As if it should be some sort of comfort to the American people, Bush declared today in his Rose Garden news conference that "we're on the move in Iraq . . . we've increased the presence of troops on the streets of Baghdad." Casualties are increasing there, he said, because, "we're on the move."
"The situation is difficult in Iraq, no question about it," Bush told reporters. At the point when the occupation should be winding down, according to his past promises, our soldiers are being forced to replace the death-squad militias which have infected the ranks of the Iraqi police forces. Iraq's standing them down as our troops are made to stand in. Casualties are increasing there, Bush said, because, "we're on the move." More likely, though, we're not going anywhere. Bush seems more intent than ever on leaving our soldiers to continue the losing defense of the crumbled Maliki regime.
In fact, today, a top general announced that it's Bush's intention to keep the troops in Iraq at the current level, 15 combat brigades, until at least 2010. General Peter Schoomaker said number of soldiers deployed will depend on 'conditions on the ground'. Bush must have been agreeing with him when he told reporters in the Rose Garden, "I said general, if you come into this office and tell me to do something different I'm with you." They decide the 'tactics', he said, and he provides the objectives.
"If we leave before the job is done," he told the press, "the enemy is coming after us." The 'enemy' has the capacity to use oil as an economic weapon, he said. "The stakes are high."
Not as high now, as it was earlier in the week, however. Bush has been saying over and over that Iraq is the center of his 'war on terror'. Now he says it's the 'terrorists' who say it's the terror war's center; he only thinks it's a 'part' of his war now. How does he know that? "The enemies told him so."
"You can tell I've made my choice," Bush said. "When you engage the enemy it causes more kinetic action," he declared about our soldiers and their casualty-ridden mission in Iraq. But, Bush vowed to let the "forces of moderation prevail" in the rest of the world. When asked about North Korea crossing the red line he had drawn in declaring that they would face a concerted U.S. response if they went ahead with their nuclear weapons program, Bush responded that the thing about the 'red line' is that it caused the world to 'come together'.
Bush said he was busy "convincing 'others' that they have a stake" in North Korea's "intransigence." He's not about resorting to a military response to North Korea, like in Iraq. It's a "different diplomatic scenario," he said. We exhaust "all diplomatic measures before we use our military." he declared.
But, what about the 'red line', he was asked again. Doesn't North Korea's "intransigence" put the U.S. at risk of looking "feckless" to the world?
The statement still stands, he told the reporter. "Having other people join us, and give diplomacy a chance to work . . . we're strategizing . . . how do we work together, and that's a change.
"But, what about Iraq?" Bush asked himself aloud, anticipating the next question. "Iraq? We tried the diplomacy . . ." It's a new invention, drawn from his old bag of lies, that diplomacy was exhausted before he invaded Iraq. It goes against the reality of what the world knew at the time was pending from the U.N. Security Council before Bush decided to preemptively invade and occupy Iraq. There was certain rejection brewing among the council members against Bush's plan to push forward with military action against Saddam. Bush sidestepped all of those objections by forcing the inspectors out of Iraq with his declaration that he intended to go ahead with the planned invasion. Diplomacy was, to Bush, simply advance PR for his certain intention to overthrow Iraq.
Still, there is the apparent 'test' by North Korea, done in direct defiance of Bush's blustering and 'line-drawing'. What about Bush's responsibility for allowing North Korea's nuclear muckraking to get so out of hand in the six years he's been in office? "It's a serious issue," Bush explained, "but, it's been serious for years," he said, implying that, once again, Bill Clinton was somehow responsible for the 'decider-in-chief's own failure to stifle Kim Jong-il's nuclear ambitions.
"We came into office and discovered they were developing a program, unbenownst at the time they signed the agreement." Bush said in his defense. "It's the intransigence of the N. Korean leader . . . that's the problem," Bush explained. "It's his decision." Six years in office hasn't been nearly enough time for Bush to get a handle on thing. We all remember Truman and Roosevelt quibbling about the actions of their predecessors as they confronted Germany and Japan.
According to Bush, if we want to fathom his responses to these terrorist's and maniacal rouges, we should take heed of their statements and actions. That's where Bush says he gets the inspiration for his actions. If we want to know why Bush has failed to stop North Korea, he wants us to know that he's succeeded in getting others involved. If we want to fathom his occupation of Iraq, we should consult the words of bin-Laden.
Heaven forbid George Bush should take responsibility for his own actions . . . for his mindlessly destructive, "kinetic" actions.