... does not include cleaning up his own mess.
Have you noticed that G.W.Bush, our beloved president, the one whose most important job is to keep us safe, the one who will accept nothing from the evildoers short of complete and total victory, is beginning to go slightly offcourse in his recent speeches?
Starting just a few weeks ago, he subtly mentioned in one of his speeches that the War on Terror could go on for several years. This has been followed in recent speeches with references to the fact that it could go on beyond his term in office. This theme is now picking up steam, with references to future presidents (plural).
I also heard some supporting member of Congress say something about not changing horses in midstream.
So now the Great Man can relax. Either he can choose to go on to greater glory in another term, or he can turn the whole thing over to some other man or men to cope with. If he chooses the latter, he will get credit for having had the insight and courage to start this crusade for freedom and democracy, and those who follow will be stuck with the responsibility of cleaning it up.
3 weeks ago
6 comments:
I just heard Seymour Hersh on Warren Olney slip and refer to the "Cheney White House"? What does this mean? Did I not get the memo?
Emily, knowing Hersh, this was a deliberate slip. It is revealing, perhaps, in that it went largely unnoticed.
ALL:
As you will probably recall, GW Bush has said he makes his decisions based on thoughts that come from his gut.
And Dick Cheney likes to contrast the courage of Republicans with the defeatism of Democrats.
Both predict that if we withdrew it would only encourage "the terrorists", so we continue to terrorize the Middle East. It has only recently occurred to them that diplomacy and listening to "the other" might be a good idea, but as a tactic rather than as an intellectual theory.
It is really odd that they continue to emphasize that it is "the terrorists" who like to kill innocent people, especially children. We are far ahead of them on that score, especially when you consider the millions of lives (on both sides) which will never come to be because of our aggression. And how do they know that our withdrawal would never work? We've never tried it.
That would involve confessing to one of the most egregious crimes against humanity in history, especially because of its total futility.
As we used to say in the old days on the ranch, neither one of them has the balls to give it a try.
What I hate about Bush is that he's a feckless liar and false prophet.
When he selected president in 2000, I thought I would be embarassed to death having a mindless cowboy as president. I never dreamed I would be frightened to death by having a ruthless outlaw for a president.
Thanks for your comment about our cowboy president, Vigilante. I finally found my comment and yours after much searching.
ITE, I tried to answer your comment a long time ago and couldn't figure it out. I was just learning how to return comments at that time. Still am. Thanks very much for giving a different view of who is responsible for what in Iraq. Right on.