Bush's 'central goal' for his occupation: Fix it so the prez candidates want to 'stay longer'

[bigtree]

In Book, Bush Peeks Ahead to His Legacy

September 2, 2007

WASHINGTON, Aug. 31 — When President Bush is asked what he plans to do when he leaves office, he often replies curtly: “I don’t have that much time to think beyond my presidency” or “I’m going to sprint to the finish.”


Mr. Bush told the author, Robert Draper, in a later session, “I’m playing for October-November.” That is when he hopes the Iraq troop increase will finally show enough results to help him achieve the central goal of his remaining time in office: “To get us in a position where the presidential candidates will be comfortable about sustaining a presence,” and, he said later, “stay longer.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/washington/02book.html?_r=1&bl=&ei=5087%0A&en=deea1b6f0fd24c78&ex=1188878400&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1188758200-kMoDdjH2XYT76HlARN5OCw&pagewanted=print

[librechik]

1. ...because we will be deeply entangled in Iran by then,,,"

can he spell it out any more bluntly? With his history?

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

3. As opposed to a "nutso" president who though lying to invade a

country, and then screwing up beyond comprehension, was a good idea?

[bigtree]

4. which job is that?

killing enough Iraqis to satisfy their bloodlust, helping his business friends line their pockets with U.S. reconstruction dollars, or manipulating Iraq's oil supply to their satisfaction?

[niyad]

8. wow, that was one quick tombstone

[XemaSab]

5. What "results" does he think we will have by then?

I swear all that crack messed him up bad.

[seemslikeadream]

6. how many people will die while he's sprinting?

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Certainly, No Democratic Candidate Would Fall For Thinking...

...that the tide is turning in - er -

Oh, nevermind.

[bigtree]

11. Richardson Wants Congress To Stand Up To Bush

August 29, 2007 Contact: Pahl Shipley
[phone]

SANTA FE, NM -- Governor Bill Richardson released the following statement today regarding reports that George Bush will request an additional $50 billion in Iraq war funding.

"The only appropriation Congress should pass for this war is funding for a safe and quick withdrawal. This Congress was elected to end the war in Iraq. They need to stand up to President Bush and do the job. This is an issue where leadership means no compromises. It took us too many years and far too many lives to end the war in Vietnam, and we cannot repeat that mistake.

"Congress should use every power at its disposal to end this war, including de-authorization and refusing to fund the war beyond what is necessary for the safe redeployment of our troops.

"George Bush should show less concern about his legacy and pay more attention to the lives of our men and women in harm's way. The best way to support our troops is to get them all out of Iraq as soon as it can safely be accomplished.

"This administration miscalculated the intelligence before the war, mismanaged the war itself, bungled the surge, and now has the audacity to ask Congress for more funding to continue this tragic misadventure. The answer should be a resounding no."

http://campaignsandelections.com/sc/releases/index.cfm?ID=3448

[TwilightGardener]

9. "Staying longer" was always the goal--there was no way we were

EVER going to leave Iraq militarily after we took down Saddam. There was NEVER a plan to "win the war". We didn't give a shit about democracy, or rebuilding--we wanted to foment civil conflict. Cheney knew this, he knew in 1994 what invading Iraq would do. If the post-invasion violence had been minimal, the Iraqi government would have strengthened, and they might have kicked us out or at least denied our influence. What incentive would a strong, unified Iraqi government and people have had to concede to our demands for oil, or a massive embassy, or permanent bases? No, a weakened, squabbling Iraq, crippled by violence, disease, a decimated economy--that's what we were REALLY after. Now they're DEPENDENT on us, and we can stay put and maintain a front to operate against Iran, thus protecting the oil AND Israel.

The sick, criminal aspect to this is that if we'd done the war the RIGHT way, as if we really wanted to win, with enough troops (like Shinseki wanted) and with competent people to oversee the rebuilding and political/diplomatic efforts, we could have saved THOUSANDS of American troops and Iraqi civilians. Bush is stepping it up now with the "Surge" because the American people finally got tired of the cost of deliberate incompetence, and they want out--but can't let that happen until he's safely out of office, though--his legacy's at stake, you know. No 1975 Saigon chopper re-enactment for HIM. If Bush and Cheney aren't eventually held responsible as war criminals, then there is truly no justice in this world.

[bigtree]

10. you put that well

although I can't find a thing that we were supposed to be winning in Iraq, outside of whatever corporate ambitions Bush and his minions felt free to pursue behind the squandering of resources and sacrifices of lives and livelihoods. The entire enterprise is an idiotic attempt to pull his dad's old Iraq suit out if the closet and wear it with the sleeves cut off like a jackass. Now the best they can do is direct our soldiers to confront the damage and counter-effects of their own blundering in an endless cycle of idiocy.