Comments on: Iraq: Onward Through the Fog http://themoderatevoice.com/12597/iraq-onward-through-the-fog/ An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:05:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: kritter http://themoderatevoice.com/12597/iraq-onward-through-the-fog/comment-page-1/#comment-78830 kritter Thu, 03 May 2007 18:20:35 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/2008-elections/12597/iraq-onward-through-the-fog/#comment-78830 There is no rhyme or reason to Bush 's Iraq policy, which is why they can find no interested candidates willing to jeopardize their career (even for the prospect of being awarded a Medal of Freedom at some future date,lol) to accept their position of War Czar. One of the candidates said as much, turning it down because there are still 3-4 separate agendas which could not easily gel together in Bush's cabinet. Supporting Maliki who is working towards ridding Iraq of any Sunni opposition rather than power-sharing is the least democratic thing I can think of. His decisions seem more political than tactical; he skewers Pelosi's talks with the Syrian government after he approves her trip, then without any fanfare sends Condi Rice to talk to them 2 weeks later. I guess we DO talk to states that sponsor terrorism, after all. Bush sold the surge by committing to pressuring the Iraqi government to meet certain benchmarks, then blows up when Congress demands that they actually meet them, and goes back to his schtick about "letting the commanders on the ground determine the policy". For someone whose reputation rides on his steadfastness and willingness to ignore popular opinion if it means doing the right thing, he is remarkably flexible when it comes to making political points that will appeal to popular opinion within his base. He is still about the base. There is no rhyme or reason to Bush ‘s Iraq policy, which is why they can find no interested candidates willing to jeopardize their career (even for the prospect of being awarded a Medal of Freedom at some future date,lol) to accept their position of War Czar. One of the candidates said as much, turning it down because there are still 3-4 separate agendas which could not easily gel together in Bush’s cabinet. Supporting Maliki who is working towards ridding Iraq of any Sunni opposition rather than power-sharing is the least democratic thing I can think of.

His decisions seem more political than tactical; he skewers Pelosi’s talks with the Syrian government after he approves her trip, then without any fanfare sends Condi Rice to talk to them 2 weeks later. I guess we DO talk to states that sponsor terrorism, after all. Bush sold the surge by committing to pressuring the Iraqi government to meet certain benchmarks, then blows up when Congress demands that they actually meet them, and goes back to his schtick about “letting the commanders on the ground determine the policy”.

For someone whose reputation rides on his steadfastness and willingness to ignore popular opinion if it means doing the right thing, he is remarkably flexible when it comes to making political points that will appeal to popular opinion within his base. He is still about the base.

]]> By: Chris http://themoderatevoice.com/12597/iraq-onward-through-the-fog/comment-page-1/#comment-78769 Chris Thu, 03 May 2007 14:50:16 +0000 http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/2008-elections/12597/iraq-onward-through-the-fog/#comment-78769 The funny thing is that the funding bill Congress passed had no teeth. The timetable was entirely symbolic, and even that was too much for Bush. Most Americans support a quick withdrawal, with the United Nations taking the lead in peacekeeping and the rebuilding process. That should be enough to quiet the crowd that claims that once we leave the country will be an unsupervised wasteland of terrorist activity and ethnic cleansing (although certainly some of that will happen, as it's already happening now). By not embracing this approach, Bush shows that he has an utter disregard for democracy at home, and at the same time shows that this war is not about security or Iraqi freedom. It's about unquestioned control over oil and strategic military bases in the Middle East. The funny thing is that the funding bill Congress passed had no teeth. The timetable was entirely symbolic, and even that was too much for Bush.

Most Americans support a quick withdrawal, with the United Nations taking the lead in peacekeeping and the rebuilding process. That should be enough to quiet the crowd that claims that once we leave the country will be an unsupervised wasteland of terrorist activity and ethnic cleansing (although certainly some of that will happen, as it’s already happening now).

By not embracing this approach, Bush shows that he has an utter disregard for democracy at home, and at the same time shows that this war is not about security or Iraqi freedom. It’s about unquestioned control over oil and strategic military bases in the Middle East.

]]>