0
   

How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a bully’s ego

 
 
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 05:33 am
December 4, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Two More Years
By PAUL KRUGMAN
At a reception following the midterm election, President Bush approached Senator-elect James Webb.

"How's your boy?" asked Mr. Bush.

"I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," replied Mr. Webb, whose son, a Marine lance corporal, is risking his life in Mr. Bush's war of choice.

"That's not what I asked you," the president snapped. "How's your boy?"

"That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," said Mr. Webb.

Good for him. We need people in Washington who are willing to stand up to the bully in chief. Unfortunately, and somewhat mysteriously, they're still in short supply.

You can understand, if not condone, the way the political and media establishment let itself be browbeaten by Mr. Bush in his post-9/11 political prime. What's amazing is the extent to which insiders still cringe before a lame duck with a 60 percent disapproval rating.

Look at what seems to have happened to the Iraq Study Group, whose mission statement says that it would provide an "independent assessment." If press reports are correct, the group did nothing of the sort. Instead, it watered down its conclusions and recommendations, trying to come up with something Mr. Bush wouldn't reject out of hand.

In particular, says Newsweek, the report "will set no timetables or call for any troop reductions." All it will do is "suggest that the president could, not should, begin to withdraw forces in the vaguely defined future."

And all this self-abasement is for naught. Senior Bush aides, Newsweek tells us, are "dismissive, even condescending" toward James Baker, the Bush family consigliere who is the dominant force in the study group, and the report. Of course they are. That's how bullies always treat their hangers-on.

Even now, it seems, the wise men of Washington can't bring themselves to face up to two glaringly obvious truths.

The first is that Americans are fighting and dying in Iraq for no reason.

It's true that terrible things will happen when U.S. forces withdraw. Mr. Bush was attacking a straw man when he mocked those who think we can make a "graceful exit" from Iraq. Everyone I know realizes that the civil war will get even worse after we're gone, and that there will probably be a bloody bout of ethnic cleansing that effectively partitions the country into hostile segments.

But nobody ?- not even Donald Rumsfeld, it turns out ?- thinks we're making progress in Iraq. So the same terrible things that would happen if we withdrew soon will still happen if we delay that withdrawal for two, three or more years. The only difference is that we'll sacrifice many more American lives along the way.

The second truth is that the war will go on all the same, unless something or someone forces Mr. Bush to change course.

During his recent trip to Vietnam, Mr. Bush was asked whether there were any lessons from that conflict for Iraq. His response: "We'll succeed unless we quit."

It was a bizarre answer given both the history of the Vietnam War and the facts on the ground in Iraq, but it makes perfect sense given what we know about Mr. Bush's character. He has never been willing to own up to mistakes, however trivial. If he were to accept the failure of his adventure in Iraq, he would be admitting, at least implicitly, to having made the mother of all mistakes.

So Mr. Bush will keep sending other men's children off to fight his war. And he'll always insist that Iraq would have been a great victory if only his successors had shared his steely determination.

Does this mean that we're doomed to at least two more years of bloody futility? Not necessarily. Last month the public delivered a huge vote of no confidence in Mr. Bush and his war. He's still the commander in chief, but the new majority in Congress can put a lot of pressure on him to at least begin a withdrawal.

I'm worried, however, that Democrats may have counted on the Iraq Study Group to provide them with political cover. Now that the study group has apparently wimped out, will the Democrats do the same?

Well, here's a question for those who might be tempted, yet again, to shy away from a confrontation with Mr. Bush over Iraq: How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a bully's ego?

===
Joe(writing my Senator -you know who she is-everyday) Nation
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,663 • Replies: 47
No top replies

 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 05:37 am
Here's more on Jim Webb:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/120306F.shtml
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 05:57 am
It's the wimpiness of Bush foes as much as Bush himself feeding the war.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 06:04 am
Many of us here have known from the start that that Bush is an egomaniacal bully and that the war was not just unjustified, but wrong in so many ways. That's not a pat on my back or anyone elses posting here that recognized the fake cowboy for what he is. I'm bewildered by those that don't recognize it, yes. But, more so by those in DC that have their own power and for some reason don't use it. What makes them cower? He's just the president. Other presidents didn't scare our representatives. Why this one? What's he got?
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 06:52 am
That's easy, you have the officers on the ground do it. They are the people calling the shots. Or have congress do it. They are the ones that authorized the war. My job is to protect and defend the constitution. GWB
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 08:53 am
Sadly, in spite of all the failures and shortcomings of this war, the Bush cabal, from his handlers, to his base to his family members, will always look at this war as a success because Saddam was captured.

His capture symbolized the closure of a very important chapter in that family's political history.

Like true sociopaths, they will ignore and even adamantly deny any other relevent information about this conflict--you know, the really important information.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 09:12 am
candidone1 wrote:
Sadly, in spite of all the failures and shortcomings of this war, the Bush cabal, from his handlers, to his base to his family members, will always look at this war as a success because Saddam was captured.

His capture symbolized the closure of a very important chapter in that family's political history.

Like true sociopaths, they will ignore and even adamantly deny any other relevent information about this conflict--you know, the really important information.


I am on the edge of my seat... What is the the really important information.?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 09:16 am
The really important information is that Iraq has dissolved into civil war on sectarian lines between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites, and that nothing the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad are doing or proposing is any earthly help for the resolution of the civil war which has begun.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 09:25 am
That's it? Civil war? That's the really important information?

How many sides on this civil war? It's hardly just Shia vs. Sunni continuing the internal conflict in Iraq right now.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 09:33 am
In fact, there are only two sides in this civil war. That other splinter groups take advantage of the situation to forward their own agendae does not alter that the basic divide which has lead to civil war is between Sunni and Shi'ite. The Kurds have a stable polity which has existed since before the invasion, it is unlikely that they will be drawn in on either side, and it is most likely that they will take advantage of the situation to attain a strong bargaining position with whatever government emerges from this chaos.

What is certain is that Hussein ceased to be the central figure or the central issue in this morass long before he was found hiding in his hole.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 09:33 am
True, McGentrix, it's not just Sunni and Shia continuing the conflict. It's also the United States.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 09:39 am
Why is so little mentioned about the enormous amount of money the US has invested in permanent bases in Iraq, including the embassy which is about the size of the friggin Vatican.

I would like to see a picture of that embassy.

Here's a story on some of the structures being built over there.

If anyone has a photo of the embassy, please pass it along.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 09:44 am
Some would say that the Carlyle Group profits are important enough to look into.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 09:44 am
For those who don't care to read the story, here is an excerpt, describing the Balad Air Base...

The base is sizeable enough to have its own "neighborhoods" including "KBR-land" (in honor of the Halliburton subsidiary that has done most of the base-construction work in Iraq); "CJSOTF" ("home to a special operations unit," the Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force, surrounded by "especially high walls," and so secretive that even the base Army public affairs chief has never been inside); and a junkyard for bombed out Army Humvees. There is as well a Subway, a Pizza Hut, a Popeye's, "an ersatz Starbucks," a 24-hour Burger King, two post exchanges where TVs, iPods, and the like can be purchased, four mess halls, a hospital, a strictly enforced on-base speed limit of 10 MPH, a huge airstrip, 250 aircraft (helicopters and predator drones included), air-traffic pile-ups of a sort you would see over Chicago's O'Hare airport, and "a miniature golf course, which mimics a battlefield with its baby sandbags, little Jersey barriers, strands of concertina wire and, down at the end of the course, what appears to be a tiny detainee cage."
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 09:46 am
McGentrix
Will Bush chauvinist McGentrix volunteer to be the last soldier to die for a bully's ego?

BBB
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 09:49 am
McGentrix died a long time ago. At least his soul did.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 09:54 am
Perhaps you guys should review this?

http://www.able2know.com/disclaimer.php#3b5
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 09:58 am
I'm just messin with you, McGentrix.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 10:48 am
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
I'm just messin with you, McGentrix.


Maybe so, Gus, but but sometimes there's more truth in a jest than in a sober statement. Yours was a perfect example.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 04:51 am
There are about 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq right now.

But, to add to Gus's point about just how large a presence we intend to have there in the future, (had?) the WP reveals in its business pages a new census shows there are approximately 100,000 government contractors working in Iraq, not counting subcontractors.
12/05/06

BTW: Your Commander-in-Chief finally met with an actual, meaning not-hand-picked-by-us, Iraqi, the leader of Iraq's largest Shiite Muslim party, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim.

Haven't seen any news about how that went.

Joe(So, are you with us or agin' us?)Nation
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a bully’s ego
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/03/2026 at 06:12:27