Our President Sneaks Into Iraq, What Does That Say About How Well We're Doing?
I haven't done all the research I should; but, I skimmed a little while ago the story of President Bush sneaking out of the White House and taking a side trip to Iraq, on his way to Australia for something.
He landed at an air base in Anbar Province, the area we have "surged" in and where we are wooing Suni tribal leaders.
"By summoning Mr. Maliki and other top officials to the Sunni heartland of Iraq, a region the Shiite prime minister has rarely visited, Mr. Bush is seeking to demonstrate that reconciliation among Iraq’s warring sectarian factions is at least conceivable, if not yet a reality.
Meeting with Iraqi leaders in a buff-colored one-story building near the runway, Mr. Bush effusively greeted Iraq’s president Jalal Talabani, the last of the five Iraqi officials to enter the small conference room. 'Mr. President, Mr. President, the president of the whole Iraq,' Mr. Bush said, kissing Mr. Talabani three times on the cheek."
He was there for seven hours. I assume there was a surge on the surge before and during his sneak visit.
How well are we doing over there when the President has to sneak, to the safest Province in Iraq, where we have been paying off Sunni tribal leaders, "summon" the Shiite Prime Minister and effusively kiss the President of Iraq, who, in case you didn't know, is a Kurd? All the bases covered and the off to the bottom of the world. That isn't a slam on Australia, it just sounded good as I typed it.
6 comments:
I am totally confused about this "thing" with Iraq. Are we still at war with them, or just with some particular faction or is the war over now and we are trying to help "rebuild" Iraq or what? And, if we are just trying to rebuild there, why are we constantly under attack? Isn't there something wrong with that picture. Granted, when we were "rebuilding" Germany and Japan, I was too young to read about those efforts in newspapers, but I don't recall our being under attack constantly in either place from what I read in history books. Or is this just me and I don't fully understand the logistics of wars but needless to say, I am still majorly confused by this aspect of the "War" in Iraq now.
part two of my comment - Maybe I should have added there I didn't understand the war in Iraq to begin with other than that it was a ploy to assassinate Saddam, and company and to maintain control over our oil supplies, etc at the same time. Not that I thought Saddam was such a wonderful man and not a dictator etc., but have we always declared war on a country where we wanted to get rid of their particular ruler, etc?
Jeni, Jeni, we are in the process of doing Vietnam a bit differently, I hope. We waited then until the war tore us apart. Then we left.
This time, like last time, we "lost," assuming you define that word as having gone where we had no business going, mucked it up and then looked for a way to disengage. I'm just looking for a faster unmucking.
The irony is the way we're doing it. Mass arrests by armed men in the dead of night, long prison terms without charges or bail, "enhanced interrogation techniques" (which aren't torture we swear), destroying entire cities (like Fallujah) to put down uprisings, executions following show trials; our "democracy" looks very much like the regime we just liberated them from.
Yeah, he landed in Anbar to show off the success of the "surge". The whole thing is of course just a prelude to the upcoming report, which we all know will change nothing.
The thing is-- expectations are now so low in Iraq that they can be achieved. Now it is only to keep a lid on things. We can keep pouring in billions and killing off a few Americans a month, and the violence in Iraq will be kept at an "acceptable" level.
But my god.
~Becky
If Bush and the republicans keep this war going because they wave the flag and call dissenters traitors, they will pay even a bigger price in the '08 elections when this war never shows any progress toward being over. So be it.
Post a Comment