Category: Grave

No Laughing Matter: Not every soldiers’ homecoming is a Bush/Cheney photo op. (image via The Memory Hole)
“This year, nine inaugural balls are scheduled, including the Commander-in-Chief Ball, a soiree hosting troops who are heading to—or who have returned from—Iraq or Afghanistan,” CNN, Jan. 17, 2005.

Related: “The acknowledgement of misgivings—Mr Bush hesitated to use the word ‘regret’ —was a departure for a leader who repeatedly has refused to admit to any mistakes while in office,” ‘I wish I hadn’t said that’: Bush admits self-doubt, Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian Unlimited, Jan. 15, 2005.

Neo-con monster: Condoleezza Rice does her creators’ bidding, molding ineffective policies out of thin air….it’s magic!
Confirmation time! Let’s hurry up with this and get President Bush’s second-term cabinet in order, eh, so we can begin the momentous task of laying the groundwork for peace in the Middle East. To assist in this endeavor, the American people have the wisdom and good judgment of faithful troopers like Condoleezza “Ex Post Facto” Rice, who, in today’s Senate confirmation hearing unironically announced that “the time for diplomacy is now,” in terms of working with allies to resolve the crisis in Iraq (“Crisis”? Shit, wrong word. I meant, umm, “problem”. Social Security is the “crisis,” and Iraq merely a “problem.” Ok, wait, I’m getting all confused here. Let’s move on.)
When asked by Sen. Joseph Biden (D) of Delaware about the strength (or lack thereof) of the current U.S. troop levels in Iraq, Rice countered, or rather, deflected:

“I would not presume to try to give the president military advice, but I do believe that he got good military advice and I do believe that the plan and the forces that we went in with were appropriate to the task,” she said.
“We did meet with some unforeseen circumstances,” Rice acknowledged.

Oh, dear…”unforeseen circumstances?” (Etiquette question: Is it bad form to call this woman a goddamned close-minded imbecile? Because “unqualified fucking idiot” seems so much ruder.)
Let’s take a look back. Patriots from California to Maine so fondly recall those optimistic days in October 2002, when we all had faith that there was surely going to be an overthrow of the tyrannically unsafe-for-Americans Iraqi governing body…and our war plans seemed so efficient, so reasonable! We knew our nation’s leaders were listening to experienced veterans of combat, and were shrewdly calculating how to achieve the lofty and noble objective of ridding Iraq of its WMDs…
Fuck it, I can’t continue with this sarcastic bullshit anymore. Some things transcend the classic model of asshole-ness, and disparaging the ineptitude of others is one of those things. Let’s instead try channeling some constructive hostility of the “We-told-you-so” variety:
What follows is a (lengthy, but necessarily so) selection by Michael T. Klare from “War Plans and Pitfalls”, from the October 21, 2002 issue of The Nation.

However, while there appears to be unanimity among top Administration officials on the need for a military assault on Iraq, there has been no such consensus regarding the precise form of such an attack. Senior military commanders with experience in the 1991 Persian Gulf conflict have argued for a Desert Storm-like engagement involving hundreds of thousands of US combat troops, while civilian strategists in the Defense Department and some conservative think tanks have advocated a more daring and innovative approach, employing a relatively small contingent of ground troops backed up by the massive use of air power and precision-guided munitions. It appears that President Bush–under pressure from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney–has accorded primacy to the unconventional approach.
Bush favors this approach for several reasons. To begin with, the unconventional approach allows for a much earlier assault on Iraq than would be the case under the conventional one. Any replay of Desert Storm, however scaled down, would require the deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops (plus all of their heavy equipment) from the United States and Europe to the Middle East. This task could not be completed until next spring, and so would require US forces to commence combat operations at the onset of the blistering desert summer. The unconventional plan, on the other hand, would entail fewer troop deployments and could be set in motion by early winter–the optimal time of year.
Adoption of the bolder plan also helps the United States get around the problems created by the reluctance of some friendly Arab countries, including Jordan and Saudi Arabia, to allow the use of their territory as a staging ground for the US invasion of Iraq. An army of 250,000 combatants would almost certainly require the use of bases in Saudi Arabia, as was the case during the 1991 conflict; a force of 50,000 can be assembled in Kuwait, Qatar and some of the other small Gulf kingdoms.
But it is ideology, most of all, that appears to govern the President’s choice of strategic options. By starting the war in January or February, the Administration would escape more than the summer heat–it would short-circuit the diplomatic process at the UN and undercut any international effort to rely on UN arms inspectors to complete the “disarmament” of Iraq. Even while pushing for a favorable resolution at the UN Security Council, US officials have warned that the time for diplomacy is rapidly running out. “We’re talking days and weeks, not months and years,” President Bush said of the time that should be given to Saddam Hussein to comply with UN demands for the disclosure and destruction of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) remaining in his possession.
The more innovative plan would also give armchair strategists in the military academies and think tanks an opportunity to test innovative, “out of the box” techniques that have been gaining favor in recent years. These include the use of commandos equipped with laser target-designators who can infiltrate deep into enemy territory and pinpoint targets for attack by laser-guided bombs and missiles. Such attacks are intended to “decapitate” an enemy force (kill or immobilize its top leaders, or otherwise impair their ability to transmit orders to combat units in the field) and to pulverize its “centers of gravity” (e.g., presidential palaces, major military headquarters, communications centers, fuel depots). Another approach to be tested is “effects-based” targeting–that is, attacks intended to produce a desired effect (here, the disintegration of the current Iraqi regime) by targeting the assets, properties and institutions most valued by the enemy leadership.

Finally, you’ll recall “coalition forces” subsequently invaded Iraq in March 2003. March. No longer near the height of the cool season which had at one point seemed so important. Which means the Administration fucked up the invasion and occupation on all fronts.
It’s reassuring to consider, however, the degree to which Team Bush was held accountable for their dishonesty and poor judgment in last fall’s elections, right? (Shit, there goes that goddamned sarcasm again. Enough, enough, enough.)
And our apologies to Miss Manners, but “unqualified fucking idiot” seems to be the way to go here.

“I’m going to Disneyworld!” (via AFP)

Top, Dick and Denny verify the election, Jan. 6, 2005. (via, Reuters);
bottom, the Cheshire Cat, from Alice in Wonderland

Aide to Top Iraqi Cleric, and 5 Others, Are Killed in Attack, the New York Times, January 13, 2005:

Ayatollah Sistani’s representative, Sheikh Mahmoud al-Madaini, was killed along with his son and four guards after leaving sunset prayers at a mosque in Madain, about 12 miles south of the capital, said an official in Ayatollah Sistani’s office.
In further pre-election violence that is predicted to escalate, seven Iraqis were killed and a Turkish man was kidnapped in front of a Baghdad hotel by a group of gunmen today, according to an employee of the hotel.

Gosh, what sort of downbeat attitude is that? Why would such violence be “predicted to escalate”? What we, the American people need, is some goddamned optimism! You know, the kind of peppy good cheer we heard one short week ago:
Bush Rejects Growing Pessimism on U.S. Foreign Policy, the Washington Post, January 7, 2005:

“The Iraqi elections, rather than turning out to be a promising turning point, have the great potential for deepening the conflict,” Scowcroft said at the New America Foundation luncheon, expressing a view increasing shared by both Democratic and Republican foreign policy specialists.
Asked if he shares Scowcroft’s concerns, Bush told reporters today, “Quite the opposite. I think elections will be such a incredibly hopeful experience for the Iraqi people.”
[…]
Bush said in response to a question, “I think we’re making great progress” in Iraq. He added, “And it’s exciting times for the Iraqi people. And it’s so exciting there are some who are trying to intimidate people from going to the polls.”

US gives up search for Iraq WMD, BBC News, January 12, 2005:

Intelligence officials have confirmed the US has stopped searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

President Discusses the Future of Iraq, the White House, February 26, 2003:

In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world — and we will not allow it. (Applause.) This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country — and America will not permit it. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. (Applause.)

In today’s Washington Times (one of those “conservative” papers read so, so regularly around these parts each day, before we roll them up early in the afternoon to beat the heathens preparing our food), President Bush unloads on the paper’s editors and reporters about his true calling, espousing the usual rigmarole about “moral philosophy” this and “God’s will” that. In other words, American moralists have been graciously treated to yet another reminder of the man’s esteemed sense of nobility and right and wrong.
Anyway, amidst all the God-love, the story offers up this puzzlingly opaque gem of Bush’s legendary anti-logic:

“I think people attack me because they are fearful that I will then say that you’re not equally as patriotic if you’re not a religious person,” Mr. Bush said. “I’ve never said that. I’ve never acted like that. I think that’s just the way it is.”

It’s good to be good, but it’s better to be God, apparently. Or at least down with Him. Because, you know, He’s more important than laws, or history, or judicial precedents. Even if you’re not exactly saying that. Like, maybe, you’re just implying that. But, you know, you never did say any such thing.
Hey, come on now, why’s everyone getting all angry all of a sudden?