...I’ve found myself thinking these last few days more about the man who has shouldered the burdens of office for the past eight years, George W. Bush.
The current "leader of the free world," recently reminisced on the burdens of office:
I believe this -- the phrase "burdens of the office" is overstated. You know, it's kind of like, why me? Oh, the burdens, you know. Why did the financial collapse have to happen on my watch? It's just -- it's pathetic, isn't it, self-pity..
...
I had a fabulous team around me of highly dedicated, smart, capable people, and we had fun. I tell people that, you know, some days happy, some days not so happy, every day has been joyous
Perhaps Bush has forgotten 9-11? Or maybe that too was a joyous day? Or maybe what's too painful to remember, we simply choose to forget (unless we're running for re-election).
Kristol continues with a sentence that epitomizes the great divide separating bi-partisans from the partisans; those who feel the only wrong a president can do is to accept oral sex from a white house intern (or perhaps to be a democrat).
But he has exercised his just and rightful authority in a way — I believe — that deserves recognition and respect.
Those who believe that the U.S. Constitution limits the powers of the President and that treaties to which the U.S. is signatory also limit the powers of the President are angered and distressed that Bush has seized powers never vested to the Presidency, and has thus violated the Constitution of the United States that he swore to uphold. This is a matter of law. The Bush administration committed fraud upon the U.S. citizens using a propaganda campaign to gather national support for an illegal invasion and occupation of the sovereign nation of Iraq, the Bush administration authorized illegal wire taps upon U.S. citizen phone calls and e-mails, the Bush administration issued secret signing statements countervening laws pass by the U.S. congress among other matters.
Kristol proffers more praise upon the leader of the "free" world:
Bush stood with Israel when he had no political incentive to do so and received no political benefit from doing so. He was criticized by much of the world. He did it because he thought it the right thing to do.
To state that Bush had "no political incentive" to stand with Israel ignores the reality that to do other than "to stand with Israel" is to be politically marginalized unto the fringes of Dennis Kucinich wing of the Democratic Party. There is NO issue upon which the U.S. congress is in greater agreement than in its support of Israel's occupation and massacre of the Palestinians.
Here is the perhaps the most astounding paragraph that will ever be written on the history of the Bush Presidency.
But I don’t think keeping us safe has been Bush’s most impressive achievement. That was winning the war in Iraq, and in particular, his refusal to accept defeat when so many counseled him to do so in late 2006. His ordering the surge of troops to Iraq in January 2007 was an act of personal courage and of presidential leadership. The results have benefited both Iraq and the United States. And the outcome in Iraq is a remarkable gift to the incoming president, who now only has to sustain success, rather than trying to deal with the consequences in the region and around the world of a humiliating withdrawal and a devastating defeat.
Winning the war in Iraq? By what measure are we winning the war in Iraq? By what measure are we winning the occupation in Iraq?
Jeff Huber has some thoughts on the success of the surge:
The surge has been so successful that, after two years, it's still in effect; we have several thousand more troops in Iraq than we did when the surge began in January 2007, and it still hasn't produced its stated purpose of political unification.
Who counseled Bush to "accept defeat" in Iraq. The American public simply came to believe the occupation was an ongoing disaster, that the cost in soldier's lives, broken bodies and wounded minds is not worth continuing occupation.
Apparently, the only way we can continue to "win" the war in Iraq is to avoid withdrawal (which Obama has promised - withdrawal from Iraq into Afghanistan) and devastating defeat.
The secret to "winning" the invasion of Iraq seems to be to spend more money there every year. At some point in time, that formula for success must become our undoing.
The Guardian has quite a different view from Kristol on the so-called winning of the occupation of Iraq:
[T]he surge has failed to achieve its central objective of advancing Iraq's political transition and encouraging power-sharing deals among Iraq's competing factions.
The greatest myth promoted by Bush in his speech was found in this line: "Political reconciliation is moving forward, and the Iraqi government has passed several major pieces of legislation." By overstating the meagre steps taken by Iraq's leaders in barely passing a few relatively insignificant laws in their parliament, Bush's statement ranks right up there with his 2003 "mission accomplished" speech and vice-president Dick Cheney's assertion that the insurgency was in its "last throes" in 2005.
A more honest look at the balance sheet on Iraq's political transition yields an inconvenient conclusion: The surge has frozen into place the accelerated fragmentation that Iraq underwent in 2006 and 2007 and has created disincentives to bridge central divisions between Iraqi factions. Moreover, rather than advancing Iraq's political transition and facilitating power-sharing deals among Iraq's factions, the surge has produced an oil revenue-fuelled, Shia-dominated national government with close ties to Iran. This national government shows few signs of seeking to compromise and share meaningful power with other frustrated political factions.
William Kristol - resident war monger for the New York Times. To be fair and balanced, perhaps every newspaper need some.
