Last night Keith-O's latest report on Iraq did a masterful job of breaking down exactly how the administration has been pulling a giant bait and switch confidence game since before the war when George Tenet originally told George Bush - there were no WMD's based on credible sources and was ignored.
It was "too late. This isn't about WMD anymore - it's about Regime Change" was the answer.
I think it's well past time we seriously considered some "Regime Change" of our own.
Since before the war the Administration has been playing us all for suckers. It's been a long standing elaborate confidence game. Bush grand strategy in Iraq is clear and simple and would fit on a postage stamp and still leave plenty of room - "Just Wait."
During a press conference today at the G8 summit in Russia, President Bush told President Vladimir Putin that Americans want Russia to develop a free press and free religion “like Iraq.” To laughter and applause, Putin responded: “We certainly would not want to have same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, quite honestly.”
BUSH: I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world, like Iraq, where there’s a free press and free religion. And I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia will do the same thing. I fully understand, however, that there will be a Russian-style democracy.
PUTIN: We certainly would not want to have same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, quite honestly.
BUSH: Just wait.
"Just wait" - that's been the "strategery" all along. Also known as the "Sun will come out tomorrow" view. Bet your bottom dollar.
This is made even more evident by former Colin Powell Chief of Staff Col. Lawrence Wilkerson.
WILKERSON: Well, I think some neo-cons in the administration might have had that as a goal but I think the highest level of leadership in the administration‘s goal was quite clear and it was made clear by the fact that there was so little planning for post-invasion Iraq. The plan was to stay 90 to 120 days and then to substantially reduce the American presence. We would leave some hard stand for aircraft and so forth so that we could use Iraq as a lever in the Middle East in general, but we wouldn‘t have a substantial troop presence there after 90 to 120 days. That was the plan.
OLBERMANN: Year after year since that plan didn‘t happen, didn‘t turn out the way it was planned or not planned as the case may be, Democrats have gotten burned when the administration dangles this possibility of some kind of withdrawal. Why did the Democrats seem incapable of dealing with Mr. Bush on the terms we now know to be his as described in that biography and described again today in “USA Today” by Mr. Bolten that he wants a sustained presence there that outlasts his own term of office?
WILKERSON: Well, let me address that issue first. I think I‘m being proven correct here in my openings some months ago that the administration, particularly Vice President Cheney, had made a strategic decision that they could not fix the situation in Iraq, therefore they were going to do their best to simply pass it on to the next administration without too much damage to, they hope, the Republican party in their hopes to win the White House again in 2008. I think this is justification of the view. I believe they think they can‘t do anything really well in Iraq right now, so they‘re going to pass it on to the next administration.
That's it, in a nutshell. Everytime we fall tragically short of accomplishing any of our goals in the region, the Bushies reset the goal posts. That is exactly what has already happened with the deeply deceptive
Ilan Goldenberg writes that one explanation for the contrary reports is because the military is not counting deaths from car bombs. The National Security Network notes that Petraeus has made a number of statements about the results of escalation that have been contradicted by Iraqi government data, independent media reports, and other U.S. agencies.
NSN writes, “The numbers have raised such alarm bells that a member of the Iraq Study Group, former ambassadors and leading academics have written to Congress asking them to look into the validity of U.S. government claims.”
This plain a sober analysis of simple facts has of course been attacked by the wingers who've said the General Accounting Office "isn't qualified" to - uh - account for events in Iraq. (Considered the fact that by the same standards the President, Vice President and most of their staff including SecDef Gates aren't qualified to run a war - the point is moot) They've now got their new neo-con attack poodle O'Hanlon repeating their discredit and dismiss strategy that Cheney used so effectively on Joe Wilson, now claiming that the GAO report is "flat-out sloppy" when his own data and reports - borrow from the GAO.
How stupid must he feel now?
Just like when Iraq Foreign Minister Sabri told Tenet that "Saddam destroyed his WMD's in 1991" and was blown off. They didn't listen to him or the Gen. Hussein Kamel who'd said the same thing back in 1996, the Energy Dept who said the aluminum tubes were harmless and the UN Inspector who said our WMD Intel was Garbage, instead they listened to liars like Curveball, Ibn Sheik al-Libi and the Niger Forgeries. Today we're seeing the exact same situation repeated over and over again. The truth is being blown off. The facts are being ignored and the lies promoted as valid. Bush is claiming a great victory in Al Anbar, a wonderful validation of the "surge" when the truth is that the Sunni Militia in Anbar province had decided to fight against al Qaeda before the surge even began.
``In Anbar you're seeing firsthand the dramatic differences that can come when the Iraqis are more secure,'' Bush told U.S. troops, a friendly sea of soldiers and Marines dressed in camouflage uniforms. ``You see Sunnis who once fought side by side with al-Qaida against coalition troops now fighting side by side with coalition troops against al-Qaida.''
In truth, the progress in Anbar was initiated by the Iraqis themselves, a point Gates himself made, saying the Sunni tribes decided to fight and retake control from al-Qaida many months before Bush decided to send an extra 4,000 Marines to Anbar as part of his troop buildup.
There it is in black and white. The Sunni's turned on al Qeada themselves after they had successfully manage to ethnically cleanse the area (either by killing or intimidation) of all oppossing Shia. They had effecively WON their local civil war and simply turned against al Qeada to completely lock down their control of the area.
Sunni and Shia are self-segregating because they're either dead or they've fled the area.
That's how the fighting will eventually be ended, not by the ineffective and corrupt Iraqi Police or Army, not by their joke of a government - but by gradual implementation of their own "final solution."
Peace through Genocide.
Meanwhile, we just stand by and wait... and wait.. and wait, until Bush can quietly sneak out the back door, and when the next President finally start to clean this fracking mess up with some actual diplomacy - Bush will take all the credit.
See, it's a perfect plan. Just wait.