Why the Bush Administration Argument in Iraq is B.S.

[louis c]

The Bush Administration, and its apologists, use an argument, if followed to the logical conclusion, is proven bullshit. Joe Lieberman and the Republican congressional leadership included. The President, Vice-President, Condi Rice, et al and the aforementioned congressional cheerleaders for this fiasco are now telling the American public that "a defeat in Iraq will be a disaster and haunt America for generations to come. It will have a devastating impact on our security and will be a defeat from which we may never recover".

O.K., I disagree, but for the sake of argument, let's say these assholes really believe the shit that they're throwing, and it's not just bullshit rhetoric.

If they really believe what they are saying, wouldn't the logical step be full American mobilization? If a withdrawal of American troops would be the ultimate disaster, shouldn't we immediately institute the draft, put a million men and women under arms, raise taxes to fund an all out war, and place 500,000 troops in and around Iraq. If leaving Iraq without establishing a long-lasting, independent Iraqi government, whether they like it or not, is of the importance they (the Bush apologists) claim, shouldn't the level of force be absolutely overwhelming. Shouldn't we leave no chance of being outgunned? Shouldn't we not be in a position of depending on an inept, undisciplined, disloyal ally, like the Iraqi army, for our ultimate survival?

The answer to these questions is that the Bush Iraq policy doesn't have these elements of urgency to it because it is what it is, BULLSHIT.

[uppityperson]

1. They don't want to "win", they don't want freedoms/democracy.

It is all for money. Period. It is bullshit since piddling along will ensure the War Machine's Moneymakers continue to make money.

[leftofthedial]

2. they know they're lying

[Amonester]

3. Look. The ruling class of the Military Industrial Complex enjoy...

the heavenly profits they R making each year, without even having to pay anything in return. They have Decided they will never accept le$$ than they have been looting for the past 5 years. That's all. All the BS propaganda of the PNAC thugs is just that: PROPAGANDA (Fascism for short...).

[Democrats_win]

4. ITMFA!

[louis c]

8. ITMFA?

I'm confused. What does that mean?

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Impeach The Muther Fucker Already

The google is your friend. You can find it on the internets.

[louis c]

12. I agree

Thanks

[Igel]

5. What they're saying is reflected in the latest NIE summaries

that were bounced around in 9/06.

We heard "The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?ex=1316750400&en=da252be85d1b39fa&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

That merely reflected the language--also bandied about--in the NIE summaries that "The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."

What made less splash in the NYT was the very next sentence: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight." http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf Right there you have one of the things * is plausibly basing his actions on.

They're also playing off of some of UBL's musings about the US in Somalia in '93, taking it at face value. And there's always the "the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations" (NIE's language) motivating the jihadis even further. (Remember the "they hate us because we support their despotic leaders" meme from 2001 and 2002? That was a motivation in the SoU speech from 2003 for dumping Saddam. This is a permutation of that.)

How to evaluate the premises for all this in a methodical way? Can't, not gonna, don't see a point in it.

But you're right: If it's as serious as all that, they'd be pushing for a larger mobilization. However Rummie's "do it on the cheap" (such as it is) theme continues to echo even after the band stopped playing; and it's politically impossible, so it's pointless to talk about it. Congress would have to activate the Selective Service, and that wasn't going to happen last year, and it's certainly not going to happen this year.

[louis c]

15. kick in the evening

[donco6]

6. Defeat in Iraq was certain before we entered the fray.

It's the catastrophe we all warned against. So for them to come out now and say, "We have to keep going or we'll regret it" is quintessential disingenuousness.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

7. Well put. (k/r) It's inherently contradictory, the amount of resources committed, versus the stated

urgency.

[charlie]

10. Cutting taxes showed they were bullshitters

Has anyone in the history of the world made broad, sweeping tax cuts in the midst of a critical war? Anyone? Ever?

[bonito]

11. BULLSHIT.

Yep.

[louis c]

13. You certainly get it

BULLSHIT is right.

[moondust]

14. Anything short of overwhelming force is gambling.

But they seem to enjoy it as they've done a lot of it. With other people's lives.