www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_09/004635.php
This isn't up yet, but it appears that Time magazine is planning to run a story tonight about the Bush administration's plans for a second term. Here's the press release they emailed: During a private Aug. A Pentagon spokesman declined to release a transcript of the call, saying Luti was stating "well-established official policy," not advocating pre-emptive strikes. They would presumably include measures like supporting opposition groups in suspect states, Time reports. Luti, of course, was largely responsible for the worst of the bad intelligence that supported the Iraq war, so he's in a perfect position to gin up more intelligence to back up whatever war he and the Bush team think we ought to fight next. For all their comforting talk about "other policy options," the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/etc. axis has a long history of advocating military action as the first and best option for dealing with countries they think pose some kind of threat, and they haven't given the slightest indication that our problems in Iraq have caused them to rethink the limits of military power to accomplish their goals. They are every bit the true believers today that they were two years ago. In other words, anyone who thinks they won't find excuses for further military action in a second term just isn't paying attention. A vote for Bush is a vote for more wars, and with this crew in charge it's unlikely they'll turn out any better than Iraq has.
That's a pretty good question, but while it's true that there are no troops available for the next 12-18 months, it's quite possible that some will indeed be available after that. And it wouldn't take a big terrorist attack to convince the American public that we need to occupy, say, Syria. What it would take is some alarming intel about Syria's intention to use WMD I'd say that Bill Luti is in a pretty good position to supply that. Bush's whole appeal is based on his military toughness, so if he's not planning to use military action in his second term, what's the point of voting for him? It's not like anyone thinks he's a brilliant diplomat or anything.
Comments (131) Comments the premise of the republican convention was that anyone who doesn't support george bush on national security is a girlie-man who is afraid of wars to protect america. or as our buddy joe schmoe often notes, he doesn't really care if the war accomplishrs anything as long as we're attacking.
PERMALINK This is genuinely the worst, rockbottom thing about Bush & Co. I disagree with them politically on practically everything you can think of - but the same would almost certainly be true of McCain, if there were a McCain administration. But what's worst about Bush & Co is that they are not even competent. They are dishonest - and only the fact that the media is on their side saves them from their lies. They are traitorous - and only the fact that the media is on their side saves them from an outcry demanding their impeachment. They are profit-mongers who cannot run a company successfully. They are imperialists: and they have gone from Afghanistan to Iraq, in each case leaving a country worse than before they attacked it. A conservative may agree with Bush on all the issues (or rather, may believe that Bush agrees with him: as Teresa Nielsen Hayden says, "just because you're on their side doesn't mean they're on your side") but only pure blindness could convince the most committed conservative that Bush is fit to be trusted with the governance of a country. And this is what I mean when I said we don't have to, and we shouldn't, stoop to their level. The truth about Bush is bad enough: it's the Bush supporters who have to stoop to lies and slander, to betrayal of their country, to try and win.
PERMALINK The only thing that will save us from this band of arrogant thugs is the fact that they have squandered our military resouces and spread them too thin. OTOH, if they can somehow get our troops out of Iraq, I think it is certain they will deploy them to another war of whim.
PERMALINK Bush got burned once by faulty intelligence... they KNEW they had bad intel and they went ahead anyway. In other words, they leaned on the CIA to give them shakey info, relied on planted forgeries (Niger/Italy), and kept repeating the same old tired lies, demonizing and ruthlessly attacking anyone who disagreed with them. To turn that behavior around into "Bush got burned" is so appallingly delusional that I can only assume you know it is false, since anyone who is smart enough to operate a computer and find their way to Kevin's blog can't believe it. If you do believe that to be true, then I feel sorry for your kids, since they have a fool for a parent and a willingly deluded one at that.
PERMALINK Although I wouldn't put anything past this bunch, Georgie Ann Geyer suggest that Syria, Iran are next. They just don't have the manpower to conduct more conflicts.
PERMALINK It's indeed true that we can expect only uglier shit coming down the pike if Bush is re-elected. Bush pushed for his horrible agenda even though he had perhaps the weakest mandate in American history. What will he feel empowered to do if, in the face of all his failures, the American people back him up? How can he possibly feel there's going to be ANY political downside to more of the same, and even worse of the same? This is especially true since, given his delusional views of his own near infallibility, he will certainly feel he could not possibly fail this go around.
PERMALINK People may be willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iraq... But I highly doubt they'll just slop up the party line about Iran/Syria/wherever is next on the neocon hit list. I expect the media to be a lot sharper this time around and Bush will have to present an indisputable casus belli to overcome residual doubts. Lastly, in order to have the troops we'd need to reinstitute a draft, and I really think the US public will lose its appetite for wars if they're forced to actually go out and fight them.
PERMALINK The Newsweek article Reg refers to sounds like disinformation - more of the same we saw when token GOP moderates were put on show last week. Do you _really_ believe they have any influence on policy? Bush sees things in black & white and has the patience of a two-year-old. Does anyone seriously believe he'll be a great statesman in a second term? Will he suddenly believe God is telling him to be moderate, understanding and nuanced? Will he suddenly start seeking out multiple points of view and learn to avoid groupthink?
PERMALINK With this administration, it is very difficult to figure out what information is real and what is simply rhetoric designated for one group or another. Did the administration allow this to be leaked to make the hard right hawks happy? but I sure as hell don't take *anything* I hear from *anybody* inside the administration at face value.
These are people who irrationally resist and deny information that does not comport with their current view. For example, hardcore Bush supporters either cannot accept or do not care that Bush was wrong about the precepts for the war in Iraq. But, people who do not suffer (badly) from information wimpiness need to realize that the most efficient use of energy is probably not to try to change or appeal to the information wimps in an adult fashion by insisting that they take a look at what appears to be valid information. A more efficient use of energy, at this point, is to motivate like-minded adults to vote and contribute to getting out the vote. The information wimps WILL make the same mistakes again if re-elected.
These are people who irrationally resist and deny information that does not comport with their current view. For example, hardcore Bush supporters either cannot accept or do not care that Bush was wrong about the precepts for the war in Iraq. But, people who do not suffer (badly) from information wimpiness need to realize that the most efficient use of energy is probably not to try to change or appeal to the information wimps in an adult fashion by insisting that they take a look at what appears to be valid information. A more efficient use of e...
|
http://csua.com/feed/