This Story is Archived
Delusions of Victory »
Posted by: Spadecaller 1 year, 9 months agoHaving rejected the ISG, Bush is now embracing the manifesto of a rump group of neocons for the escalation of the Iraq war. This rump group of neocons is the battered remnant left of the phalanx that once conjured up grandiose visions of conquest and blowtorched ideological ground for Bush.
Read Full Story at commentisfree.guardian.co.uk »
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 28
-
Tango57
Dec. 21, 2006, 9:45 a.m.Excerpt from article, sums it up.
"According to Carl von Clausewitz, war is the most uncertain of human enterprises, difficult to understand, hardest to control and demanding the highest degree of adaptability. It was Clausewitz who first applied the metaphor of "fog" to war. In his classic work, On War, he warned, "We only wish to represent things as they are, and to expose the error of believing that a mere bravo without intellect can make himself distinguished in war."
-
TemplarScribe
Dec. 21, 2006, 12:16 p.m."Now, his (Powell's) reputation in tatters, he is trying to restore himself as a member of his original team and speaking for the unanimous opposition to Bush's new plans from the Joint Chiefs of Staff of which he was once chairman."
Wow. So, every member of the JCS thinks this is a bad idea (magically increasing troop/combat strength), but somehow, the Pres knows better? As if!
Read this article, people, especially those of you who feel some unexplained loyalty to this admin. It explains just how out of touch this pres is, and how much more trouble he aims to get us in.
-
-
Spadecaller
Dec. 21, 2006, 9:46 a.m.Recently we have witnessed an alarming increase in the rhetoric from the White House and from Downing Street in the UK.
Both Bush and Blair see Iran as the main obstacle to peace in the region. What does the escalation of the Iraq war actually mean?
They are planning to attack Iran. This will be another disaster of even greater proportion.
-
Amazing1
Dec. 21, 2006, 10:24 a.m.The man who currently occupies the Oval Office is surely not rational. He needs to be impeached before he does further harm. He is a danger to our country. Our only hope is that he melt down into his madness and must resign.
Our country has never really faced the possibility of what happens when the sanity of a President is in question. I believe we are facing that situation now and that our Congress had better start looking at options to have him locked up for his own safety. There is no way a rational person can truly believe that he is doing the right thing by not only continuing but in fact escalating this war.
He must be stopped. ASAP. For indeed, he will attack Iran. I can only hope that there are cooler heads that prevail in the Pentagon. It is their civic duty to refuse to obey the orders of a madman.
-
TemplarScribe
Dec. 21, 2006, 11:49 a.m.** Our country has never really faced the possibility of what happens when the sanity of a President is in question.**
Actually, during the last days of the Nixon presidency, he had taken to drinking and talking to the portraits of the past occupiers. The Secret Service was instructed to keep him away from the Football, the nuclear launch codes, just in case.
And when Wilson suffered his stroke, it appears that his wife and advisors carried on without the rest of the country being informed. Different reason, similar removal of control.
I don't think Bush is all that irrational. He's clearly being misled by Cheney and Rove (among others), and has become more adept at lying and not twitching. I bet he keeps his position right down to the end.
My guess is, AFTER he leaves office, and he has no media to spar with nor advisors to tell him how important he is, THEN his breakdown will hit him.
-
-
bubba2
Dec. 21, 2006, 10:27 a.m.They could care less about 'peace' in the region. They do NOT care how many people have already died or have been maimed or crippled by injury or by radiation (DU). They do not care how many MORE people die or suffer. They only care that their agenda is fulfulled.
They want CONTROL of the Middle East and of its OIL. That is the agenda - along with 'globalization' - of the "project for a new American century" and of other neo-cons.
-
spkguy
Dec. 21, 2006, 4:47 p.m.bubba, do you remember this?
Journalist: U.S. planning for possible attack on Iran
Monday, January 17, 2005
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has been carrying out secret reconnaissance missions to learn about nuclear, chemical and missile sites in Iran in preparation for possible airstrikes there, journalist Seymour Hersh said Sunday.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/16/hers
-
-
FrankieT
Dec. 21, 2006, 10:31 a.m.To all of the above. In total agreement.
My only hope is that when the changeover occurs in the House and Senate, some sensible actions occur to stop any careless invasion of Iran dead in its tracks. They are only the same ones that lead us into Iraq.
ciao
-
lfergie812
Dec. 22, 2006, 12:44 a.m.I think that Bush has wore out his power over congress even with the republican moderates so any attempt to escalate the war to Iran could be met with strong resistance. This congress now knows that he cannot be trusted to present the true intelligence report to them and will question he motive to use force on Iran. His option would be to use extra troops to patrol the borders or the outskirts of Baghdad and confront the insurgent there before they get into the city.
-
-
Spadecaller
Dec. 21, 2006, 10:43 a.m.Bush had made it quite clear that he would not be leaving Iraq during his time in office. He is keeping his promise.
The meglomaniac smiles when he he talks of death and destruction. With the tragic news of 9-11, he continued talking to the school kids as if nothing of great import had occurred. He flew over Katrina while people were drowning in the flood waters caring little about coming to their rescue.
As Amazing1 aptly stated, "the man who currently occupies the Oval Office is surely not rational."
To allow him to remain in office will be the worst mistake this country has made since Vietnam. He will sacrifice anyone to achieve his insane vision of power and control. He does not see the blood on his hands, but it's there.
Before the war spreads to Iran, we better find a way of sending him away from Washington forever.
-
summer6975
Dec. 21, 2006, 11:18 a.m.we cant win. its not possible. they will contenue to fight us until the last iraqi dies. we wont win. and if we attack iran we will be destroyed.
-
ETproductions
Dec. 22, 2006, 1:31 a.m.Oh, we could win. We could withdraw all our people then drop some of what GWB prefers to call nucular weapons on Iraq and kill every living thing there. But short of doing that, at this point we can't win.
We just need to yet again change the rationale. We went in to destroy the WMDs. Oops, no make that we went in to bring freedom to Iraqis and build a model of Democracy that would transform the entire Middle East. Oops, not really. We went in to turn Iraq into a placid desert where we could easily extract all of the oil that's rightfully ours anyway.
After all, that last one is closer to the truth than any of that other White House BS.
-
-
getreal1
Dec. 21, 2006, 11:50 a.m.This is the way I see it . We keep our people there as a peace keeping enforcement. Saudi Arabia pipes in their money to gain control of Iraq. The oil barons and big corps keep making more money by gauging their own country while they in turn keep getting rich off of the foreign oil also. We the people can put a dent in their plan by focusing on a different way not to use oil products. To do that we have to get Hemp legalized for use of fuel. That is what Henry Ford ran his first Model-T on. Perhaps It might make it too easy or affordable for the American to live and spend less money. Who knows that might do away with inflation. (Sorry Mr. Rich Man) I'm tired of having a hard life at you at your Pleasure. If We were to start now to take some of these new technologies, Take for an example The magnet Mattress that floats in mid air. Does it need fuel? That Dutchman has the start of something that possibly could bring a little peace on this earth. (continued)
-
Spadecaller
Dec. 21, 2006, 11:30 a.m."Repudiated in the midterm elections, Bush has elevated himself above politics, and repeatedly says, "I am the commander in chief." With the crash of Rove's game plan for using his presidency as an instrument to leverage a permanent Republican majority, Bush is abandoning the role of political leader. He can't disengage militarily from Iraq because that would abolish his identity as a military leader, his default identity and now his only one."
No longer caring about his popularity only makes the rabid dog all the more dangersous.
-
getreal1
Dec. 21, 2006, 12:31 p.m.We cannot do any thing about Bush till we get him Impeached. Once we start to show the other oil nations that we don't need their oil they will have to focus of other ways of lively hood. We cannot pull out of Iraq. Our staying is prolonging an end just like Viet Nam. I get the feeling that there is more that is not being told to the American people about his reasons for staying in Iraq. Did he not tell the World during one of his elections that "You are looking at one of the next New World leaders." That was on a news Cast. That said ego trip to me. Greed and Religion has always been a major instigator for War.
-
Spadecaller
Dec. 21, 2006, 1:55 p.m.As so aptly put by TemplarScribe on this thread:
"Read this article, people, especially those of you who feel some unexplained loyalty to this admin. It explains just how out of touch this pres is, and how much more trouble he aims to get us in."
Remember: our voices can be heard. The best way to take the pulse of our nation is from blog sites.
-
spkguy
Dec. 21, 2006, 4:51 p.m.How about a perspective from Berlin...
Bush Flirts with Reality
President Bush has conceded that the US is not winning the war in Iraq. His reponse? Send in more troops to finish a job few believe can be done militarily.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,455961,
-
Spadecaller
Dec. 21, 2006, 5:22 p.m.Thanks for that link, spkguy,
The one part of the story that keeps getting left out out is when Bush says he admits "we are not winning", it is always followed by "but we are not losing either."
The other aspect that most of the news media and even the foreign articles frequently overlook is that 'victory' for Bush and Cheny and their corporate syndicate has nothing to do with Iraqi democracy.
Oh yes, they would 'prefer' less violence and especially the coverage of it in the news, but their real objective is just to remain at war.
"Not winning and not losing" made a lot of people rich during the Vietnam era and it is doing that again.
They are not as stupid as they appear to be. But, they are more corrupt than they appear.
Just follow the money to Halliburton and the Carlyle Group, which has been brokering all the defense contractors.
War and Oil = big money!
-
JoseMadre
Dec. 21, 2006, 7:05 p.m.We already won. In years past this would be a dream scenario. Saddam is gone. Iraq cannot become a military threat for a generation at least. The factions are fighting each other. What is to be gained by letting more troops die?
-
rathskeller
Dec. 21, 2006, 11:50 p.m.Exactly...Spadecaller...Dad always told me "follow the money" for accuracy and insight into politics - or as Frank Zappa aptly named - the "entertainment branch of industry".
-
ind06
Dec. 22, 2006, 6:17 a.m.I had problems with some of the conclusions of the ISG, but even they said that they didn't expect all of their recommendations to be followed.
Now, military action against Iran looms (and the behavior of Iran's president makes such action more and more likely. I previously thought of Traq as a failure caused by poor planning. Now I see the whole misadventure developing into a general destabalization of the entire region.
-
23kappy
Dec. 22, 2006, 8:10 a.m.So, a couple of questions. Is it possible for Bush to get into Iran before the new congressional take over. Some sort of "event" or something. Also, do they need to get congressional approval if they declare Iran the new front in Iraq. If they claim that Iran is making it impossible to fight in Iraq, does Bush have to go back to congress to divert the troops? There seems to be a never ending justification process that this admin is willing to shove down our throats. It is scary to think what sort of trouble we could find ourselves in.
-
Spadecaller
Dec. 22, 2006, 1:23 p.m.They are working on that presently. Bringing the navy into position, so that we can feign an enemy stike against us. That usually rallys some immediate support. The same way former President Lyndon B. Johnson was duped -- as a result of the 'alleged' Gulf of Tonkin incident, which LBJ later admitted, "we could have been shooting at whales out there for all I know."
The business of going to war requires good script writers, screen directors, and marketing experts.
-
-
getreal1
Dec. 25, 2006, 9:08 a.m.When we invaded Iran. The terror groups were able to become more rampant. They got stronger because the people under Saddam lost a lot. What would you do if your country was invaded and the good comfortable life you once had was gone? Now here comes promise from some a stranger that if you join their cause you can get that back. These people have become victims of their own making. to invade Iran is to give the enemy more victims to use.
All 28 comments are shown.
Got a Story?
