Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Embolden this, Bush

By
August 1, 2007

According to Bush, if we leave Iraq we embolden extremist movements throughout the Middle East.

I heard him twang out these words the other day. I know what it means but I looked it up anyway: the courage or confidence to do something or to behave in a certain way. Give me an effing break! The terrorists need more confidence? (Afterword added 8/4/07: Why Bush is no FDR)

Here’s the full quote.

There’s no doubt in my mind that Gordon Brown understands that failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the security of our own countries, that failure in Iraq would embolden extremist movements throughout the Middle East, that failure in Iraq would basically say to … people sitting on the fence around the region that Al Qaeda is powerful enough to drive great countries like Great Britain and America out of Iraq before the mission is done.

When we finally do leave Iraq it will either be a planned and sensible withdrawal as most critics of the president’s policy advocate, or the desperate Vietnam-like rooftop of the embassy retreat likely if we stay there until the country devolves into a melee of warring factions.

In either case, of course there will be celebrations in remote mountain hideaways where al Quada leaders will rejoice in victory over the American devil-king. There will be videos released of joy in the al Quada training camps and the villages which they control with cheering crowds and men firing rifles into the air.

Could this be the knee to the groin and slap in the face Bush really fears? Worldwide humiliation? Public phallic detumescence?

Bush would have been beaten by a lanky rebel with failing kidneys who could care less about schmoozing with the yacht and country club crowd Bush calls his base.

We never were at war with al Quada in Iraq, but Bush created this lie as his reality and tried to market it to the public to sell the war.

When we leave Iraq to resolve its civil war, al Quada will declare a victory and Bush will probably finally have no choice but to admit the truth, i.e., that we were never really fighting al Quada there.

What choice would he have? I can’t see him sticking to “his story” that Iraq was the center of the war on terrorism (aka al Quada) and that we had to beat them there so we wouldn’t have to fight them at home. That would be admitting defeat and telling us we’d better be ready for suicide bombers in Mayberry.

When people like Bush loose they never say the magic three words: I was wrong. They blame others. In this case Bush will blame the very Iraqi leaders he is praising now.


Afterword: Why Bush is no FDR A quote that speaks for itself:

…in 1938, Roosevelt tried to pressure Marshall, then the Army’s deputy chief of staff, into consenting to a delay in the development of large ground forces until seven airplane factories could be built.

As a dozen officials’ bobbleheads went up and down, Roosevelt asked Marshall, “Don’t you think so, George?” Marshall resented Roosevelt’s “misrepresentation of our intimacy.” He said, “I am sorry, Mr. President, but I don’t agree with that at all.” As Marshall later recalled, Roosevelt “gave me a startled look, and when I went out they all bade me goodbye and said that my tour in Washington was over.”

It wasn’t. Roosevelt was not used to such frank disagreement in large meetings, but he admired Marshall’s grit and conviction and soon promoted him.

——

From New York Times review of two books on Eisenhower, Marshall and MacArthur.

Bush would have fired General Marshall.

2 Responses to Embolden this, Bush

  1. Klaus Hergeschimmer

    August 1, 2007 at 10:34 pm

    The Dems are just as much to blame with its enabling of
    the Chimp. On a previous CHB article, ‘Voters fed up with Democratic failures’, a commentator who posted a rant was soft pedaling Nancette Pelosi’s decision to take impeacment off the table stating, “Imagine the angst that an impeachment would cause against the Democrat party”

    Well, that’s the problem of the Democrat Party, they ‘imagine’ too much with no decisive action.

    With all respect to the commentator who postulated if
    Dems had started impeachment hearings that the result would be a groundswell of support for the Chimp and Dick, manifesting itself in making it harder for the Dems to extract our troops from Iraq, all of this if Pelosi became president as a result of impeachment: this is ludicrous logic. With the Chimp’s abysmally low ratings and Big Dick Cheney even more so, I don’t believe the downside of impeachment would make it harder to change course in Iraq. The Dems already have proved its ineptness by not doing anything anyway when they had a clear chance last May with the spending bill.

    The commentator also said: “They [Democratic Congress] see the bigger picture better than we who rant in the blogosphere”.

    The Dems in their vaunted prescience by and large are dedicated to just wet-nursing thier own re-election, and I for one, and I’m sure many other CHB commentators don’t care to have their intelligence insulted with comments like this when the actions of the Dems speak louder then words.

    Dems problems are the Chicken Feathers glued to their arms. If Bush and Cheney got impeached and Pelosi became president and things got all shaken up, then so be it. Shake up is good, anything that would rattle the status quo in Washington DC, but will never know because they are always looking ahead at their re-election prospects and the MIC that by and large wet nurses them.

    The old standbye of blaming Nader for the Democrats misfortune is so tired. It’s just an excuse to hide the Democrat parties ineptness and spinelessness such as the way Kerry Tip Toed through the tulips on abortion rights in the debate with the Chimp in 2004;
    Kerry acted apologetically for being Pro-Choice.
    No one respects anyone who dosen’t have conviction and apologizes for a bedrock Democratic principle.

    Howard Dean would have had the best chance to beat
    the Chimp in 04′ but the Jack-Ass party purposely
    sabotaged his run and got him ejected out of the race, and then co-opted some of his succesfull tactics with no success. As screwed up as the Elephant party is, they don’t equivocate like the Jack-Ass party does when expressing itself.

    Tactical retreats! That is all the Democrats largely ever do.

    If the situation were reversed and the
    Republikaners had a chance to impeach a Democratic president and VP they would be on it as bees in honey drown.

    POWER OF THE PURSE THEY GAVE AWAY LAST MAY.

    If the Democrats had campaigned for Congress on censure of the president and passing non-binding legislation to get us out of Iraq, do you think they would have won the House majority they have now.

    Congressional poll ratings are as low as the Chimps are now since last May when the Jack-Ass party folded to the Chimp.

    I wonder why.

    We don’t want Democrats to be clones of the Chimp. We don’t need a house full of retarded Chimps.

    Democratic politicians are Scheisen-Meisters, Ya!

    (except Henry Waxman, Barbara Lee & Dennis Kucinich)

    PS: whoever the wonderful soul is that came up with the term ‘The Chimp’ for Bush, my hat is off to you, it
    makes me laugh uncontrollably

  2. Sonorous Pest

    August 1, 2007 at 10:42 pm

    Sonorous pest
    A little off base:

    > Former Reagan Official Warns of Threat to Constitutional
    > Democracy, Calls for Impeachment
    >
    > Impeach Now
    > Or Face the End of Constitutional Democracy
    >
    > By Paul Craig Roberts
    >
    > counterpunch – July 16, 2007
    >
    > Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a
    > year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state
    > at war with Iran.
    >
    > Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for
    > dictatorship in the form of “executive orders” that are
    > triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency.
    > Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael
    > Chertoff, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and
    > others suggest that Americans might expect a series of
    > staged, or false flag, “terrorist” events in the near
    > future.
    >
    > Many attentive people believe that the reason the Bush
    > administration will not bow to expert advice and public
    > opinion and begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq is
    > that the administration intends to rescue its unpopular
    > position with false flag operations that can be used to
    > expand the war to Iran.
    >
    > Too much is going wrong for the Bush administration: the
    > failure of its Middle East wars, Republican senators
    > jumping ship, Turkish troops massed on northern Iraq’s
    > border poised for an invasion to deal with Kurds, and a
    > majority of Americans favoring the impeachment of Cheney
    > and a near-majority favoring Bush’s impeachment. The
    > Bush administration desperately needs dramatic events to
    > scare the American people and the Congress back in line
    > with the militarist-police state that Bush and Cheney
    > have fostered.
    >
    > William Norman Grigg recently wrote that the GOP is
    > “praying for a terrorist strike” to save the party from
    > electoral wipeout in 2008. Chertoff, Cheney, the neocon
    > nazis, and Mossad would have no qualms about saving the
    > bacon for the Republicans, who have enabled Bush to
    > start two unjustified wars, with Iran waiting in the
    > wings to be attacked in a third war.
    >
    > The Bush administration has tried unsuccessfully to
    > resurrect the terrorist fear factor by infiltrating some
    > blowhard groups and encouraging them to talk about
    > staging “terrorist” events. The talk, encouraged by
    > federal agents, resulted in “terrorist” arrests hyped by
    > the media, but even the captive media was unable to
    > scare people with such transparent sting operations.
    >
    > If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in
    > the Middle East and to entrench the “unitary executive”
    > at home, it will have to conduct some false flag
    > operations that will both frighten and anger the
    > American people and make them accept Bush’s declaration
    > of “national emergency” and the return of the draft.
    > Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any
    > real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance.
    >
    > A series of staged or permitted attacks would be spun by
    > the captive media as a vindication of the
    > neoconsevatives’ Islamophobic policy, the intention of
    > which is to destroy all Middle Eastern governments that
    > are not American puppet states. Success would give the
    > US control over oil, but the main purpose is to
    > eliminate any resistance to Israel’s complete absorption
    > of Palestine into Greater Israel.
    >
    > Think about it. If another 9/11-type “security failure”
    > were not in the works, why would Homeland Security czar
    > Chertoff go to the trouble of convincing the Chicago
    > Tribune that Americans have become complacent about
    > terrorist threats and that he has “a gut feeling” that
    > America will soon be hit hard?
    >
    > Why would Republican warmonger Rick Santorum say on the
    > Hugh Hewitt radio show that “between now and November, a
    > lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by
    > this time next year, the American public’s (sic) going
    > to have a very different view of this war.”
    >
    > Throughout its existence the US government has staged
    > incidents that the government then used in behalf of
    > purposes that it could not otherwise have pursued.
    > According to a number of writers, false flag operations
    > have been routinely used by the Israeli state. During
    > the Czarist era in Russia, the secret police would set
    > off bombs in order to arrest those the secret police
    > regarded as troublesome. Hitler was a dramatic
    > orchestrator of false flag operations. False flag
    > operations are a commonplace tool of governments.
    >
    > Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into
    > two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran
    > shrink from staging “terrorist” attacks in order to
    > remove opposition to its agenda?
    >
    > Only a diehard minority believes in the honesty and
    > integrity of the Bush-Cheney administration and in the
    > truthfulness of the corporate media.
    >
    > Hitler, who never achieved majority support in a German
    > election, used the Reichstag fire to fan hysteria and
    > push through the Enabling Act, which made him dictator.
    > Determined tyrants never require majority support in
    > order to overthrow constitutional orders.
    >
    > The American constitutional system is near to being
    > overthrown. Are coming “terrorist” events of which
    > Chertoff warns and Santorum promises the means for
    > overthrowing our constitutional democracy?
    >
    > [Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the
    > Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate
    > Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and
    > Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor
    > of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at:
    > PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com ]