Friday, November 10, 2006

The Bush administration circling the wagons

In what will be multi-news-cycle coverage of the Republican defeat (following the November 2006 election) a wide range of thoughtful analysis, opinion and of course, misinformation, will result in the Bush administration coming under an ever-critical eye of the news media and the public in general. It starts with the following from the UK:
“Whether Bush will cooperate with such reform in the hope of rescuing his floundering presidency is up to him. The first sign of compromise is the departure of his defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld - announced by a chastened Bush at his press conference yesterday - who has been facing a near-mutinous revolt of his generals against the Iraq war. However, the only Republican of any stature, Senator John McCain, is disinclined to come to Bush's aid.” (The Guardian Nov. 9, 2006)
With all due respect to the Guardian I disagree. The departure of Donald Rumsfeld is a White House/Rumsfeld defensive measure. If Rumsfeld stayed on as Defense Secretary then he would have most certainly been grilled by congress. This would have meant that many uncomfortable questions would have been asked requiring equally uncomfortable answers. So Rumsfeld had to go.

The new Defense Secretary in waiting, Robert Gates, brings with him many questions that have never been answered about Iran–Contra, Soviet (cooked) Intel from the 80’s, and a man not known for “speaking truth to power”. Gates is a Bush Family insider, one who is part of the Baker commission to look into the Iraq war strategy with an eye to suggesting a new direction. I wonder aloud if the apparent ineptitude permeating the inception and conduct of the war is not deliberate. Could it be that the Bush administration wanted to be sure that we could never leave Iraq If we leave now then worse things will happen, Bush says; what could be worse that what is happening now?(and you were told that the current strategy was victory)
I suspect these new appointees to manage Bush's war are charged with protecting the Bush reputation more than trying to explain to the American people how to unscramble the Iraq omelet.
It will be interesting to see how many of the “LIBERAL” news media bring to light the Gates past (my guess is none). Gates is a man who cannot be trusted; he is the father of the Intelligence problem that got us into Iraq in the first place. By the way: The new strategy we hear is to send more troops to Iraq. If congress blocks the move Bush can always claim that congress lost the battle because they would not send more troops. If we do send more troops and they are there for another two years past the next election and we loose then its the next administration's fault. The decider is never wrong, ever. By the way:How do you define victory?