grow under foreign occupation.
Bush gave it all away when he blurted out that "this is a campaign" at the end of his defense. That's why our soldiers are still in Iraq. They are the point of Bush's War Party's political campaign to keep their hold on the power they used to take our nation to war, and on the power they use to continue their military muckraking and killing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The War Party and their supporters keep our soldiers bogged down in Iraq as pawns of the Maliki regime's political future, and as pawns in the republican's future as well. They're personal props for their 'fear and smear campaigns; they're Bush's protection racket for the oil that we're 'holding' for the Iraqis; their lives are given away by Bush as muscle for the Maliki government.
But, they are also our sons and daughters, our mothers and fathers, waiting for some rationality to their mission . . . and a ticket home. Bush and all of the others who are banking on the sacrifices of our soldiers in Iraq should be made to give us reasons for continuing this open-ended occupation which comport with our own values and democratic principles, or end it. To ask our soldiers to defend anything less - as they certainly are now - is a tyranny of our nation's leadership and should be rejected . . . before he leaves office
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
