Bailing on Bush

[crawjo]

On his blog tonight, Andrew Sullivan has articulated much of what I feel right now. I'll post what he has to say here:

"The one anti-war argument that, in retrospect, I did not take seriously enough was a simple one. It was that this war was noble and defensible but that this administration was simply too incompetent and arrogant to carry it out effectively. I dismissed this as facile Bush-bashing at the time. I was wrong. I sensed the hubris of this administration after the fall of Baghdad, but I didn't sense how they would grotesquely under-man the post-war occupation, bungle the maintenance of security, short-change an absolutely vital mission, dismiss constructive criticism, ignore even their allies (like the Brits), and fail to shift swiftly enough when events span out of control. This was never going to be an easy venture; and we shouldn't expect perfection. There were bound to be revolts and terrorist infractions. The job is immense; and many of us have rallied to the administration's defense in difficult times, aware of the immense difficulties involved. But to have allowed the situation to slide into where we now are, to have a military so poorly managed and under-staffed that what we have seen out of Abu Ghraib was either the result of a) chaos, b) policy or c) some awful combination of the two, is inexcusable. It is a betrayal of all those soldiers who have done amazing work, who are genuine heroes, of all those Iraqis who have risked their lives for our and their future, of ordinary Americans who trusted their president and defense secretary to get this right. To have humiliated the United States by presenting false and misleading intelligence and then to have allowed something like Abu Ghraib to happen - after a year of other, compounded errors - is unforgivable. By refusing to hold anyone accountable, the president has also shown he is not really in control. We are at war; and our war leaders have given the enemy their biggest propaganda coup imaginable, while refusing to acknowledge their own palpable errors and misjudgments. They have, alas, scant credibility left and must be called to account. Shock has now led - and should lead - to anger. And those of us who support the war should, in many ways, be angrier than those who opposed it."

I agree with Sullivan that Bush appears to not be in control of the situation any more. I don't see any point in trying to excuse or make light of what has happened. I also agree that Bush and company now have "scant credibility." Ask yourself this: Given another four years, how could George W. Bush ever heal the festering wounds that have emerged from his mismanagement of Iraq? How? I just can't see it. Changing the Secretary of Defense isn't going to cut it.

He has to go. That's my feeling. Hell, maybe Bush should pull an LBJ and decline the nomination, and then let McCain run. I don't know. But something has to be done...people need to be held accountable for this.

Anyone disagree?

[BFrank]

No argument here.

[pollo loco]

i wrote a long piece explaining my position. Deleted it. I have no argument with what Crawjo has written--bottom line.
pl

[Ron Thorne]

Some of us have been saying "he's gotta go" for nearly four years, for various reasons. Yes, I quite agree.

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by crawjo

He has to go. . . .

Anyone disagree?

Hey, hey!
Ho, ho!
George Bush has got to go!

(Yes, another chanted slogan. Succinct, isn't it?)

[BFrank]

I haven't had this sinking feeling of a total breakdown of the Executive branch since the Watergate affair. It's really creepy. The news coming from all sides this weekend is HUGE. Here's an article from The Guardian:



New picture and military critics increase pressure on Bush
· Fresh revelations place Rumsfeld in jeopardy
· Blair apologises to Iraqis abused by British soldiers
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington and David Leigh
Monday May 10, 2004

The photographs, which appear in the New Yorker magazine today, undermined White House efforts to limit damage by announcing the first prosecution of a soldier from Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.
Misgivings about the Pentagon leadership came from unexpected quarters yesterday. A series of interviews with senior officers in the Washington Post painted a disturbing portrait of a military establishment harbouring grave doubts about the leadership.

The fresh images will also add piquancy to a House of Commons appearance today by Geoff Hoon, the British defence secretary, who will have to explain exactly when ministers were told of the Iraqi abuse allegations. The Red Cross and Amnesty International have said they passed on their concerns more than a year ago.

Last night Tony Blair apologised to any Iraqi prisoners abused by British soldiers.

"We apologise deeply to anyone who has been mistreated by any of our soldiers," he said during an interview on French television.

"That is absolutely and totally unacceptable. Those who are responsible for this - if they behaved in this appalling way - they will be punished according to the army discipline and rules."

With no sign that the furore was abating in Washington or London, outraged senators yesterday demanded greater accountability from the Pentagon as new evidence of a wider pattern of abuse emerged.

One accused soldier has indicated that she was ordered to "soften up" prisoners ahead of interrogation. The Justice Department is poised to open criminal investigations into allegations that CIA officers were involved with a group of Navy Seals who beat an Iraqi prisoner to death.

The scandal has piled pressure on Mr Rumsfeld to stand down, but the White House was standing by its man at the weekend.

"As a former secretary of defence, I think Donald Rumsfeld is the best secretary of defence the United States has ever had," said Vice President Dick Cheney on Saturday night. "People ought to let him do his job".

But Republican as well as Democratic legislators on Capitol Hill remain unconvinced, and there were also signs of a crisis of confidence in the military establishment at Mr Rumsfeld's leadership.

"All the guards are smiling, they're taking all these pictures, because they know that nobody above them is going to object. They have to know that somebody up there is agreeing to it," Patrick Leahy, the Democratic senator from Vermont told ABC television.

The misgivings about the Pentagon leadership did not directly address the abuse scandal. However, the furore about the treatment of prisoners appears to have crystallised discontent about Mr Rumsfeld's strategy for postwar Iraq, and his abrasive style.

One general told the Post that America would lose the war in Iraq unless it had a radical change of course, and he put the blame for the debacle directly on Mr Rumsfeld, and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz.

"I do not believe we had a clearly defined war strategy, end state and exit strategy before we commenced our invasion," he said. "Had someone like Colin Powell been the chairman [of the joint chiefs of staff], he would not have agreed to send troops without a clear exit strategy. The current OSD [secretary of defence] refused to listen or adhere to military advice."

A special forces officer told the Post: "Rumsfeld needs to go, as does Wolfowitz."

British defence chiefs have long been angered by Mr Rumsfeld's cavalier approach towards military tactics and strategy in Iraq. Last month, General Sir Michael Jackson, the head of the British army, spoke of "military friction" and said: "That the British approach to post conflict [situations] is doctrinally different to the US is a fact of life." Mr Rumsfeld had been blamed in particular for ordering the dismissal of the entire Iraqi army and law and order forces.

With the release of the New Yorker photographs - whose existence had not been known to the Pentagon - the White House also faces the prospect of further surprises. The Pentagon said hundreds of photos and videos would be presented to Congress. Many are believed to be more gruesome still than those already made public.

The White House had hoped that repeated apologies and swift prosecution of offending soldiers would lay the matter to rest. The first trial in connection with the abuse at Abu Ghraib will take place on May 19, when Jeremy Sivits, 24, a reservist with the 372nd military police, is to face a public court martial in Baghdad on charges of cruelty and abuse, and dereliction of duty for failing to protect the inmates.

The doubts were not confined to Democrats yesterday as Republicans lined up to demand greater accountability from Mr Rumsfeld, and General Richard Myers, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. Several said the scandal was putting the entire project in Iraq in peril, and jeop ardising America's standing in the Muslim world.

Even prominent conservatives such as Republican Senator Lindsay Graham spoke of "system failure".

Another Republican, Chuck Hagel, said: "I think it's still in question whether Rumsfeld and Myers can command the respect and the trust and the confidence of the military and the American people to lead this country."

Mr Rumsfeld offered an unaccustomed apology in his testimony to Congress on Friday in the hopes of calming demands for his resignation. But not everyone was convinced.

"I did not get answers to some fundamental questions and perhaps the most fundamental aspect of this is what was the chain of command, who was in charge of the interrogators, what was the role of the contractors," said Republican John McCain.

Senators want to know whether the seven soldiers charged so far were acting independently or were following orders to soften up prisoners.

In addition to the New Yorker photographs, which document abuse by a separate military police unit, new evidence has emerged that the treatment of prisoners was dictated from above.

On Saturday, another soldier charged in the abuse scandal, Sabrina Harman, told the Washington Post by email that she had been directly ordered by army intelligence officers, CIA operatives and civilian contractors to break down prisoners for interrogation.

[Gentle Giant]

crawjo, over the course of several threads, I've disagreed with you many times, yet you have never responded to me or anyone disrespectfully (unless perhaps he or she had it coming). You've opened up in the GQ thread, and here you demonstrate that you are not a narrow-minded ideologue. Your political and other views are firmly held but not dogmatic, and you are open to different perspectives. I find that very refreshing on this board.

I agree with your opinion here, but do not gloat over you "finally seeing the light." We are all losers here, and the worst is likely still to come. We'll need good thinkers and neighbors like you to vote our way out of this mess.

Thank you for your thoughtfull contributions in the Alley.

[Rob C]

Ladies and gentlemen: The swing vote!



I hope!

[tippy]

I've always thought that about Crawjo too. He really takes the time and effort to state his positions clearly. I don't blame him for when he gets pulled into the fray.

Bush was not elected, he was appointed. This he is actually running for election, not re-election. Why could he not be un-appointed, as it were? It seems to me that since he came to that position by unorthodox (perhaps illegal) means, we ought to be able to get rid of him without the electoral process that he and his backers thumbed their noses at in 2000.

[graypencil]

I think my position on DUBBya is well known ..

I just hope there are about thirty or so million Crawjo type voters out there.. so we can finally get rid of this dangerous bunch .

[Dr Dave]

Crawjo is a good guy. I disagree with a lot of what he says, but he's never doctrinaire.

We're in a bad place, and George W. Bush is responsible for taking us there, regardless of his original intentions.

(Hendrik Hertzberg, in the New Yorker, observes that one of the most interesting revelations in Woodward's new book--and it has gone unrefuted--is that Bush never sought his father's advice on Iraq. Could this all be about George W. wanting to show his father a thing or two? As Hertzberg says, this is something that can never be proved, and the subject is too hot for Woodward to handle, but it does make one wonder.)

[clinthopson]

crawjo, In the words of our banned bad boy,

"CLASP!"

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Chris A

Bush was not elected, he was appointed. This he is actually running for election, not re-election. Why could he not be un-appointed, as it were? It seems to me that since he came to that position by unorthodox (perhaps illegal) means, we ought to be able to get rid of him without the electoral process that he and his backers thumbed their noses at in 2000.

Just when you thought Chris was coming out of his narco-comatose state, he starts in on the gibberish again.

What exactly was illegal (or "perhaps illegal") about the decision that put GW in office, Chris?

[tippy]

Dave, that stuck in my head too. That's one helluva family dynamic to prevent him from talking to his pops about a world changing event. Mad crazy.

[Steve Reynolds]

I agree

but I do NOT agree that John Kerry is the man to replace him

despite being a hawk, John McCain is the man to replace him because if he is one thing, he is very competent and trustworthy. He also has the respect of many democrats.

Bush, on the other hand, has even alienated long time republicans such as myself.

[RBS]

Even though I'm a lifelong Democrat, I'd consider voting for McCain.

[tippy]

I'd go for McCain too. Bush is speaking. Just highly praised Rumsfeld...

[Uli]

Originally Posted by Steve Reynolds

I agree

but I do NOT agree that John Kerry is the man to replace him

despite being a hawk, John McCain is the man to replace him because if he is one thing, he is very competent and trustworthy. He also has the respect of many democrats.

Imho Kerry would be the man to replace Bush. To me however weak he is, he is the only option. If the Republican convent decides not to nominate Bush of course, I'd sure be open for further pondering.

Sure John McCain has my respect. In the present scandel it was he, who asked the most important (and so far not fully answered,imho) question. Who is in charge?

It scares me when that is not known.

Originally Posted by Steve Reynolds

I agree

but I do NOT agree that John Kerry is the man to replace him

despite being a hawk, John McCain is the man to replace him because if he is one thing, he is very competent and trustworthy. He also has the respect of many democrats.

Bush, on the other hand, has even alienated long time republicans such as myself.

I think this is about as well as I could have summed it up. So I'll second what Mr. Reynolds has written.

[Clay Fink]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Anyone disagree?

crowjo, you ignorent slut.

No. I agree.

Still, I disagree with the need for this war at all. The incompatence and arrogance of this bunch is another matter. If they were more "effective" in Iraq, I would be a little less upset about this, but not by much.

The invasion in and of itself was an arrogant act. There's no getting around that for me. As nice as would be to establish liberal, secular democracies in the Mideast (an interesting note is that many of the advocates of this war are against such a thing here in the US, but that's another matter), I think that any nation that sets out to change the world, absent a real threat, primarily through the use of Military force, ends up facing unintended consequences that undermine the original goals. Many of these unintended consequences (insurgency, regional resentment, etc.) stem from the basic arrogance of thinking that we are in a position to change the world.

I don't think we can "win" this thing and I don't think we would have ever been able to, even if we had been smarter. Something like this might work on an isolated country, absent regional and religious tensions. But even then, we couldn't even straighten out Haiti.

FWIW, I cannot imagine Dubya resigning even if McCain does a Bobby Kennedy, and I don't expect he will. I do like McCain, though and I think an election between him and Kerry would be good for this country and help lessen some of the polarization. I'd really love to see that. The hardcore base of the GOP (dispite dissenters like crowjo, Scott, Steve, etc.), however, is pretty extreme IMO and would never back McCain. Plus, the Bush machine and people like Tom DeLay have such a death grip on the GOP, I don't see them letting a moderate like McCain get nominated.

I say declare victory and withdraw.

Yeah, thats the ticket. Let the country collapse upon itself.

That'll really put a spit shine on the ole image.

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Clay Fink

I don't see them letting a moderate like McCain get nominated.

McCain's hardly a moderate. The American Conservative Union gives him a lifetime rank of 84 (out of 100), which is very conservative. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), a more identifiable moderate, gets a 56 from the ACU. For more comparisons, check out: http://www.conservative.org/

[crawjo]

Thanks for the kind words, but I am still every bit as troubled by this today as I was last night. I don't like John Kerry, either, but I am so sick and tired of this alleged red/blue split, and all the people on BOTH sides who help to widen it. All the pundits with their crappy "insta-books..." the Sean Hannitys and the Michael Moores and the Ann Coulters and the Al Frankens...a pox on them all. They don't help solve anything, they just poison the waters of our country's political discourse.

I don't consider myself to be a Republican, but I did vote for Bush in 2000, and for a very long time I did believe that he was doing the right things, that despite all the criticism he was a good president. But look at what has happened in Iraq. I think just about everyone who supported the war was placing their trust in Bush and Rumsfeld to execute it properly, to have a good plan for the post-war Iraq, to respond to changing events as they unfolded. In other words, to show leadership. And that is exactly what we have not gotten from this administration. Which is why he has to go. If it has to be John Kerry, so be it. Bush has failed in the single most important undertaking of his presidency. He has alienated the world, and his mismanagement of the pre-war intelligence, the post-war situation, has furthered that alienation. He appears lost and confused by what has happened. In other words, he has proved himself to be exactly what his greatest doubters and nay-sayers have always alleged: incompetent.

People on the anti-war side can say "I told you so" or whatever, but it isn't about that now. I am afraid that you guys are right regarding my McCain fantasy...the hard-core wing of the Republican party would never allow it. Which is why the hard-core wing of the Republican party has to be defeated in November. Any swing voter who votes Bush in November should know exactly what he is allying himself with. The Republicans can't win national elections with only the hard-core religious right. They need the moderate Republicans, too, and if they defect, then the party will have to change.

[Clay Fink]

Originally Posted by Root Doctor

McCain's hardly a moderate. The American Conservative Union gives him a lifetime rank of 84 (out of 100), which is very conservative. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), a more identifiable moderate, gets a 56 from the ACU. For more comparisons, check out: http://www.conservative.org/

Sure, but compare him to some of the more serious wingnuts in the party and he LOOKS moderate.

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Clay Fink

Sure, but compare him to some of the more serious wingnuts in the party and he LOOKS moderate.

Not only moderate, but honorable. I doubt we'll ever see him pandering to the snakehandlers for votes.

[Juju]

Wow Crawjo, I commend your candid spirit to utter such an admission in The Alley. You have always consistently put forth what you believe to be true with good argument, which I always respect regardless of position.

But your admission here I hope is part of a larger trend of this whole country to finally see the cause-effect relationship of our President and this huge debacle. I hope your attitude carries over to a whole contingent of swing voters in the coming election.

GW just keeps giving you and other swing voters more and more reason to vote him out, even if you all don't like Kerry either.

Very good post, Mr. Crawjo.

Clasp.

[RBS]

McCain probably is more to the right than moderate, but I still respect him for his honesty and forthrightness and his ability to speak the truth.

If it were between him and Kerry, I'd have a tough decision to make.

Maybe he can run as an independent?

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Mc Cain is conservative. But he's not a member of the radical right. The radical right is talking about America building an empire. The radical right is talking about defunding government so that programs started by Roosevelt and Johnson to provide the middle class and lower a "safety net" become fiscal impossibilities.

If you take a close look at Bush's foreign and economic policies there's very little "conservative" about it. As a matter, the Bush Administration is revolutionary. About the only thing conservative about this government is on it's policies on social issues.

I still get a kick out of the fact that those of us labeled as "Bushie's" are commended for making "admissions" or finally "seeing the light" when we make a statement against this admin.