Bush won't leave Iraq because his presidency is BUILT on war

hard on the heels of my previous post comes this from robert parry, who believes, as i do, that there is no way in hell that bush is going to leave iraq, no matter how much he wants us to believe that he is considering other options... parry also suggests, quite perceptively, that the reason gates was nominated was to back bush up in his decision to stay the goddam, friggin' course...

Senators, who were inclined to rubber-stamp Gates’s nomination, may have reason to think twice. Indeed, the evidence now suggests that Washington’s conventional wisdom about Gates as “a realist” clambering onboard to put Bush’s war strategy on a new course was dead wrong. Rather than a sign of a new direction, Bush may have picked Gates as a yes man who will continue the war pretty much as is.

Bush may have enlisted someone to join him, Laura Bush and the dog, Barney, lashed to the mast of the Iraq War as it continues to founder.

Author Bob Woodward reported that Bush told key Republicans in late 2005 that “I will not withdraw even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me.”

[...]

if Bush has ruled out a significant policy shift and still wants Gates to be his man at the Pentagon, then either Gates has bought into Bush’s vision of an open-ended war or he will almost certainly fail as Defense Secretary.

Either way, the Senate Armed Services Committee might want to use the Gates confirmation hearings on Dec. 5 to review not only Gates’s fitness for the job but Bush’s strategies for waging what some administration supporters call the “Long War” and others have labeled “World War III.”

and, if gates sails through, god help us all...

Once Bush secures the Senate’s consent on Gates, the only practical moves left to Congress – besides time-consuming subpoena battles fought through the federal courts – will be withholding money from the war effort or impeachment – two drastic steps that the Democrats have signaled they won’t do.

In other words, Bush will be in a much stronger position to continue his war policies, while making the Democrats look weak and ineffectual as they flail about in 2007 seeking his cooperation on hearings.

the entire foundation of bush's presidency REQUIRES that we be at war... that's the very point that almost everybody is missing... if we are NOT AT WAR, bush's presidency collapses... his unlimited executive power claim, bolstered by the aumf, is considerably diminished, and he is left to fall back on the bogus "unitary executive" theory... announcement of a withdrawal from iraq would flash-cook bush's goose and he knows it...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet