Deus Ex Machina

Why anyone believes a word out of the mouths of anyone in the Bush Administration is beyond me.

We know of the lies that led us to invade Iraq. Yes we know Saddam was a bad guy but let's not forget he was our bitch, using the weapons Reagan and Rumsfeld sold him. We also know, moronic lying Bush apologists aside (think Fox News, the rightwing radio blowhards and the Anne Coulters of this world), that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction and had nothing to do with 9/11. Still we invaded because the Frat Boy, who had done nothing of consequence or value in his life but instead chose to sponge off his father's name and reputation, had to one up his daddy.

We know, to add insult to injury, that these chicken hawks like Cheney and Shrub are now looking at some sort of military action in Iran.

And we all know (at least those capable of actually agitating our craniums) that we are not safer now than before 9/11. For those who think Bush as done a good job and that we are indeed safer (echoing that pathetic refrain, "we haven't been attacked since"), then by your own logic, Bush should be held accountable for it was on his watch that we were attacked. It was also on his watch that the bipartisan Hart Rudman report was delivered to the White House on January 27, 2001. That report noted the threat of hijackers using planes to attack us. My guess is that someone in the White House read that report on September 12, 2001.

So what are we to think when the Bush Administration paraded General David Petraeus in front of Congress, put words in his mouth (political words no less) and then pretended that all is getting better in Iraq and the world?

Of course Petraeus, dressed in his military best, spun tales of success with the surge. Those in the military always argue for more troops and more time. The battle is always won until it is lost, and then they blame defeat on the politicians and the public. As Bob Scheer noted in the Huffington Post, there's no shortage of retired generals who will tell you we could have won in Vietnam if only we had sent more troops, or bombed the dikes in the North, or been willing to kill more than the 3.4 million Vietnamese who died along with 59,000 American soldiers.

We now know Petraeus was both unconvincing and disingenuous. The American public seems unswayed by the cherry-picked statistics, bar graphs and other gimmicks used to make Iraq seem less dangerous. We know that Petraeus was already on record as being political. In Oct of 2004 he allowed himself to be used by the Bushies when he authored (though I suspect it was written for him) an overly optimistic op-ed piece just days before the Presidential election, arguing that substantial progress was being achieved in Iraq.

Here's what the general said in 2004. "They will have the benefit of a substantially larger Iraqi security presence coming on line. This is an occasion where we'll see how the new Iraqi security forces are going to do. I think they'll be fine." And later, "We're only six months away from June and handing control of the country back over to Iraqis."

Well we all know that was either a lie or an utterly inept reading of the situation, neither of which is acceptable to me. We also know that Petraeus sees himself as a latter day Dwight D. Eisenhower, complete with Presidential aspirations of his own. So it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Petraeus was and is carrying water for the Bush Administration as it stumbles with Iraq, thus calling into question anything the general has to say on the topic.

Thankfully and understandably, his 9/11 testimony (now how is that for gilding the lily?), along with that of Ambassador Ryan Crocker, was duly challenged by many on Capitol Hill, by many in the media and by many political activist groups including that clever piece of wordsmithing by those at MoveOn. That ad of course raised hackles in the neo con community but then again that's just part of their overall strategy to deflect attention from that 24/7 disaster known as Iraq.

Bush and his toadies continue to argue that things are improving and that we need more time to allow General Petraeus' plan to work. This is Petraeus' plan? Suddenly we are supposed to believe Bush is listening to the military.

We know NOT to believe any of this.

This is either the fantasy of an intellectually bankrupt administration or a plan to leave this war to whomever succeeds him in the White House. Of course the men and women of our military, along with many innocent Iraqi civilians, will be the ones who suffer. The Bush plan is not a plan at all. It is a cynical delaying tactic with the despicable idea that whomever inherits Bush's war will somehow be responsible for it. Only a Bush-like brain would believe that.

By the way, I for one am tired of those apologists who defend the intellectual qualifications of this President. He is moron, a buffoon. I don't mind conservatives; I just hate vapid ones. Personally I am wary of people trying to defend him when we see and hear evidence of his intellectual short comings every time he opens his mouth. In my view, if you can't articulate a simple thought, you are quite incapable of entertaining much less comprehending a complex one.

And it doesn't help that he has surrounded himself with a bunch of macho cowards. Bush went AWOL when he had the opportunity to serve so obviously learned no lessons from the VietNam war. Cheney had something like seven draft deferments and "no time" to fight (yet somehow Clinton was the draft dodger!). Bush's recent revisionist bit of history that we lost because we gave up too soon shows an appalling disregard for the truth and really disqualifies him from being seriously heard and considered.

He is at best an incompetent commander-in-chief, having defied and discarded solid military men like General Eric Shinseki. Before the war began, Bush chose not to listen to the generals because it was inconvenient for his agenda. And now with the complete mismanagement of and the utter failure of this invasion, along with the knowledge of Abu Ghraib and other atrocities, my view is Bush is a war criminal. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing him, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice charged with war crimes. They all have blood on their hands and I'm very hopeful that they get their Lee Atwater like karmic payback. The good news is that history will not treat these clowns very kindly. Bush is already regarded as one of the, if not the, worst President in our history.

This is Bush's and the neo cons' war. They need to take responsibility for what he started. And Shrub needs to finish it.

There will be no cavalry to the rescue. There will be no miracle victory. This war is over and unfortunately for us, we are on the wrong side of it. These chicken hawk neo cons who started this fiasco should have considered the consequences before starting it in the first place. They didn't and now they need to own up to it.

Bush's plan to continue is a disaster. Iraq is already a complete and utter catastrophe with lawlessness, brain drain as intellectual and professionals migrate out of the country, a complete dearth of goods and services and rife with sectarian violence. Yes it will be even more chaotic when we withdraw but at least our military personnel will be out of harms way. And let the Iraqis, Syrians, Iranians, Saudis and anyone else struggle to deal with the chaos. Yeah we broke it but we can't fix it. Like the French in Indochina and the British at the end of the Ottoman empire, we have not learned the lessons of history and must be prepared to pay the price.

The damage has already been done and can not be undone, regardless of how hard Bush tries. These are consequences of this immoral and illegal war. Time for Bush and his 29 per cent to take responsibility for their collective stupidity.

There will be no happy Hollywood ending. We can delay the inevitable but at what cost?

Time to bring the troops home.