President George W. Bush ordered AS A MATTER OF CHOICE the U.S. military invasion and occupation of Iraq. We cannot win because all the reasons Bush gave for going to war were wrong or gone. There were no WMD. Now Saddam Hussein and his two evil sons are dead. Regime change has been effected in Iraq.
So why is the demand for "victory" still coming from George W. Bush's mouth? If our goal was liberation and not domination, why can't the United States declare "job done" and leave Iraq? Iraq has a constitution and has held elections.
It is worth noting that now both Sunnis and Shi'ites are angry with the United States. Sunnis are angry over the U.S. role in the "lynching" of Saddam Hussein. Shi'ites feel betrayed by the the U.S. because we have not allowed them to take over Iraq (see second link below).
George W. Bush blames everyone but his flawed decision to go to war in Iraq for the failure of the U.S. to win "victory" in Iraq. Bush blames Iraqis, Bush blamed his Secretary of Defense, and now Bush is blaming his "top commanders" including Gen. George Casey (see NY Times article below). It is time for the blame gaming and the buck passing to stop. George W. Bush and no one else is ultimately responsible for the ungoing U.S. FIASCO in Iraq.
George W. Bush is President. George W. Bush is Commander-in-Chief. George W. Bush, against expert advice, ordered the U.S. to wage war on Iraq. George W. Bush refuses to heed expert policitical advice from the Iraq Study Group. George W. Bush refuses to heed expert military advice from the Joint Chief of Staff.
Instead the neocon American Enterprise Institute is formulating military policy. Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush will order a "SURGE AND SUSTAIN" ESCALATION of his failed war. George W. Bush has nobody but himself to blame. When will Americans unite against our arrogant and reckless President who blames everyone but himself? Say, NO, to George W. Bush!
Bushco blames others:
Chaos Overran Iraq Plan in ’06, Bush Team Says
quote:For Iraq's Shiites, a Dream Deferred Breeds Mistrust of U.S. By Sudarsan Raghavan - Washington Post Foreign Service - Tuesday, January 2, 2007; Page A01
January 2, 2007
By DAVID E. SANGER, MICHAEL R. GORDON and JOHN F. BURNS
The New York Times
WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 — President Bush began 2006 assuring the country that he had a “strategy for victory in Iraq.” He ended the year closeted with his war cabinet on his ranch trying to devise a new strategy, because the existing one had collapsed.
The original plan, championed by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top commander in Baghdad, and backed by Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, called for turning over responsibility for security to the Iraqis, shrinking the number of American bases and beginning the gradual withdrawal of American troops. But the plan collided with Iraq’s ferocious unraveling, which took most of Mr. Bush’s war council by surprise.
In interviews in Washington and Baghdad, senior officials said the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department had also failed to take seriously warnings, including some from its own ambassador in Baghdad, that sectarian violence could rip the country apart and turn Mr. Bush’s promise to “clear, hold and build” Iraqi neighborhoods and towns into an empty slogan.
This left the president and his advisers constantly lagging a step or two behind events on the ground.
“We could not clear and hold,” Stephen J. Hadley, the president’s national security adviser, acknowledged in a recent interview, in a frank admission of how American strategy had crumbled. “Iraqi forces were not able to hold neighborhoods, and the effort to build did not show up. The sectarian violence continued to mount, so we did not make the progress on security we had hoped. We did not bring the moderate Sunnis off the fence, as we had hoped. The Shia lost patience, and began to see the militias as their protectors.”
Over the past 12 months, as optimism collided with reality, Mr. Bush increasingly found himself uneasy with General Casey’s strategy. And now, as the image of Saddam Hussein at the gallows recedes, Mr. Bush seems all but certain not only to reverse the strategy that General Casey championed, but also to accelerate the general’s departure from Iraq, according to senior military officials.
General Casey repeatedly argued that his plan offered the best prospect for reducing the perception that the United States remained an occupier — and it was a path he thought matched Mr. Bush’s wishes. Earlier in the year, it had.
But as Baghdad spun further out of control, some of the president’s advisers now say, Mr. Bush grew concerned that General Casey, among others, had become more fixated on withdrawal than victory.
Now, having ousted Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Bush sees a chance to bring in a new commander as he announces a new strategy, senior military officials say. General Casey was scheduled to shift out of Iraq in the summer. But now it appears that it may happen in February or March.
~~~snip~~~
--------------------
Faire l'amour, pas la guerre
Make love not war
No comments:
Post a Comment