Tag: George W. Bush

It’s tempting to say that Afghanistan represents the Bush Administration’s supreme failure. I’ve made that claim, in the past. But that presumes that the Bush Administration was, in the the smallest degree, interested in catching the people who attacked us on September 11, 2001, and in keeping this nation safe. Of course, some have done very well, from Bush’s wars. Meanwhile, the collective wisdom of the more than 100 bipartisan foreign-policy experts consulted by Foreign Policy and the Center for American Progress to form The Terrorism Index led to this summary:

The world these experts see today is one that continues to grow more threatening. Fully 91 percent say the world is becoming more dangerous for Americans and the United States, up 10 percentage points since February. Eighty-four percent do not believe the United States is winning the war on terror, an increase of 9 percentage points from six months ago. More than 80 percent expect a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 within a decade, a result that is more or less unchanged from one year ago.

But, of course, if the Bush Administration actually gave a damn about national security, and catching the terrorists who attacked us, they’d have done something about it. Instead, their incompetence allowed Osama bin Laden to get away, when he could have been caught or killed, at the battle of Tora Bora. They disastrously shifted their focus from those who had attacked us to those who never had, and because of that, the Taliban are growing stronger both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, while Al Qaeda has also regrouped and grown stronger in both countries. In fact, both countries are having to negotiate with the Taliban, and bin Laden, himself, is even now well-positioned to launch another attack.

If this war actually was about justice and security, rather than profits, it would be correctly seen as the signature failure of the singularly disastrous administration. Bush is destroying the Constitution and violating international law, not to mention the basic laws of humanity and morality, but he has not made America safer, and he has not caught the people who committed the worst ever act of terrorism on American soil. It would be surreal, were it not so damnable.  

As everyone knows, the NIE (“National Intelligence Estimate”) advised that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003.  Bush was aware of this as far back as August, 2007, and probably sooner, if the truth be known.

Nonetheless, nothing has stopped him from continuing his rant about how dangerous Iran is to us and the world.  And in December, 2007, and this month, January, 2008, his efforts increased.

His trip to the Middle East of January 8, 2008, supposedly predicated on a wish to help the peace effort between Palestine and Israel, and a meeting with both leaders (for the first time), also included Kuwait to meet with U.S. troops [to prep them?], Amb. Cocker and Gen. Petraeus and [hold onto your seats] to hold round-table discussion on democracy with Kuwaiti women, Bahrain for meeting with King Hamad and visits with U.S. Navy 5th fleet, United Arab Emirates, to meet with Pres. Sheikh Khalifa and deliver a speech in Abu Dhabi, then to Dubai and to Saudi Arabia to meet with King Abdullah, then meetings in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and then to Sharm el-sheikh, Egypt, to meet with Pres. Hosni Mubarak and then return to the U.S. on Jan. 16th.

. . . . Bush hopes to spur negotiations among Israeli and Palestinian leaders vowing to make peace and lay the ground work for two independent states by year’s end. . . . .

and this is the best:

. . . . Bush, also touring several Arab nations, will address more than the role they can play in encouraging reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. He also will explain his vision for democracy in Iraq and his concern about the potential security threat posed by Iran. . . .(emphasis mine)

The article goes on at great length about the so-called efforts Bush hopes to make toward the Israeli – Palestinian conflict and peace negotiations.  Doubt as Bush set to visit Mideast — Chances called slim for breakthroughs as final year begins.  

More:

As if we needed another, here is reason Number 486,948,231 (and counting) to do something to end the war and occupation in Iraq:

A year after he ordered a large increase in American troops in Iraq, President Bush said Saturday that he was prepared to slow or even halt further reductions of forces there, emphasizing that any decision depended on security and the stability of the Iraqi government.

After meeting with Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker here at a sprawling desert base in neighboring Kuwait, Mr. Bush noted the sharp reduction in attacks on American troops and Iraqi civilians in recent months, saying the decline in violence was too hard-won to be squandered.

So the surge, intended to buy time to allow for some political progress in Iraq — which has not happened — now must be sustained simply to maintain the status quo, it appears.

Is anyone surprised?  Even the Democrats who keep funding the war without demanding any plans for troop withdrawals?

More, on the anniversary of the “surge,” from the NY Times:

Mr. Bush said that additional withdrawals would depend solely on conditions in Iraq, which General Petraeus was reviewing. During an 80-minute meeting, the president instructed the general, who is due to report in the spring on suggested troop levels, to make no recommendation that would jeopardize improvements in security.

“My attitude is, if he didn’t want to continue the drawdown, that’s fine with me in order to make sure we succeed, see,” Mr. Bush told reporters inside a command center that oversees Army operations in a region stretching from Kenya to Kazakhstan. “I said to the general, ‘If you want to slow her down, fine.’ It’s up to you.”

Friday, January 18, is Iraq Moratorium #5.

If you like the way things are going, and will be content to keep US troops in Iraq as long as we’ve kept them in Korea, don’t do anything.

But if you thing there’s something rotten in Washington, not to mention Baghdad, please do something to turn up the heat on the President — and, more importantly, on the Congress and the presidential wannabes in both parties.

It’s got to stop, and we’ve got to stop it.

With the comment, “We were stonewalled by the CIA”, the co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission once again highlight what is a major problem for the people of this country. We have allowed the current caretakers of our government to do as they wish, say what they want and to do so with no accountability repercussions. They are, literally, getting away with crime. Today, The Huffington Post reports and Glen Greenwald blogizes on the CIA matter.

cross-posted from Daily Kos

is the title of an important piece in Washington Monthly, subtitled “Why the best and brightest young officers are leaving”.   Written by Andrew Tilghman, it provides the statistics that let us understand that the leadership of the Army is effectively broken, now and for the future.

Consider the following:  of the West Point Class of 2002, 58% left the Army upon completion of their minimum 5 year commitment.  Or on a larger scale, consider this:

In the last four years, the exodus of junior officers from the Army has accelerated. In 2003, around 8 percent of junior officers with between four and nine years of experience left for other careers. Last year, the attrition rate leapt to 13 percent. “A five percent change could potentially be a serious problem,” said James Hosek, an expert in military retention at the RAND Corporation. Over the long term, this rate of attrition would halve the number of officers who reach their tenth year in uniform and intend to take senior leadership roles.

(more)