Watching the Watchers: Mess in Potamia

The Shifting Sands of America's Mess-in-Potamia

Jay Bookman of the "Atlanta Journal-Constitution" decided to revisit the Bush administration's ever-changing response to the question, "Is the US occupation of Iraq going to be permanent?":

Back in September 2002, with an invasion of Iraq looming, I asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld whether the United States intended to build permanent bases in that country after the war. He brushed the question aside, saying the United States never coveted the territory of other nations.

Well, better revise that...

"We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more," President Bush said in February 2003.

Just to make sure that nobody would confuse the administration's lack of a plan for leaving Iraq as a sign that the United States was never going to leave, Rumsfeld crossed the t's and dotted the i's:

"Foreign troops in a country are unnatural," Rumsfeld acknowledged that November, referring to U.S. troops in Iraq. "The goal is to keep them there only as long as they're needed and not one day longer."

Umm-ah-hmmm, well, here is the latest Bush administration plan for Iraq:

White House spokesman Tony Snow said last week that Bush seeks a long-term military presence in Iraq similar to what we have had in South Korea, where U.S. forces have been stationed for 60 years.

And, why does Jay Bookman believe Mister Bush and his people were so reluctant to be honest about their intentions for Iraq from the beginning? Pay attention, he is a bit vague (please, understand that is intended to be sarcastic):

Well, the Bush administration understands that Americans don't like to think of themselves as a militaristic people. The idea conflicts too directly with the American public's rather naive view of how their country operates in the world. If we are to support major expansions of our military footprint, we have to be frightened into believing that our security is at stake.

Thus, while denying any interest in permanent bases, the administration sold the invasion of Iraq as necessary to protect ourselves from weapons of mass destruction that did not exist, delivered to our shores by unmanned aerial vehicles that also did not exist, or by terrorists with whom Iraq had no relationship.

Read enough of Jay Bookman's work and a person might begin to entertain the idea that he is getting paid by someone to give his opinion. If so, his employer is getting their money worth and then some.

Did They Really Say That

The "Washington Post's" William M. Arkin, writing in his online column, "Early Warning," glommed onto a point from the Republican debate that most journalists and media outlets must have decided to ignore - - either that or insanity has become so common place in American politics that it no longer warrants special consideration. Arkin noted:

At the Republican debate [Tuesday night], almost all the candidates said that they would not rule out a nuclear attack on Iran as a means to prevent it from getting its own nuclear weapons

There was a time in this country that even the hint of a candidate seriously advocating the unprovoked unleashing of nuclear warheads, would have resulted in their immediate disqualification from holding office. After nearly seven years of Bush administration policies, however, instigating nuclear war seems a bit ho-hum and not worthy of media discussion.

Arkin's next passage is being included mostly due to the fact that he actually uses the term "knuckleheads" and let's be honest, that word isn't used nearly often enough when discussing the players involved in contemporary American politics:

Only one of these knuckleheads would say that attacking Iran -- indeed even threatening to nuke Iran -- is not the right strategy.

The lone dissenter was, of course, Ron Paul - - the only Republican on a crusade to save America that doesn't involve the constant invocation of Jesus.

Aside from Arkin's commendable use of the term "knuckleheads," he explained in a very succinct way why the Republican candidate's nuclear bellicosity is morally and practically unacceptable:

I am not arguing that Iran's effort to develop nuclear weapons is justified. It isn't. I am saying, however, that the U.S. should not use its nuclear weapons to threaten Iran. And not just from a moral standpoint, but from a practical one: When we brandish our own nuclear arsenal, we only play into the hands of supporters of Tehran's plans to develop its own.

That isn't nuclear rocket science, it's just plain old common sense - - a commodity as rare in Republican politics as the term "knuckleheads" is in today's political discussion.

Poor, Poor Scooter...

Assume for a moment that an American working within the Executive Branch of government willfully exposed the identity of an undercover intelligence agent who was working on a very important and dangerous issue - - say an issue, like, maybe, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in particular and the Iranian WMD program specifically. Further, for the sake of discussion, assume that very same government official lied to a federal prosecutor about their role in the crime of exposing the agent's identity. Assuming all that, how would the average American react to the knowledge that such an official were held to account in a court of law?

Well, in the editor for the Weekly Standard, William Kristol's world, the average American would feel sorry for the government official who illegally exposed an intelligence agent's identity and then tried to cover it up by lying about their role in exposing the agent's identity:

I feel terrible. ... But we can't do anything about the injustice that has been done. Nor can we do anything to avert a further injustice looming on the horizon--Judge Reggie Walton seems inclined not to let Libby remain free pending appeal.

Poor, poor Scooter Libby! Such injustice and all the man did was to imperil the nation's national security - - surely, he is deserving of our collective sympathy.