The enigma of Bush
Does anybody else see the irony in this? From Sy Hersh,
Now from March 21 (White House transcript)
I think there's something profound in this about the Bush presidency although I can't nail down exactly what. Maybe it says something to me about their sense of their place in history versus the very real and obvious incompetence in the present. Maybe the difference in self image and total unaccountability. I don't know.
(credit to Motherlode for spawning this thought with a comment.)
A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership...said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”
Now from March 21 (White House transcript)
REPORTER: Will there come a day, and I’m not asking you when — I’m not asking for a timetable — will there come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq?Do you see it? If you believe Hersh's reporting, Bush doesn't want to leave the thing that's not a problem yet, Iran, to a weaker president, while at the same time seems more than willing to leave the thing that is a problem right now, Iraq, to a future president more than two and a half years from now.
BUSH: That, of course, is an objective, and that will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq.
I think there's something profound in this about the Bush presidency although I can't nail down exactly what. Maybe it says something to me about their sense of their place in history versus the very real and obvious incompetence in the present. Maybe the difference in self image and total unaccountability. I don't know.
(credit to Motherlode for spawning this thought with a comment.)
posted by mikevotes at
2:31 PM
10 Comments:
Yes, very tough to peg.
"Maybe it says something to me about their sense of their place in history versus the very real and obvious incompetence in the present. Maybe the difference in self image and total unaccountability. I don't know."
I think that's the right course.
By
Bravo 2-1, at 2:52 PM
wow, so true Mike. Well, Bush has never really solved ANY problems.
By
Yukkione, at 3:05 PM
I can peg it for ya:
http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis1/p21-pe07.html
By
Greyhair, at 3:06 PM
Simple,
Just like a little kid that gets too many toys at Christmas.
"I'm bored with Iraq! I want a new war! Mom!!!"
By
Praguetwin, at 3:09 PM
Or a kid that gets a puppy but hates to feed it.
By
Praguetwin, at 3:09 PM
More like a kid who didn't have to eat all his broccoli before he got to eat his dessert.
By
Lew Scannon, at 4:51 PM
ya can't have any pudding if you don't eat your meat. how can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?
By
cookie christine, at 5:01 PM
I still can't pin it down all these hours later.
It's like an inflated self importance as "decider" coupled with a complete obliviousness of the incompetence. Delusional.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 8:56 PM
I think that the neocons see regime change in Iran as the only way to salvage their plan for Iraq. I believe their original plan was for permanent bases in Iraq for strategic purposes and to destabilize Iran. This would require a long-term presence in Iraq over many administrations.
They miscalculated on the difficulties in Iraq, largely because Iran has been much more successful in destabilizing Iraq. They were beaten at their own game.
Hersh mentioned that the Generals would strongly protest the use of tactical nukes in Iran. The Generals started calling for Rummy's replacement at about the same time. Is this just a coincidence?
I believe the Generals are worried that Bush will attack Iran and fear the neocon’s competence in another dangerous adventure.
By
Anonymous, at 1:02 AM
I think you're dead on with the Iraq as a stepping stone idea. It was especially attractive because we were going to have temporary access to afghanistan on the eastern side at about the same time. And, if the US cold control the middle east, and gain primary access to the caspian oil, we would have trapped China. That was the theory at least, and it assumes an incapable China who doesn't respond.
And, I think that's seperate sets of generals. The "hersh set" were out of the planning areas while the "calling for resignation generals" (at least the ones whoa re public) all came out of Iraq and were combat leaders. Not that the groups are mutually exclusive, I would just bet that the reignation calls were limited to those with Iraq experience because it was more politically effective.
Mike
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 7:13 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home