Joe Klein: The Speech Bush SHOULD HAVE Given

[Hissyspit]

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1531272,00.html

Web Exclusive | Joe Klein
What Bush Should Have Said
An alternative speech for a president seeking support on Iraq

My fellow members of the American Legion, I have made some serious mistakes and miscalculations in our struggle against Islamic extremism over the past five years...

- snip -

I was going to deliver a speech today in which I said, "The war we fight today is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century." But then I thought about a conversation I had recently with a young U.S. military officer, a combat veteran of the Iraq war who remains on active duty, committed to our mission. "Mr. President," he said. "If this struggle is so important, why is this the only war in American history where we haven't increased the size of the Army and raised taxes to pay for it? Why haven't you mobilized the nation?"

In the speech I planned to deliver, I would have spoken—too easily, too dismissively—about how previous Presidents pursued a mistaken policy of seeking "stability" in the Middle East, which resulted in the terrorist attacks against us. I would have implied that my aggressive promotion of democracy was the only alternative to the failed policies of the past. But that would have posed a false choice. Stability is, after all, our goal for the region. And we have learned, sadly, in recent years that the mere act of holding an election does not create a democracy. Indeed, in many countries of the region—in the Palestinian territories, Iran and, yes, Iraq—elections have brought the forces of instability to power.

Which brings me to Iraq. I want to tell you something I've never acknowledged: the U.N. inspection regime that was forced on Saddam Hussein in 2002 was working. We should have had more patience with it and supported it more fully. In the end, it would have revealed what we now know: that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. That revelation would have destroyed the dictator's credibility. His brutal regime might have toppled from within. At the very least, his power would have been severely compromised. But—impatient again—we rushed to war, without sufficient preparation and sufficient allies. Today we face a very difficult situation in Iraq. The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is riddled with Islamic radicals. This week elements of the Iraqi army were attacked and defeated in Diwaniyah by a sectarian militia led by the radical Shi'ite Muqtada al-Sadr. This is the same al-Sadr who attacked U.S. forces in 2004, the same al-Sadr who controls 30 seats in the Iraqi parliament—and who is the linchpin of al-Maliki's governing coalition. I say this to Prime Minister al-Maliki: The U.S. cannot support a government that includes Muqtada al-Sadr. You must build a new coalition, one that includes the secular political parties and Sunnis and guarantees the Sunni minority the rights and the share of Iraqi oil revenues it deserves. We have not sacrificed 2,600 Americans to create a radical Shi'ite government in Iraq.

One of the many books I've read this summer was Fiasco, by Tom Ricks of the Washington Post. It is a careful summation of the military mistakes we've made in Iraq. It ends with a series of scenarios for what might happen if we withdraw now. All have terrible implications for the region and the world. So we must stay in Iraq, but we must stay smarter. To that end, I announce the following initiatives. I call on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to meet with me one on one to discuss the stabilization of Iraq. In time I hope we can also discuss other issues, like his government's nuclear program and support for Hizballah, and the resumption of normal diplomatic relations between our countries. But, President Ahmadinejad, as a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war, you must appreciate the disastrous potential of the chaos on your western border. Surely you don't want to risk the possibility of a regional Sunni reaction that would bring fire to your oil fields and death, once again, to the streets of Tehran.

MORE

[gumby]

1. Joe Klein: What I would have written

if I had been a real journalist.... But of course it would have been written 'Anonymously.'

Sorry, don't like the fart. Smells too.

[neoblues]

2. Odd bits...

The odd bits that caught my eye aren't really altogether strongly related to the main storyline here, but I suppose I'll make my remarks anyway.

One was the reference to ensuring the Sunni's get their fair share of IRAQ's oil revenues... while this may be proper and laudable, in a sort of jaded take on American Capitalism, I'd have to say that the idea that all but a very few 'select' IRAQIs getting any of the oil wealth/revenues would be a departure from the way things are done here. Since when do large parts of the American populace receive fair shares of any of the various sources of wealth that are/were a part of this nation's natural bounty (including any oil/mineral deposits, vast swaths of fertile farmlands, forests or whatever)? Such have generally always been privately owned or had the bulk of any wealth extracted channeled to a select few either directly or through corporate shells). So it's interesting to imagine creating a socialized oil industry in IRAQ, if that's what's being proposed whether or not using such terms. Well, I did say it was a 'jaded' opinion (which nevertheless may accurately reflect reality).

Then there's the comment that "the mere act of holding an election does not create a democracy". Well sure, but... it depends primarily on whether the elections actually represented the will of the voters. It seems to me that in some cases, there are those in America who would claim certain "elections" in the middle-east or elsewhere doesn't represent the creation of a "real" "Democracy" just because they don't like who got elected and don't agree with the will of the people involved. Then again, in places like Iran, the so-called "Democracy" is but a sham--because the elected goverment and leaders aren't actually "in charge". Their religious leader chooses who can run and has final approval over everything that is decided or done; much like a dictator that allows 'the people' to elect his administrative assistant. Sadly, and once again 'jaded', but for the fact that it's not entirely obvious who the "supreme leader/s" are, it seems likely that the same could be said of the United States (that is, there seems to be some hidden power behind/above our elected government that seems to manipulate who gets to run for office (if not actually choose) and which controls the decisions/actions and agenda for our country--though perhaps it's not a single person but rather a group, and membership may involve nothing more than amount of wealth and willingness to use it to manipulate the process, so they're less "direct" rulers and wield less "absolute" power, but they rule nonetheless). At least there's the general appearance that there's something more, something not seen, influencing our government at the top levels. Of course, our unofficial President, Dick Cheney is at one with this unseen, Corporate sympathizing power...

Ahmadinejad, by the way, doesn't see chaos on his western border to be a problem, but instead sees it as a desperately desirable opportunity. Not only because it means that such would show the West/U.S. power to be impotent, but because Iran is almost sure to be able to achieve dominance and eventually take over IRAQ when the dust settles (as he's supporting the factional violence, and when they've beaten themselves senseless, if there's no one to prevent him, Iran will rejoin with it's Muslim brothers in a modern effort to restore the long lost Muslim Caliphate (which, granted, is little more than a fantasy thus far--but one that does motivate certain groups within the Islamic world). Besides such hopes, IRAQ does have a key resource which will ensure whoever controls it a growing international power in the decades to come--the fact that it sits on what is probably the world's second largest remaining reserves of light sweet crude oil. Combine that with Iran's own very large oil reserves (the third or fourth largest remaining world reserves), and they become the world's first Petroleum Superpower--at just the time when (a) demand for Oil is growing beyond available production and (b) "Peak Oil" production is either imminent or has already been reached. Very desirable indeed. So, aside from a U.S. supported military attack from it's western (and eastern border with Afghanistan as well) border, which would be foolhardy in the extreme, he's hardly worried about chaos on his western border.

Of course, given our country's leadership (both the public face and whatever influences them), not to mention Dumbya's personality disorders and intellectual challenges, any notion the he would ever change course or even more shocking, would ever actually admit he's made a mistake (remember also, that since God told him what to do, admitting it was mistaken would be blasphemy!) really is an exercise in fantasy. Still, it was an entertaining effort of imagination to suggest what Dumbya might say if he was a rational, reasonably intelligent and honest leader... (it's so sad that he is so completely the antithesis of rational, intelligent, honest or a leader, that it hurts my head just to try imagining him, personally, acting in such a way)(hell, it's a stretch just to imagine him saying something, anything, that has the quality of being true; no matter how trivial).

[gumby]

3. 'Dumbya' would probably fart. (hehehe,,,,presidential intimidation)

The question of WHO are 'the powers that be' is the eternal question.

WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE???

Of course, the MSM will do anything to keep them cloaked. And, they have conflicting agendas....from time to time.

The right-wing New-World-Order, Black-Helicopter freaks have the right intuition. Too bad they are so brainwashed they can't make community with more sane citizens.

The real geo-political (and national) politics have long been cloaked in many layers of manipulation and treason. It's hard to know 'which side is up.'

BIG questions, NO answers.