I wish I could believe him

Reactionary Republicans view George W. Bush as someone who's been divinely ordained to lead the world to embrace democracy and freedom. He fits neatly into their image of the strong father figure who's always right and who always has his children's best interests at heart. I'm guessing their their views were not swayed last night (though a peek at Red State shows I may be wrong).

The rest of us know: Most fathers are good, strong people, but there are some who never should have become parents. Were it not for the actions of the Rehnquist Court, we'd have never been saddled with this delusional man with serious "daddy" issues. That said, George W. Bush is, as Tim Russert said last night, "the only commander in chief we have." I wish, even knowing all I do about Bush after six long years, that I could believe him. Like a child entranced with Peter Pan and Tinkerbell, I sometimes wish that if we all clapped loud and long enough, he'd make it all better.

But the adult in me knows this is not going to happen. We screwed up Iraq long ago: when we went to war on false pretenses, when we opted for a full-on invasion instead of surgical ops to remove Saddam, when we created a chaotic breeding ground for terror when none existed, when we trashed what was left of Iraq's infrastructure, when we disbanded the Iraqi army, when we covered up the shame of Abu Ghraib, and the list goes on. We broke it the day we bought it, the day that Congress fell for this administration's lies. By escalating (and widening) our presence now, we will be digging ourselves - and the Iraqi people - into an ever-deeper hole, prolonging the time when a political solution can be sought and passions in the Middle East can cool.

Here's a football metaphor some of us may appreciate. Sometimes a gadget play works - when it's been practiced and perfected, when the odds favor its success, and when using it will bring the game to a quick and decisive end. But in Iraq, Bush is proposing a desperate toss into the end zone. Instead of being a true "way forward," it's a half-assed attempt to bring order to chaos so at least Bush, John McCain, and Joe Lieberman can say, "Well, we tried" when we belatedly start pulling troops out a year from now.

The Congress is now controlled by adults. It's up to the Democrats - joined by what seems to be a growing cadre of rational Republicans - to say no to the been-there-done-that-and-it-didn't-work escalation Bush proposed last night. It's up to Congress to find a political path to help Iraqis gain control of their country. It's up to Congress to work with the international community to ensure safe passage for Iraqis who want to leave their country and settle - at least for a time - somewhere else. It's time to start ending our involvement in Iraq - not send 21,500 more Americans onto an escalator of crossfire, incompetence, and centuries-old sectarian strife that we cannot hope to solve.

Comments

[Joel Monka]

I'm intrigued by your comment "The Congress is now controlled by adults. It's up to the Democrats - joined by what seems to be a growing cadre of rational Republicans - to say no to the been-there-done-that-and-it-didn't-work escalation Bush proposed last night." What makes it interesting is that up until the moment Bush said it, it WAS the Democratic plan! In this article from Dec 5- just a month ago- Rep. Silvestre Reyes, Nancy Pelosi's own personal pick for chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops. (see Newsweek http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16062351/site/newsweek/ )

He also said "Well again, I differ in that I don’t want Iraq to become the next Afghanistan. We could not allow Iraq to become a safe haven for Al Qaeda, for Hamas, for Hizbullah, or anybody else. We cannot allow Iran or Syria to have a free hand in there to further destabilize the Middle East.” Reyes added that he was “very clear” about his position to Pelosi when she chose him over two rivals—Rep. Jane Harman of California and Rep. Alcee Hastings—to head the critical intelligence post.

But now, a month later, Ms Pelosi and Senator Reid repudiated that position so that they could stay on the opposite side of Bush. Is this really "adult" leadership?

[Julie Fanselow]

Joel, that's an interesting observation, and I'd expect Reyes to continue to back Bush on the escalation if he holds these views.

As we know, the Democrats are a varied bunch. I don't know that Pelosi and Reid are repudiating Reyes so much as his view on the escalation. It now appears that some Republicans oppose escalation, too, but I am sure some Democrats will back it.

Is it possible that Pelosi could disagree with Reyes on this military matter while still valuing his expertise on intelligence? Indeed, a high-quality intelligence apparatus needs to be one of the principal (perhaps the most important) way we fight the "war on terror."

When I say the Congress is controlled by adults, I mean we now have a legislative branch dominated by people (in both parties) who are willing to do due dilligence and work on very thorny issues, rather than swallow whatever snake oil the executive branch is selling.

[Jessica]

Or is it possible, that people change their minds????? I know that is hard to believe if you are a Bush lover, seeing as how he likes to "stay the course", though it may lead to total disaster.

[sharon fisher]

I heard Bush's approval rating is down to 12%.

I also heard on the news that Barbara Boxer lambasted Condoleeza Rice because *she* didn't have any children or grandchildren who would have to deal with the war.

[Bubblehead]

Sharon,
There's enough information to use against the administration without making stuff up about President Bush's approval rating ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011200524.html ). Re: Speaker Boxer's statement -- does this mean that the Speaker of the House is opposed to alternative family structures? Are only those with children allowed in government?

[Julie Fanselow]

12% seemed awfully low to me, even for Bush. Thanks for the real poop on that. The real question in my mind: Will his approval rate in Idaho finally fall below 50% in the next Survey USA poll? (I'm guessing one's due soon ...)

As for Boxer, I'd agree: That was a pretty callous comment.

[Irwin Horowitz]

Bubblehead,

First, a reminder that Barbara Boxer isn't the new speaker (Nancy Pelosi is). For those who don't know, she's the junior Senator from California.

As for her comment, I suspect it has more to do with the lack of senior Bush officials having a "personal" stake in Iraq, to the effect of having one of their family members serving there at this time (note this isn't a blanket statement...no doubt there are some admin members who do have a family member serving at this time).

[sharon fisher]

I didn't make the figure up. If I was wrong -- and I may well have been, which is why I said 'I heard' rather than sourcing it -- then I apologize, and thanks for the correct information.

I'm not going to comment on whether or not it was appropriate for Boxer to say that -- simply that it's interesting the rhetoric has gotten to that level. Plus I find it interesting that it was two women. I wonder whether how it would have seemed different if it was two guys, or one of each.

[Bubblehead]

My bad on confusing Speaker Pelosi and Senator Boxer; I actually do normally know which is which.

[Diana Rowe Pauls]

I realize that many people reacted strongly to Senator Boxer's comment, but it reflected my feelings exactly. Whether Rice has zero children or ten, no matter what her marital status is, siblings, whatever... my question to ALL of those who casually throw American bodies into the war... Do ANY of these bodies belong to YOUR loved ones?? It is a VALID statement and IMHO it was designed to stimulate thought and remind the rest of us about how easy it is for some to demand sacrifice from others, when it doesn't affect them personally.