During an impassioned press conference yesterday, President Bush accidentally slipped into the unfamiliar realm of honesty. Regarding the war in Iraq, he emphatically declared “We’re not leaving, so long as I’m the President.” He quickly reverted to the familiar, misleading rhetoric about coming home “when the mission is completed” and all of the wonderful progress we’re making.
Remember when Paul Wolfowitz said the war would take three to six weeks? Or dear old Don Rumsfeld saying in 2003 he doubted the insurgency would last six months? We all, of course, remember Bush declaring, "Mission Accomplished" three years ago. Later we handed over "sovereignty," yet continued to occupy the country. As this painful historical re-run has played out, we have been told countless times that the end was right around the corner. As painful as it was to hear, Bush's inadvertent candor was probably for the best.
This is a reality that everyone, across the entire political spectrum, needs to face. These people do not plan to end this war. We are there to stay, as long as this bunch is running things. Since the invasion, the U.S. has been building permanent bases. Are these gifts to the Iraqi "government?" Not likely. The intention is, and always has been, to invade and stay.
We see a lot of politicians on television debating over the best time to leave. Immediately? On a schedule? As we meet certain objectives? When a new Iraqi army is strong enough? It seems no one is willing to face the uncomfortable truth that Bush and Co. aren't pulling us out no matter what.
As we think back to every time Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Rice told us how hard they were working to bring Iraq to the point we could leave, it becomes very chilling. Every single one of those times, they weren't stretching the truth. They weren't being a bit disingenous. Every one of those times, they were lying.
So yesterday, at least for a few seconds, we got something different: the truth. I'm not sure which is better.
Remember when Paul Wolfowitz said the war would take three to six weeks? Or dear old Don Rumsfeld saying in 2003 he doubted the insurgency would last six months? We all, of course, remember Bush declaring, "Mission Accomplished" three years ago. Later we handed over "sovereignty," yet continued to occupy the country. As this painful historical re-run has played out, we have been told countless times that the end was right around the corner. As painful as it was to hear, Bush's inadvertent candor was probably for the best.
This is a reality that everyone, across the entire political spectrum, needs to face. These people do not plan to end this war. We are there to stay, as long as this bunch is running things. Since the invasion, the U.S. has been building permanent bases. Are these gifts to the Iraqi "government?" Not likely. The intention is, and always has been, to invade and stay.
We see a lot of politicians on television debating over the best time to leave. Immediately? On a schedule? As we meet certain objectives? When a new Iraqi army is strong enough? It seems no one is willing to face the uncomfortable truth that Bush and Co. aren't pulling us out no matter what.
As we think back to every time Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Rice told us how hard they were working to bring Iraq to the point we could leave, it becomes very chilling. Every single one of those times, they weren't stretching the truth. They weren't being a bit disingenous. Every one of those times, they were lying.
So yesterday, at least for a few seconds, we got something different: the truth. I'm not sure which is better.
1 comment:
we'll be there until his term runs out, and then it will be someone ele's problem to fix. that's his timetable because he can't resolve it. the government in place now doesn't know how to ever resolve it.
i almost hope a democrat isn't elected next because they'll be blamed for everything.
Post a Comment