• In just seven days, the White House will be required to make its initial assessment to Congress about progress in Iraq since George Bush’s “new way forward” began.  And as the violence continues to spiral out of control, as 27 more U.S. troops were killed this week, and as Republican lawmakers continue to abandon the President, today we learn that:

  The Iraqi government is unlikely to meet any of the political and security goals or timelines President Bush set for it in January when he announced a major shift in U.S. policy, according to senior administration officials closely involved in the matter. As they prepare an interim report due next week, officials are marshaling alternative evidence of progress to persuade Congress to continue supporting the war.

  Alternative evidence of progress?  Apparently this will be a continuation of the administration strategy of “believe what we say, not your lying eyes”.  It seems that Congress will be told that violence is down in Anbar, never mind that it has spread to neighboring provinces. That sectarian killings were down in June, never mind February, March, April and May, or the more than 400 dead Iraqis in the first seven days of this month.  And ignore that oil revenue sharing, de-Baathification and provincial elecions are dead in the water, because Iraqi political leaders agreed that the bombing of a mosque last month was bad.  It’s hard to believe that it was only seven months ago that the administration told us:

  …people are going to be able to see pretty quickly that the Iraqis are or are not stepping up. And that provides the ability to judge.

  But that was then, this is now, and we really need to cut them some slack because:

  “There are things going on that we never could have foreseen,” said one official, who noted that the original benchmarks set by Bush six months ago — and endorsed by the Maliki government — are not only unachievable in the short term but also irrelevant to changing the conditions in Iraq.

  We’ll just add that to the list of things this administration couldn’t foresee, along with planes flying into buildings and levees breaking in New Orleans.  And isn’t it nice to know that the benchmarks that Bush & Company have been touting for seven months, while willing to accept increasing U.S. casualties, is irrelevant to bringing about change in Iraq anyway?  But we knew that.

  In January, when George Bush announced his plan to send even more troops to serve as targets in Iraq’s civil war, he said:

  I’ve made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people — and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act.

  And now that the plan is failing, the Bush administration will try to:

  …persuade lawmakers to use more flexible, less ambitious standards.

  And if they can’t be persuaded? Said an unnamed official:

  Bush has made no decisions on a possible new course.

  “The heart of darkness is the president,” the person said. “Nobody knows what he thinks, even the people who work for him.”

   

  

  
  Comments Off

• If you thought that all the furor over playing favorites for pal Scooter would make Bush act a bit conciliatory… what country have you been living in these last six years?  No, the Decider made it clear yesterday that he wouldn’t play politics with Iraq.  

  The president, speaking to a crowd of West Virginia Air National Guard soldiers and their families in Martinsburg, said he will resist political pressure to remove U.S. military personnel from Iraq.

  After all, why should Bush listen to anyone else?  He’s managed to run roughshod over military leadership, the press, and the legislature and no one says “boo.”  What’s his incentive to do anything other than exactly what he wants?  

  Bush’s speech recalls vivid memories of the kind of distortion that got us into Iraq in the first place, by describing every hint of opposition as “the very same folks” who attacked us on 9/11.  And don’t forget that all terrorists are puppies of doom, ready to “follow us home” if we leave Iraq (if Osama follows you home, you are not allowed to keep him).

  In addition to plenty of get-them-before-they-get-us rhetoric, the speech also contained the claim of Holy Cause.

  We believe in an Almighty, we believe in the freedom for people to worship that Almighty. They don’t.

  The crusade having been announced, Bush’s speech was filled out with repetitions of the absolutely essential — and completely undefined — need to “win” in Iraq that has become the mantra of the right.

  However, there was one part of Bush’s speech that was quite interesting.

  America’s victory was far from certain. In other words, when we celebrated the first 4th of July celebration, our struggle for independence was far from certain. Citizens had to struggle for six more years to finally determine the outcome of the Revolutionary War.

  We were a small band of freedom-loving patriots taking on the most powerful empire in the world.

  Hmm.  So, after six years of uncertain fighting, a small band ousted the most powerful force on the planet.  Is Bush sure that’s the message he wanted to deliver?

  Sounds like emboldening to me.

  

  
  Comments Off

• Since January, when George Bush announced his latest sure-fire plan for victory in Iraq, one of the key benchmarks for success was to be when the Iraqi government passed legislation on oil revenue sharing.  As Bush described it that night:

  To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.

  And since then, Bush has cited that benchmark as proof that progress was being made.  In February he said:

  They’re in the process of finalizing a law that will allow for the sharing of all revenues among Iraq’s peoples…making it clear to the Iraqi people that they have a stake in the future of their country by having a stake in the oil revenues.

  And in March he said:

  As we help the Iraqis secure their capital, their leaders are also beginning to meet the benchmarks they have laid out for political reconciliation. Last month, Iraq’s Council of Ministers approved a law that would share oil revenues among Iraqi people.

  Then came April:

  The Council of Ministers recently approved legislation that would provide a framework for an equitable sharing of oil resources —

  And May:

  The council of ministers has approved legislation that would provide a framework for equitable sharing of oil resources. We strongly believe…that a good oil bill will help unite the country.

  In June the tone changed a bit:

  At home, most of the attention has focused on important pieces of legislation that the Iraqi Parliament must pass to foster political reconciliation — including laws to share oil revenues…I speak to the Prime Minister and I speak to the Presidency Council quite often, and I remind them we expect the government to function, and to pass law.

  And apparently all the Iraqi government needed was a reminder, because two days ago, Tony Snow announced that Bush:

  …had phone calls with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the three members…They do report that they have now transmitted to the council of representatives, their legislature, the oil law, and are hoping quite soon to have a related piece of legislation, one that has to deal with the distribution of oil and hydrocarbon revenues, before the legislature quite soon.

  Quite soon lasted until yesterday:

  Attempts to pass a key oil law sought by the U.S. were snarled once more Wednesday by deep differences among Iraq’s Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders, delaying parliament debate despite the prime minister’s claims of a breakthrough.

  But it was probably just some little glitch, some minor detail to be ironed out, right?

  The influential Sunni organization, the Association of Muslim Scholars, issued a fatwa, or religious edict, blasting the bill as “religiously forbidden” and warned that those who back it “anger God for usurping public money.”  […]

  But the Kurds also objected, fearing concessions had been made to the Sunnis. The Kurdistan Regional Government warned it would oppose the bill if it made “material and substantive changes” to an outline agreed upon during weeks of negotiations. […]

  Meanwhile, the Shiite party loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, which opposes too much decentralization, outright rejected the draft, saying it “left nothing of Iraq’s unity.”

  Yes, getting this oil revenue sharing law passed should be a cakewalk. And then all the violence will end.

  Update:  Read more about the fatwa in Savage’s diary.  

  

  
  Comments Off

RSS Feed