He says it’s terrorists, but it sounds like a domestic dispute
Sensing an emergency on the home front while Iraq continues to melt down from summer heat and violence, George W. Bush‘s handlers instructed the president to once again cry wolf last night.
As the Washington Post describes it this morning:
Bush talked global, but his problem is local. In fact, his handlers are much more worried about dissent and rebellion against the regime and the GOP than they are about the Iraqis dying in a debacle created (as the Downing Street Memo scandal confirms) by the regime itself. As for Iraq itself, no wonder he didn’t go into great detail, instead trying to give a “global war on terror” sheen to his shuck.
Yeah, it’s kinda messy in Iraq right now. Christian Aid, the British humanitarian organization that was the first to expose the oil-for-slush scandal: the massive corruption and confusion of the gone-but-not-forgotten Coalition Provisional Authority’s mishandling of billions of dollars, reports:
According to Christian Aid, as many as 25,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the unjustified U.S. invasion and the resulting occupation. And this NGO has been right before.
Meanwhile, the Bush regime tries to rewrite history. In one astounding passage from last night’s prime-time speech, Bush said:
Well, it is now. But it’s the result of the unjustified U.S. invasion of Iraq in March ’03. We’ve made Iraq the prime training ground for terrorists, a rallying point and battle cry. Many of us have been warning of that; even the New York Times recognizes it, as I pointed out recently in “Rove Cleans Up.”
Just yesterday, the Bush regime celebrated the one-year anniversary of Jerry Bremer‘s “handing over” the reins of government to the Iraqis. And in last night’s speech, Bush crowed about bringing “democracy” to Iraq. But it’s more instructive to go back two years, to June 28, 2003. That was the day when Bremer, making one of his many memorable and tragic decisions, halted local elections in Iraq, marking a beginning of a hardening insurgency.
As the Washington Post‘s William Booth and Rajiv Chandrasekaran reported exactly two years ago to the day:
The decision to deny Iraqis a direct role in selecting municipal governments is creating anger and resentment among aspiring leaders and ordinary citizens, who say the U.S.-led occupation forces are not making good on their promise to bring greater freedom and democracy to a country dominated for three decades by Saddam Hussein.
Bremer even said at the time that restructuring Iraq’s economy—not reviving it, but privatizing it for foreign investors is what he intended—had a higher priority. And as for Iraqi self-rule, that Post story added:
Bremer’s condescending and cowboyish approach was a disaster, as we now know. Also on June 29, 2003, he was interviewed on BBC’s “Breakfast With Frost,” where he said:
But there’s no strategic threat to the coalition here, we dominate the scene and we will continue to impose law and order and impose our will on this country.
Yeah, right. And he said there was plenty of progress being made, adding:
At the time, naturally, most of the U.S. press swallowed such swill. But not the Brits. On the same BBC program on June 29, 2003, Dominic Nutt of Christian Aid replied:
Two years later, the situation is even more chaotic. As the Post‘s Dan Balz wrote this morning:
Bush sought to assure Americans that his plan for training Iraqi security forces is moving forward, saying more than 160,000 of them have “trained and equipped for a variety of missions.” Last week, Biden said that only about 2,500 of those troops are capable of operating independently and that it will take two more years to build a fully functioning Iraqi army.
No wonder Bush dialed 9/11 and said he felt threatened by strangers.