1 Boring Old Man

More Realism, Less Spin

A new report from Congress’s investigative arm provides a powerful fresh dose of nonpartisan realism about Iraq as President Bush tries to spin people into thinking that significant — or at least sufficient — progress is being made. With a crucial debate on Iraq set for next month, the report should be read by members of Congress who may be wavering in the fight with the White House over withdrawing American troops.

The Government Accountability Office, in a draft assessment reported yesterday, determined that Iraq has failed to meet 15 out of 18 benchmarks for political and military progress mandated by Congress. Laws on constitutional reform, oil and permitting former Baathists back into the government have not been enacted. Among other failings, there has been unsatisfactory progress toward deploying three Iraqi brigades in Baghdad and reducing the level of sectarian violence.

These conclusions are in line with a recent National Intelligence Estimate that found that violence in Iraq remained high, terrorists could still mount formidable attacks and the country’s leaders “remain unable to govern effectively.”

Mr. Bush earlier this year ordered a massive buildup of American troops in Iraq in a desperate attempt to salvage his failed strategy and stave off Congressional moves to bring the forces home. Despite the cost of more American lives, he argued that he was buying a period of relative calm for Iraqi politicians to achieve national reconciliation.

The top American officials in Iraq, Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, are to present their assessments on how calm things are at eagerly awaited Congressional hearings in mid-September. Their findings, and a White House report due Sept. 15, are seen as a potential trigger for a change in Iraq strategy.

Two things, however, are already clear. Iraq’s leaders have neither the intention nor the ability to take advantage of calm, relative or otherwise. And a change in strategy seems the farthest thing from Mr. Bush’s mind.

He used the August vacation — when lawmakers were largely laying low at home — to reassert his determination to stay the course. The White House also let it be known that it plans to ask Congress for more money — perhaps another $50 billion — beyond $600 billion already requested to maintain the counteroffensive in Iraq into spring 2008. Some people think the administration will get it.

The White House tried to discredit the ominous G.A.O. assessment by saying the standards set by Congressional investigators were too high. It may be unrealistic to expect that Iraq’s weak and dysfunctional government could meet all the targets by September, but a serious, conscientious effort across the board was needed, and would be apparent to all.

Mr. Bush has invoked Vietnam to argue against leaving Iraq. That argument is specious, but there is a chilling similarity between the two American foreign policy disasters. In Vietnam, as in Iraq, American presidents and military leaders went to great lengths to pretend that victory was at hand when nothing could be farther from the truth.

In 2002, this paper publisher a number articles by Judith Miller that were untrue and fanned the flames of war in Iraq. We deeply regret our participation in this debacle. We were a part of the ‘spin’ back then and we are sorry. The Bush Administration has fooled too many of us for too long. Their attempts to say that the Surge is doing anything positive are shameful. The Iraq War itself is shameful. It’s time to stand up to these bullies and say ‘No!’

Bush Gets Mounting Reports of Iraq Woes

President Bush huddled with top military leaders about the Iraq war Friday, and Pentagon officials defended efforts to rid the Iraqi national police of sectarian bias and corruption, even as an independent review found the force too tainted to continue.

In an hour and a half meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in a secure Pentagon room dubbed ”the Tank,” Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney heard from leaders of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, who are worried about strains that are building on the forces — and on troops’ families — as a result of lengthy and repeated tours in Iraq.

Bush did not speak in person after the meeting, but he issued a statement saying he is committed to giving the military ”all it needs to meet the challenges of this new century.” He also asked lawmakers to reserve judgment about the best next move in Iraq until a report in two weeks from the U.S.’s top general and top diplomat there.

"The stakes in Iraq are too high and the consequences too grave for our security here at home to allow politics to harm the mission of our men and women in uniform,” the president said in the statement. ”It is my hope that we can put partisanship and politics behind us and commit to a common vision that will provide our troops what they need to succeed and secure our vital national interests in Iraq and around the world."

Can Anyone Stop Bush/Cheney’s War Against Iran?

I think Glenn Greenwald is right that the Bush/Cheney regime is about to start an aggressive war against Iran. And I agree that the Democrats have foolishly paved the way for this to happen.

We can’t say we weren’t warned. They’ve been telling us for years they want regime change in Iran. They’ve told us that Iran poses a nuclear threat in the Middle East. They’ve told us over and over that it is not acceptable to allow Iran’s government to have its own nuclear program. They have put out one provocative and often exaggerated story after another about Iran’s nuclear intentions or its capabilities, while ignoring or stepping all over stories from the International Atomic Energy Agency that countered their propaganda or described Iran’s efforts to be cooperative. They’ve told us that they would not rule out military strikes against Iran while they’ve dragged their feet when pursuing any of the half-hearted efforts at a diplomatic/negotiated alternative to war. And they’ve told us it is not acceptable to leave this decision to the next Administration.

In the last few weeks, they’ve ratcheted up the inflammatory rhetoric against Iran. Dick Cheney was recently quoted as saying that military strikes against Iran are warranted. Bush has been telling our military in Iraq to pursue Iranians inside Iraq, so our military leaders have been dutifully rounding up Iranians, even diplomatic guests invited by the Iraqi government. This week they arrested Iranian energy officials who had been invited to help restore Iraq’s electricity system. One provocation after another. Now every rumor of war must be taken seriously.

Now Bush has described the Iranian regime as posing the threat of a “nuclear holocaust.” Not just a “mushroom cloud.” This time, it’s a nuclear holocaust — terms reserved for the most heinous of crimes and the most despicable of enemies. No sane government engages in such inflammatory rhetoric. But where is the dissent? Where is the outcry?

You know, I don’t know what to do either. The only thing I can think of is shut down any funding for anything. The only other thing is for Nancy Pelosi to put a double impeachment back on the table, yesterday. And the problem is that it wouldn’t stop them in time nor would the Senate convict them. Our President and Vice President are crazy. The American people elected [and reelected] crazy people – and this is what happens when you have crazy leaders.

Should we have known that they were crazy beforehand? We did, but people voted their agendae, not for the persons. For all we know, it could happen again in 2008. But for the moment, the only thing that I can see that can save us would be a Republican Revolt against the Administration. The Democrats are just not powerful enough to stop them. Sad but true. Is such a thing possible? While I doubt it [like all of the rest of you], I hold out hope that one more exposed scandal might do the trick. Not some goofy bathroom stall, wide stance, embarassment. Something big – similar to Comey’s revelation about the hospital visit to badger Ashcroft, or one really credible whistle blower.

Hope springs eternal…

Gonzales’ testimony undergoing scrutiny

---

^{The Justice Department’s inspector general says he is looking into whether the outgoing attorney general was candid during congressional hearings.}

---

The Justice Department’s inspector general acknowledged Thursday that he was examining whether outgoing Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales made false or misleading statements to Congress about the National Security Agency’s terrorist surveillance program, the fired U.S. attorneys affair and other subjects.

Responding to a congressional query, Inspector General Glenn A. Fine said his office was investigating Gonzales’ conduct as part of several ongoing probes into the activities of department lawyers on Gonzales’ watch. Though it had long been assumed that the statements Gonzales had made would be part of those inquiries, it was the first public confirmation by the department’s internal watchdog.

"You identified five issues and asked that we investigate whether the statements made by the attorney general were intentionally false, misleading or inappropriate," Fine wrote in a letter to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.). "The OIG has ongoing investigations that relate to most of the subjects addressed by the attorney general’s testimony that you identified."

…

Gonzales also has come under attack for telling members of Congress that there was little dissent within the Bush administration about the legality of a warrantless electronic surveillance program that was launched by the NSA after the Sept. 11 attacks.

But that appeared to be contradicted in testimony by a former deputy attorney general, who said several top Justice officials at one point threatened to resign over a disagreement with the White House.

Without identifying the program, James B. Comey testified that he and other Justice officials were very concerned about its legality, which led to an unusual hospital-room standoff in 2004 between Gonzales and then-Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft. Comey, acting for Ashcroft, had refused to approve the program; Gonzales, then the White House counsel, tried to persuade the bedridden Ashcroft to countermand Comey, although Ashcroft refused.

In July, Gonzales’ testimony was further undercut by FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, who told the House Judiciary Committee that he had had serious reservations about the wiretapping program.

In an Aug. 16 letter, Leahy asked Fine to assess other statements by Gonzales, including testimony that he had not talked with other Justice employees about the ongoing U.S. attorney probe because he did not want to be perceived as trying to influence the investigation. A former top aide who was involved in the firings, Monica M. Goodling, subsequently testified that Gonzales had tried to engage her in a discussion about the series of events leading to the dismissal of the prosecutors and that the approach had made her "uncomfortable."

Gonzales has said that he misspoke when he told reporters that he was not involved in selecting U.S. attorneys to be fired. He has stood by his testimony that there was no internal dissent over the anti-terrorism program — but acknowledged there was dissent with other intelligence activities that remain classified. Gonzales has also denied trying to influence the testimony of Goodling, saying he was only attempting to reassure a distraught employee that she had done nothing wrong.

So far, Leahy, Schumer, Waxman, Conyers, and their committees have been extremely successful. They’ve run off Harriet Miers, Sara Taylor, Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales, and most of the rest of Bush’s corrupt DOJ. The block now is in the fact that there’s no Attorney General, and little likelihood that there will be an effective Attorney General between now and January 2009. If there’s a case in all of this to pursue, I’m not sure these guys are the one to go after. I’m for going after Karl Rove and the missing emails. I’m for going after the records Bush and Cheney are hiding behind the Executive Privilege firewall.

The Bush Administration is unquestionably corrupt and many different levels and that needs exposing. The question to me is, "where are they vulnerable?" That is an answerable question. They’re very "short sighted." They’ve react to the problems in front of them without much thought to what’s down the line. So, "uh oh. Joe Wilson wrote an op-ed. Let’s out his wife." or "Comey won’t sign the N.S.A. authorization. Al, go to the hospital and get Ashcroft to sign it." or "We’ve got problem precincts. Let’s prosecute voter fraud and scare them." or "They’re trying to get us out of Iraq. Let’s have a Surge." The examples are endless…

Lawmaker Seeks White House E – Mail Report

A Democratic House leader asked presidential counsel Fred Fielding on Thursday to turn over a report first requested three months ago about the White House’s problems with lost e-mail.

In a letter to Fielding, Rep. Henry Waxman set a Sept. 10 deadline for the White House to turn over information about the missing e-mail, a problem that apparently was discovered by administration officials in 2005.

The letter from Waxman, D-Calif., revealed new details about the issue that came from two White House lawyers who briefed Waxman’s staff about problems archiving electronic messages. White House e-mail problems first came to light during a special prosecutor’s investigation into whether someone on President Bush’s staff illegally leaked a CIA agent’s identity and again during congressional inquiries into the role of presidential aides in firings of U.S. attorneys.

At a May 29 briefing, Keith Roberts, deputy general counsel for the White House Office of Administration, said a review apparently found that on some days a very small number of e-mails were preserved and that on some days no e-mails were preserved at all, Waxman’s letter stated.

An analysis by the White House Office of the Chief Information Officer summarizing these findings was presented to the White House counsel’s office, said Waxman’s letter, which requested the information by Sept. 10.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said Waxman’s letter is being reviewed and that the administration will respond "expeditiously."

White House Pushes Back on Iraq Report

An independent assessment concluding that Iraq has made little political progress in recent months despite an influx of U.S. troops drew fierce pushback from the White House on Thursday and provided fresh ammunition for Democrats who want to bring troops home.

The political wrangling came days before the report was to be officially released and while most lawmakers were still out of town for the August recess, reflecting the high stakes involved for both sides in the Iraq war debate. President Bush, who planned to meet Friday at the Pentagon with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is nearing a decision on a way forward in Iraq while Congress planned another round of votes this fall to end the war.

Bush in recent public statements has suggested he intends to stick to his Iraq strategy for now, but in his meeting Friday at the Pentagon he is expected to hear some of the Joint Chiefs express deep concern at the long-term impact on the military of maintaining a heavy troop presence in Iraq in 2008 and beyond.

The Army and the Marine Corps have shouldered most of the burden in Iraq, creating strains that service leaders fear could hurt their recruiting as well as their preparedness for other military emergencies. The Joint Chiefs are not, however, expected to urge Bush to withdraw from Iraq entirely as many Democrats want.

"It is clear that every objective expert keeps providing the American public with the same facts: that the president’s flawed Iraq strategy is failing to deliver what it needs to – a political solution for Iraq," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

In a draft report circulated this week, the Government Accountability Office concluded that at least 13 of the 18 political and security goals for the Iraqi government have not been met. Administration officials swiftly objected to several of the findings and dismissed the report as unrealistically harsh because it assigned pass-or-fail grades to each benchmark, with little nuance.

GAO officials briefed congressional staff on their findings behind closed doors, promising the aides an unvarnished assessment of Iraq when an unclassified version of the report is publicly released on Sept. 4.

"The real question that people have is: What’s going on in Iraq? Are we making progress? Militarily, is the surge having an impact?" said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "The answer is yes. There’s no question about it."

…

The Pentagon and State Department provided detailed and lengthy objections to GAO this week in the hopes of swaying the findings.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said Thursday that after reviewing a draft of the GAO report, policy officials "made some factual corrections" and "offered some suggestions on a few of the actual grades" assigned by the GAO.

"We have provided the GAO with information which we believe will lead them to conclude that a few of the benchmark grades should be upgraded from ‘not met’ to ‘met,’" Morrell said. He declined to elaborate or to spell out which of the benchmark grades the Pentagon was disputing.

State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey said the GAO should at least note progress made when ruling that Iraq has failed to meet a specific benchmark…

I thought about them when I read this article. Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell was arguing about some of the finer points in the GAO report – trying to get "upgraded." And this really sounded like the Medical Students, "… the GAO should at least note progress made when ruling that Iraq has failed to meet a specific benchmark." The report is just a piece of paper. Argue with the grader all you want. The GAO "flunked" the Surge. So maybe they’ll argue it up to a D-. What difference does that make? They’re not going to get a passing grade no matter how long they argue.

There’s nothing wrong with the report. The benchmarks aren’t that stringent. The Surge is the flop that it was predicted to be.

Pentagon won’t make surge recommendation to Bush

In a sign that top commanders are divided over what course to pursue in Iraq, the Pentagon said Wednesday that it won’t make a single, unified recommendation to President Bush during next month’s strategy assessment, but instead will allow top commanders to make individual presentations.

"Consensus is not the goal of the process," Geoff Morrell, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters. "If there are differences, the president will hear them."

Military analysts called the move unusual for an institution that ordinarily does not air its differences in public, especially while its troops are deployed in combat.

"The professional military guys are going to the non-professional military guys and saying ‘Resolve this,’" said Jeffrey White, a military analyst for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "That’s what it sounds like."

White said it suggests that the military commanders want to be able to distance themselves from Iraq strategy by making it clear that whatever course is followed is the president’s decision, not what commanders agreed on.

Bush has said on several occasions that he will follow the recommendation of Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, but the Pentagon plan makes certain that other points of view are heard.

Morrell said the commanders will make their presentations to Bush at around the same time that Petraeus appears before Congress to assess progress in Iraq in mid September.

Morrell said that those making presentations to the president would include Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. William Fallon, the commander of U.S. Central Command, which has responsibility for U.S. military actions in the Middle East, Army Gen. George Casey, the chief of staff of the Army, and Petraeus. In addition, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will share his opinion with the president.

As Americans, we are in the unenviable position of having to reach conclusions, knowing that our leadership is "lobbying" for a course of action that appears to everyone except the small group of insiders to be a disaster. The obvious solution is to hire a fresh group of new architects. This isn’t a little question about aesthetics, it’s a structural question about whether the building will fall down.

Report Finds Little Progress On Iraq Goals

GAO Draft at Odds With White House

Iraq has failed to meet all but three of 18 congressionally mandated benchmarks for political and military progress, according to a draft of a Government Accountability Office report. The document questions whether some aspects of a more positive assessment by the White House last month adequately reflected the range of views the GAO found within the administration.

The strikingly negative GAO draft, which will be delivered to Congress in final form on Tuesday, comes as the White House prepares to deliver its own new benchmark report in the second week of September, along with congressional testimony from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. They are expected to describe significant security improvements and offer at least some promise for political reconciliation in Iraq.

The draft provides a stark assessment of the tactical effects of the current U.S.-led counteroffensive to secure Baghdad. "While the Baghdad security plan was intended to reduce sectarian violence, U.S. agencies differ on whether such violence has been reduced," it states. While there have been fewer attacks against U.S. forces, it notes, the number of attacks against Iraqi civilians remains unchanged. It also finds that "the capabilities of Iraqi security forces have not improved."

"Overall," the report concludes, "key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds," as promised. While it makes no policy recommendations, the draft suggests that future administration assessments "would be more useful" if they backed up their judgments with more details and "provided data on broader measures of violence from all relevant U.S. agencies."

We all know what’s happening right now. We’ve been through it all before with the War in Iraq, over and over. Having unseated Saddam Hussein in Iraq, we found ourselves occuppying a country that was an illusion. It’s not a country. It’s a group of warring factions who were only tied together by force, the force we removed. Many of us opposed invading Iraq in the first place, but that’s behind us. We can’t "uninvade." So, for four years, we’ve been placed in a holding pattern trying to create a government that would bring stability to that intrinsically unstable place. It is apparent that we are trying to do something that either cannot be done or, at least, cannot be done by us. At the end of last year, an oversight committee, the Iraq Study Group, concluded that we had a failed policy and proposed a number of ways to extricate ourselves. The architects of this war heeded none of their advice and invented something called "the Surge."

We have any number of signs about what’s going to happen now. The architects agreed to re-evaluate "the Surge" in September, after nine months. Now they are campaigning to have us believe that "the Surge is working." It’s in every speech. They’ve hired an ad agency to sell it. They’ve asked for some huge appropriation to enforce continuing the war. They’ve done everything possible to "cook the books." Their "blind spots" are a matter of public record. And today, some patriot in the Government Accountability Office has leaked the report of our oversight agency – because they know we won’t see it otherwise.

In June, I overreacted and made a poor decision. While I was not involved in any inappropriate conduct at the Minneapolis airport or anywhere else, I chose to plead guilty to a lesser charge in the hope of making it go away. I did not seek any counsel, either from an attorney, staff, friends, or family. That was a mistake, and I deeply regret it. Because of that, I have now retained counsel and I am asking my counsel to review this matter and to advise me on how to proceed.

For a moment, I want to put my state of mind into context on June 11. For 8 months leading up to June, my family and I had been relentlessly and viciously harassed by the Idaho Statesman. If you’ve seen today’s paper, you know why. Let me be clear: I am not gay and never have been.

Still, without a shred of truth or evidence to the contrary, the Statesman has engaged in this witch hunt. In pleading guilty, I overreacted in Minneapolis, because of the stress of the Idaho Statesman’s investigation and the rumors it has fueled around Idaho. Again, that overreaction was a mistake, and I apologize for my misjudgment. Furthermore, I should not have kept this arrest to myself, and should have told my family and friends about it. I wasn’t eager to share this failure, but I should have done so anyway…

Senator Larry Craig

On August 28, 2007 the Idaho Statesman published a series of allegations about Craig’s sexual activities, and his responses to them, that it had withheld until his conviction came to light:

• A college student who was considering pledging at Craig’s fraternity at the University of Idaho in 1967 told a reporter for the Idaho Statesman that Craig led the student to his bedroom and "made what the man said he took to be an invitation to sex." Craig responded: "I don’t hit on any men."
• A gay man told a reporter for the Idaho Statesman that, in November 1994, Craig cruised him at the R.E.I. store in Boise, following him around the store for half an hour. Craig responded: "I’m not gay, and I don’t cruise, and I don’t hit on men. I have no idea how he drew that conclusion. A smile? Here is one thing I do out in public: I make eye contact, I smile at people, they recognize me, they say, ‘Oh, hi, Senator.’ Or, ‘Do I know you?’ I’ve been in this business 27 years in the public eye here. I don’t go around anywhere hitting on men, and by God, if I did, I wouldn’t do it in Boise, Idaho! Jiminy!"
• A professional 40-year-old man with close ties to Republican officials "reported having oral sex with Craig at Washington’s Union Station, probably in 2004." Craig responded: "I am not gay and I have never been in a restroom in Union Station having sex with anybody."

So, first we would have to believe that all of these incidents were false – things that did not happen. Next, being in his words "relentlessly and viciously harassed by the Idaho Statesman" about being Gay, we would have to believe that he was hanging around innocently in the Minneapolis Airport bathroom for a long time acting in the manner described in this arrest report. Seems like a person in the state of mind he describes would be in and out of the public men’s room like a rocket. And the notion that he’d plead guilty just to get the case closed is hard to buy.

His story is just too hard to sell. If he’s innocent of all of those accusations, he’s both extremely unlucky and something of a fool. Obviously, a much more plausible story is that he’s a Gay "cruiser" who hit the cruising sites out of Boise and Washington in order to avoid detection. And, I expect that with all of this publicity, there are any number of contacts that could potentially come forward. Unlike Ted Haggard, Larry Craig just doesn’t know when the jig is up.

Bush May Fight for New Attorney General
^{President Seeks Agreement With Policies}

A half-dozen or so lawyers are being discussed among administration officials as possible candidates to replace Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, but no clear favorite has emerged, and President Bush is willing to fight for the right candidate, administration officials and Republican advisers said yesterday.

Democratic Senate leaders have called on the White House to consult them closely during the selection process, but administration officials warned yesterday that the president intends to nominate an attorney general who agrees with his policies. "It is the president’s prerogative to appoint someone who shares his views," a senior administration official said.

The rule of law is better than the rule of any individual
Aristotle, 350 B.C.

The Law is a collection of the rules of conduct set down in a society’s founding, and the history of the interpretation of these rules over time. It’s the wisdom of the ‘past’ speaking to the ‘present.’ In free societies, the law attempts to balance the rights of individuals with the rights of society as a whole. So ‘Justice is blind’ – meaning that the law is applied equally to all people, not tailored to fit the needs of any given person or group. A society is literally defined by its laws.

For six and a half years, we’ve labored under a government which does not believe in that view of our society or its laws. They’ve repeatedly said in one way or another that the Executive Branch is the government – above or outside the laws that have traditionally governed us. They’ve repeatedly claimed that the actions of the Executive Branch are not subject to the scrutiny that holds for the rest of us. We’ve recently had a crisis in the Agency responsible for enforcing our laws – a crisis that has resulted in mass resignations either in protest or to escape being called to task for breaking the very laws it is charged with enforcing.

Bush Defends US Efforts in Iraq

Two weeks before receiving a major assessment of the war in Iraq, President Bush gave a ringing defense of the war effort Tuesday in a speech that sounded like he’d already made up his mind to stay and fight.

Bush hailed security gains, defended middling progress by Iraqi leaders and argued that the future of the entire Middle East would rise or fall on the outcome.

"It’s going to take time for the recent progress we have seen in security to translate into political progress," Bush told a friendly audience at the American Legion’s national convention. "Leaders in Washington need to look for ways to help our Iraqi allies succeed, not excuses for abandoning them."

Bush argued that withdrawing American forces would allow the Middle East to be taken over by extremists and put the security of the United States in jeopardy. By contrast, he said, continuing to fight is "the most important and immediate way" to put the strategic, struggling region on a path to democracy, economic expansion and stability that is inhospitable to terrorists.

…

The president said there is reason to be hopeful about Iraqi leaders’ efforts, particularly at the local and regional levels. Many benchmarks also are being met in effect without legislation, he said, noting that oil revenues are being shared among provinces without the passage of a law to require it.

He praised a weekend pact among leading Iraqi politicians on some other issues that have blocked national reconciliation. However, the Iraqi parliament still must codify the agreements – something that has repeated fallen apart in the past. The deal was not enough to bring the main Sunni Arab political bloc back into the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

After last week’s tense exchanges between Washington and Baghdad about U.S. frustration with al-Maliki’s government, Bush compared the struggles of Iraq today with the sometimes-difficult nature of democracy during U.S. history.

"In the midst of the security challenges, Iraq’s leaders are being asked to resolve political issues as complex and emotional as the struggle for civil rights in our own country," the president said. "So it’s no wonder that progress is halting and people are often frustrated. … Even we can’t pass a budget on time, and we’ve had 200 years of practice."

…

The president used Iran’s ambitions for increased global power as one argument for why failure in Iraq would cause the region to fall apart and the world to become more dangerous.

He accused Iran’s leadership of trying to destabilize Iraq, saying, "I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities." And he said that a precipitous U.S. departure from Iraq would lead Tehran to "conclude that we were weak," accelerate its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons and touch off an atomic arms race in the already volatile Middle East.

"Iran’s actions threaten the security of nations everywhere," Bush said.

We also know that George W. Bush will never come to believe that we should stop fighting this war of his. We know that his persistence in fighting this war has no relationship to either how it is going, or how it will come out. It’s just what he does, make speech after speech entreating us to continue on because the enemy is evil. Paradoxically, even if he could think up some magic way to bring off something in Iraq that he could pass off as a victory, the dangers he’s preaching would not go away. His whole premise that he can supress the entire Middle East by force, Iraq, Iran, Syria, al Qaeda, is absurd. Even if everything he says is completely true, his idea of what to do about it is ridiculous.

The president used Iran’s ambitions for increased global power as one argument for why failure in Iraq would cause the region to fall apart and the world to become more dangerous. One wonders what that means. How would that work? Failure in Iraq would cause the region to fall apart? It’s apart already. We made sure of that ourselves. It’s already more dangerous.