Ordinarily, the world would welcome a Bush-Maliki pact affirming an end to the UN mandate permitting troops in Iraq. But Maliki wields little actual influence, and everyone knows that the Iraqis won't stand for any "declaration of principles" which allows the United States to maintain bases in Iraq and 50,000 troops inside the country.
Here are the points that popped out at me:
1. The deal gives the U.S. "preferential treatment" in Iraq's business dealings, meaning we get a huge chunk of the oil profits. To put the matter in even cruder terms, Iraq has been mugged: "Take the wallet -- just stop hitting me!" This turn of events gives the lie to anyone who argues that oil theft did not motivate the war.
2. Why does the Maliki government want so many American troops to remain? The closest parallel that comes to mind involves the aftermath of the 1870 Franco-Prussian war, when the defeated French asked the Teutonic invaders to come back in order to take care of the Communards.
3. Hillary Clinton opposes permanent bases in Iraq. She will nevertheless be damned by progressives as a war-for-oil hawk. At this point, progressive maniacs will always see her as Bush II and the Jesus maniacs will always see her as an estrogen-ized version of Lenin. Nothing the woman actually says can sway either view.
4. The pact places the American Congress in an impossible position. If it rejects the deal, most Americans will view Congress as an obstacle to peace. If Congress accepts the deal, a large faction of the Democratic Party will damn Democratic congressfolk as Bush appeasers.
Progressives seem to be under the impression that the nation is united on the topic of an immediate troop pull-out. In fact, a healthy 41 percent of Americans want troops to remain in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, and an even healthier 54% want the troops home ASAP. (Since people lie to themselves all the time, you can bet that, if American troops leave and bloody chaos results, a large chunk of that 54% will pretend they never thought that way.) If you scroll down to last month's CBS poll, you'll see that only 45% want a troop withdrawal in less than a year. The country wants this mess done with, but they remain evenly divided on the fast-vs-slow issue.
Given this division, I think the Bush plan will sound like an attractive compromise to most Americans. Mind you, it doesn't sound at all attractive to me: I think we should listen to the roughly two-thirds of the Iraqi population who want us out of their country now, and damn the consequences. But the question is whether Bush can sell this pact to the American public. I think he can. If Bush can convince the public, Congress will have no choice but to go along -- which will lead to further fracturing of the Democratic party.
History, give me rewrite! Karl Rove says that Congress forced Bush into invading Iraq, even though Bush didn't want to. As though Bush did not lobby non-stop for passage of the Iraq war resolution. As though he had not prevaricated during the State of the Union address. As though the administration had not played up fake documents. As though the Bushies never relied on fibs told by Curveball and the OSP. As though the Downing Street memo were imaginary. As though Saddam had not allowed the weapons inspectors complete freedom. As though Bush had not falsely stated that the inspections were being impeded.
I predict that not only will progressives find ways to agree with Rove's outrageous falsification, they will rewrite history even further: A Democratic Congress forced Bush to invade. Yes, it's true -- the Dems controlled Congress from 2000 onward. If Wikipedia says otherwise -- well, you can't trust Wikipedia, can you?
Remember, to be a true progressive, you have to follow one simple rule: If anything bad ever happened anywhere, blame the Dems!
2 comments:
Rove didn't say or imply what you and Chaz Rose's commenters say Rove said about Congress's 2002 vote. He said Congress voted in its own self-interest because the members had to face their voters in less than a month, and that Bush ('s Brain) probably wanted the election to revolve on other issues. Rose forgot to ask if Rove thought that Congress had been coerced into voting for authorization under the quid pro quo agreement that the anthrax envelopes would stop coming.
I forgot to configure my software to flag and count how many times Rove said 'Eye-rack' and 'Eye-rackie', but it's close to a thousand, 990 of them gratuitous but purposeful. It's vicious, xenophobic code, like the way George Wallace enunciated 'BUSSin', and the way LBJ said 'niGROWS' (after his handlers trained him to stop saying 'nigras' -- hey! how come Bob Fosse didn't include that riotous bit in his version of "Lenny"?)
Rose sucks. Why wouldn't he ask Rove why he pronounces Iraq that way, and if he realizes how insulting it is to Iraqis and Arabs? How does Rudy say 'Iraq'? Doesn't he say 'Eye-rack' also? You'd expect better from a person of Italian heritage.
Is anyone interested in attending a lecture, which never mentions Orwell or Chomsky, about how Big Media affects our language? The subjects for the lecture will be the TV moments when 'HARiss' became 'haRASS' (in 1968), and has been the 'preferred' pronunciation since; and when Peter Jennings changed 'negotiate' and 'negotiations' from their once-unique pronunciations as 'negOWE-she-ate'/'negOWE-she-aish'ns' to the now-prevailing 'neGO-sea-ate'/'neGO-sea-ai-sins (sometimes sh'ns)'. The shame thing has been happening to 'Sosill Security'. The lecture will conclude with the Impalas reviving their 1959 hit song, "Sari, Iran All the Way Home".
I get the impression you're a bit of a Hillary supporter. Hillary can say she wants no permanent bases, but she keep voting to fund Bush's war plans. You seem to think liberals who don't like Hillary are irrational, but a look at her actions, not words, will tell you why too often right about her.
Post a Comment