Mikaela says:
Not sure what to think about the President's strategy to escalate the war in Iraq? Not sure what to make of his raid on an Iranian office in an Iraq town, his capture of personnel and computers? His movement of aircraft carriers into the region?
Many are speculating that we consumers are experiencing the classic bait and switch. Think we're going in to stop weapons of mass destruction in Iraq under Saddam Hussein? Okay, we'll bite. Then we get there, depose the dictator we put in power, then switch our rhetoric to spreading freedom and democracy. When that doesn't work, we pull the biggest magic trick of them all -- keeping us focused on Iraq while with sleight of hand, we pull a gun (or airforce carrier, take your pick) on Iran. I'm sure Iran will then cover our invasion of Syria.
Think this is all hyperbole? Think the Bush administration can't be that cynical, can't be that messianic, can't be that bloody? Think again. It's coming, people, and we only have 2 years to stop it.
Here's a range of voices on the latest Bush doctrine, courtesy White House Briefing:
Robin Wright and Nancy Trejos:
"While the public focus is on Iraq, the administration is now spending as much time on plans to contain Iran as on a strategy to end Iraq's violence, U.S. officials said."
Dana Milbank:
"'I have to say, Madam Secretary,' a seething Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) told Rice, 'that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.'
"'Madam Secretary,' added Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, a moderate Democrat, 'I have supported you and the administration on the war, and I cannot continue to support the administration's position. . . . I have not been told the truth over and over again.'"
Sudarsan Raghavan writes in The Washington Post that Baghdad-based Spec. Daniel Caldwell "echoed a sentiment shared by many in his squad:
'They're kicking a dead horse here. The Iraqi army can't stand up on their own.'"
Carter administration national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski outlines five flaws in Bush's plan, in a Washington Post op-ed. Among them:
"The decision to escalate the level of the U.S. military involvement while imposing 'benchmarks' on the 'sovereign' Iraqi regime, and to emphasize the external threat posed by Syria and Iran, leaves the administration with two options once it becomes clear -- as it almost certainly will -- that the benchmarks are not being met. One option is to adopt the policy of 'blame and run': i.e., to withdraw because the Iraqi government failed to deliver. That would not provide a remedy for the dubious 'falling dominoes' scenario, which the president so often has outlined as the inevitable, horrific consequence of U.S. withdrawal. The other alternative, perhaps already lurking in the back of Bush's mind, is to widen the conflict by taking military action against Syria or Iran. It is a safe bet that some of the neocons around the president and outside the White House will be pushing for that. Others, such as Sen. Joseph Lieberman, may also favor it."
The Financial Times editorial board writes:
"It may be one last heave. It may be a cover for US withdrawal. . . . [T]his policy will not succeed in fixing an Iraq traumatised by tyranny and war and then broken by invasion and occupation. But it may end with the US 'surging' into Iran -- and taking the Middle East to a new level of mayhem that will spill into nearby regions and western capitals."
Eugene Robinson, writing in his Washington Post opinion column, worries that Bush is trying to change the subject to Iran.
"As cynical as I am about this administration, it's hard for me to imagine that at this point, with all the push-back he's getting from Congress and the public about escalating American involvement in Iraq, George W. Bush would even think about launching a new military adventure in Iran. But you have to worry about a president who talks so much about the judgment of history and who has such a Manichaean view of the world."
Keith Olberman has another 'special comment' on MSNBC:
"Only this president, only in this time, only with this dangerous, even messianic certitude, could answer a country demanding an exit strategy from Iraq, by offering an entrance strategy for Iran."Jay Leno, via US News:
"It was nothing but reruns on TV last night. But enough about President Bush's speech......
"Actually, the good news last night, President Bush finally admitted he made some mistakes in Iraq. The bad news, he's planning on making the same mistakes again."
|