Bush is boxed in. So he sells this sorry state of affairs as: Look! My life as a hedgehog! (best guess as to his true species: dodo bird with nukes). At this stage, you can't blame him, since any withdrawal that wouldn't be a catastrophe requires a 180 degree policy change on the diplomatic front: most notably, striking a grand bargain with Iran. Bush can't do that, his administration can't do it either. Too much loss of face. On the other hand I doubt they will seriously escalate against Iran ('precison bombing' isn't serious). So, unless he and Cheney are simultaneously served pretzels on which they choke, yeah two years of treading water is long. Bush will have ample opportunity to wish he was outta there.
Or just perhaps... (Department of Throwing More Stuff Against the Wall and See What Sticks): they could stage a Madrid 2 conference, as some in Israel now favor, and try to leverage that into a general policy change. But that would mean they and their Israeli friends are capable of smarts, which is a long shot.

Posted by: Guthman Bey | Aug 21 2006 17:09 utc | 1

"The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve the objectives and dreams which is a democratic society . . . We’re not leaving so long as I’m the president. That would be a huge mistake."

Thats a joke right? "We're not leaving so (no matter what the circumstances, even if there were to be peace breaking out tomorrow, or all out civil war?) so long as I'm president". Guess once the decider decides, thats it, so fuck the world.

Posted by: anna missed | Aug 21 2006 17:14 utc | 2

The problem I see here that Bush`s "one big idea" is not Iraq, but the New Middle East (and it is not even his idea).

Posted by: b | Aug 21 2006 17:15 utc | 3

"We’re not leaving so long as I’m the president. "

Ok then.

The choice is clear: impeach him and his murderous sidekick Shooter (and send them to the Hague), or continue to sink into the sands of Mess-opotamia.

Posted by: ran | Aug 21 2006 17:32 utc | 4

"The problem I see here that Bush`s "one big idea" is not Iraq, but the New Middle East"

It's the same idea. But one can dream about a "new" Middle East without doing any immediate, irreparable harm to the U.S. imperial position in the region -- in fact it might even help, that is, if he could have convinced anyone he was sincere. But Iraq is where the dream (or propaganda fantasy) has become a hellish reality, forcing Bush into his current intellectual fetal position.

Posted by: | Aug 21 2006 17:34 utc | 5

Billmon,

I'm ashamed of you here -- you are the one in this group with the most faith and awareness of the Orwellian game of "seamless ideological flip." You can't be losing faith in their power to effortlessly change official goals, official enemies, official anything -- on a dime. Plus, wasn't it you who noted the first hints out that maybe we need "something a little stronger than democracy" now in Iraq?

Anyway their goal is control of Middle East oil and gas (and pricing). And they'll be as flexible as they need to achieve it.

I can't recommend this new article by Chris Floyd more: It's Bigger Than the Neo-Cons. He describes very concisely just who "they" really are.

P.S. Einstein was a Hedgehog. So are most porn stars for that matter. Ouch!

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 21 2006 17:34 utc | 6

Real Men go to Teheran... but dodo birds don't.

Posted by: Guthman Bey | Aug 21 2006 17:36 utc | 7

-- This administration is stuck axel deep in the mud of its own incompetent and delusional policies. Unfortunately, we are also stuck -- how do we disable or get rid of this woeful and disastrous crew or at least keep it from doing more harm in the next two years?

I am left emotionally feeling the frustration of complete powerlessness -- of watching something that I cannot effect and therefore very depressed. I can barely stand it at times - alternating between rage and just wanting to run away..

Something has to give -- but what? Our system is clearly unable to deal with this horror of delusional incompetent fantasy governance. Ironically you almost feel as though the Christian millenialists have a point -- maybe these are the end times after all...

Our nation needs to do something to regain its self respect and reassert the power of reality in our governance and values. We have to stop just writing about it and start sticking it out there. I cannot imagine two more years of this flailing about.

Posted by: Elie | Aug 21 2006 17:39 utc | 8

@ Elie:

As I said on anothr thread, someone should explain to Bush that he needs to take the "pyrrhic" out of "Empyrrhe."

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 21 2006 17:50 utc | 9

--Don't you feel that the world order has been put in play? That there is now a dynamic that must reach a new equilibrium point? Clearly the US is not the only dog calling the shots anymore. However, there is no one new pack leader -- many dogs are vying for the alpha spot. I don't think that Bush and the Neoc's alone cause this --- they just accelerated the confrontation because they mistakenly thought that they had more power than they had. Having loosed it though, they can't "put it back" -- so must tumble forward talking big talk but really just hoping for the best. The petticoats of the US empire as well as the whole of the western world have been lifted to reveal spindly legs and the stench of corruption rather than healthy bone structure and true vitality. We are about to experience first hand what it feels like in one of those nature programs where the old bull elk, or whatever is driven from the herd ---

There are two confrontations, internal and external. The internal one is just starting to simmer and will probably tear the country to pieces -- maybe to make something better -- eventually? Or not. People will not sit still and watch everything collapse. The only context they will have is someone to blame or pick on in their immediate environment -- a time tested method for relieving oneself of any blame for circumstances -- just find someone to project it on... lots of strife here in the US. Or will we just wither without a whimper, passively chewing our cuds waiting for the slaughter?

Posted by: Elie | Aug 21 2006 18:20 utc | 10

When the miliary-corporate-political masters see economic profit in reversing course they will direct the Puppet to declare it so and then the media masters will manufacture the acceptable justification for the sheeple.

I think that point comes when the United States treasury department is finally bankrupt.

In the meantime, they'll keep praising god and passing the ammunition.

Posted by: gylangirl | Aug 21 2006 18:21 utc | 11

Malooga,

you are nothing if not tenacious, R'giap and citizen k got nothing on you. Reading Floyd's piece I was reminded of something w said so many years ago when he was still governor of Texas.

Thank you all very much. This is an impressive crowd-- the haves and the have-mores. (Laughter)

Some people call you the elite. I call you my base.

Perhaps you are too hard on billmon, if you consider that the shrub is merely the dummy for the PTB, his observations clearly line up with those of Floyd and your own as well.

it is easier to focus on one guy but he merely represents all those who have no problem taking stuff that is not nailed down and pushing crippled grandmothers out of the way to get it. A group of people who either have no idea of morals or simply think they are for fools and poor people. certainly it would be easier to deal with the problem if he were the only one making money off the suffering of people both in our own country as well as the rest of the world but this is not the case. there are so many who profit from the looting and sacking of other lands starting with truck drivers hauling water and diesel across the desert from Kuwait and engineers developing badder weapons to entrepeneurs running security companies and politicians getting a little more graft from vendors peddling their wares to the mighty military machine.

EVERYBODY knows that war is good for business. We have been doing it for a long time and we will keep doing it until we get our teeth handed to us. Nothing brings about clarity of thought like a good ass whupping.

It aint them, its us. we enable this behavior, if we want it to stop we can stop it.

Posted by: dan of steele | Aug 21 2006 18:22 utc | 12

At this stage, you can't blame him, since any withdrawal that wouldn't be a catastrophe requires a 180 degree policy change on the diplomatic front: most notably, striking a grand bargain with Iran. Bush can't do that, his administration can't do it either. Too much loss of face.

@Guthman: it's even worse than that. Dubya may have to make a 180 degree turn and still wind up with a catastrophe. Bush and his puppets Blair and Olmert are painted into the worst corners I've seen in my many years. None of them have any maneuver left that won't end badly.

The Big Idea that these hedgehogs can't face? Iran is not just some punkass band of jihadis; they are the power in the region, and we no longer possess the global omnipotence to take them on. Oh sure, we could drop bombs for a few days, but the dream that bombs will topple the regime is worse than naive.

We desparately need oil. They have oil. Let's just hope that Iran doesn't find rust in their pipelines and decide to go offline for a few months, just to see what shakes loose.

Posted by: montysano | Aug 21 2006 18:24 utc | 13

"It aint them, its us. we enable this behavior, if we want it to stop we can stop it."

Absolutely.

Posted by: Elie | Aug 21 2006 18:26 utc | 14

NOT!

Posted by: gylangirl | Aug 21 2006 18:33 utc | 15

"The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve the objectives and dreams which is a democratic society"

Excuse me, but that is not a strategy. That may be a goal, but not a strategy. That our President does not know the difference between a strategy and a goal explains a lot about the mess we are in. "But gee, we want democracy in Iraq real bad. Why isn't it happening?"

Posted by: jrgordon | Aug 21 2006 18:34 utc | 16

I think one of the most realistic and sensible reflections of the current delusional worldview projected by his Shrubbiness was that Chinese fellow who recently said "they should just shut up"! If I'm not mistaken, that has overtones of "paper tiger"/hypocrites, etc.

At the very least, our ability to [act as if we are] holding China to some standard on defense spending, let alone on "human rights" -- not that we ever did so rigorously -- has a mighty hollow ring.

Posted by: DonS | Aug 21 2006 19:16 utc | 17

@montysano - the U.S. does not "desperately need oil". With simple measures, and a measure of sense, the U.S. could cut its energy dependency to great, gainful effect. But it will probably take a serious systemic shock to make the public and the politicians face up to the need.

Having six-car families and driving gargantuan cars just to pick up a six-pack of beer, is beyond ridiculous, it's insane. This will sort itself out nicely.

Oil should be several hundred dollars per barrel, if we priced it sensibly. The oil being burnt in car engines should be used to create the necessary plastics we have become totally dependent upon, the complex chemical compounds, the vital electric insulation, and so on - almost ad infinitum. Instead, we're setting a match to it and watching it go up in global warming assisting smoke.

Good going. Whoever comes after us is going to consider us dumber than the cardinals who thought the earth was flat, and who were willing to burn people to keep it that way.

Posted by: SteinL | Aug 21 2006 20:04 utc | 18

SteinL --

Maybe the US doesnt desperately need oil -- but key moneyed elites do. There will be no "sorting out" without them experiencing great loss of wealth and a scaling back in our "lifestyles" -- something seen as unacceptable -- actually unimaginable. Like Wyle E Coyote, this elite is running in the air after the elusive roadrunner and will have to experience the ground just like Wyle E. Unfortunately, they will not experience the ground without lashing out and taking as much with them as they can. That is why the term "desperate" has so much meaning. The serious systemic shock will not be an intellectual event. It will be real, devestating and lethal to many people including some that you communicate with regularly on this site. So "sorting out nicely" is a euphemism that holds a mirror to you and says "that means you too, bub"

Posted by: Elie | Aug 21 2006 20:21 utc | 19

@Elie:

Don't you feel that the world order has been put in play? That there is now a dynamic that must reach a new equilibrium point?

Bingo. We're in the car that unexpectedly careered off the road, and now we're bouncing down the mountainside, hitting every boulder in our path. Let's hope we are still alive when we come to rest.

@dan of steele:

I'm only hard on Billmon because he is the best. I treat idiots with kindness, and, perhaps, a hard sweet candy.

I agree with you about Shrub being the dummy for the PTB. See my OT thread post.

By the way, you do write just as well as me -- just not as much.

@montysano:

Let's just hope that Iran doesn't find rust in their pipelines...

yuck, yuck.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 21 2006 20:25 utc | 20

@SteinL: I can't find the cite for it right now, but I remember reading that Osama bin Laden had no problem with Arabian oil being sold to the world; he was just tired of it being stolen, and thought that the right price (this was in the late '90s) was about $200.00/bbl. We'll be there soon enough.

But your point is well taken: what percentage of consumption could we cut, virtually overnight, simply by eliminating the most glaring of the wasteful usage? 20%? 30%? More? However, that would require visionary leadership, a commodity even scarcer than Ancient Sunshine these days.

The tragedy of it is that (as Clinton and Gore have both observed) there is tremendous economic potential in the "retooling" of society in order to prepare for the Post Oil Age. But again, there's the visionary leadership thing.....

@ Billmon: nice one, the hedgehog thing.

Posted by: montysano | Aug 21 2006 20:42 utc | 21

Bush said today that the invasion of Iraq was a consequence of 9/11; we know that Bush was planning to invade Iraq from day one. Therefore, Bush admitted today that he had advance knowledge of 9/11.

Posted by: Brian Boru | Aug 21 2006 21:42 utc | 22

Most of us could get by just fine burning much less oil - using light rail, living closer to work - there are all sorts of ways to help make it feasable.

However modern armies are utterly dependent on abundant fuel for their mobility, and thefore the military-industrial complex must control oil in order to wield power.

I wonder where the US elites would be without their military...

Posted by: apodo | Aug 21 2006 22:01 utc | 23

This has a been great discussion. I'll be right back. I'm taking the Suburban to get a six pack of beer!

Honestly, I have beaten the energy conservation drum where I teach for seven years. I am surprised at how many people do listen. Yes I do have a Suburban but I only put about 2,000 miles a year on it and use it over our usual 160 inches of snow or drive it filled with kids. All our other vehicles are little four bangers, I laid in 2 cords of wood for the winter and spent my last dime on insulating windows in our 100 year old farm house.

As for the rest, most of our community ia walkable, I walk to work most of the time now, and it is better for my health.

I remember back in the early 90's a paper in Lester Brown's World Watch Annual discussed the importance of planned walkable communities and I caught the bug. When I finally was able to buy a house after grad school, I made sure it was a block from the bike path that circles our town. I can ski to work on snow days most of the time!

What's really missing from our rural community is mass transit. That would make life easier. Apart from a few busses a week and the senior bus, we're on our own!

Every community has to face the energy issue in its own way. We're still a long way from being done. Apart from low energy bulbs and insulation, I haven't done much. Even explored geothermal: but the ground surface temperature differential is not enough to make it feasible.

WooHoo! I sound lie a hippy eco freak from the seventies again!
Shove it, Madame Super Tanker!

Posted by: Diogenes | Aug 21 2006 22:19 utc | 24

I have to laugh when I hear you guys saying say that your post peak oil preparation includes moving so close to work that you can walk to it.

Posted by: gylangirl | Aug 21 2006 23:11 utc | 25

Billmon, I think you are giving GWB much to much credit for any thing resembling emotion or intuition. I really used to think he would be devastated when he realized how he had been used (what with all the death and other things). But, you know, I don't think so anymore. I think if "they" handed him a new script tomorrow which read that "America has successfully planted democracy in the Middle East and was relocating our military to China to bring the same winning formula to Asia", Bush would not blink an eye. Since there is the presumption that he is human, how did "they" take control of his, albeit, limited brain?

Posted by: Mary Moore | Aug 21 2006 23:20 utc | 26

Dan of Steele in response to Malooga and the Chris Floyd piece writes:

"EVERYBODY knows that war is good for business."

Agree with everything Dan, Malooga and Chris have written. But how about an economic ass whupping to really change the game once and for all? Wars have always been immensely profitable for many of the economic players that really run things - proof of a variation of that old bromide - a rising tide lifts all boats - but in this instance battleship division boats only need apply (we could subtitle it the Cheney/Rumsfeld division).

The trick is: How can the sensible folk make peace profitable? Or better yet, the inverse and war unprofitable? Solve THAT conundrum and we've truly proven that our species has in fact evolved and might deserve not to be voted in toto off this particular island.....

And while I'm dreaming I'd like a pony, too. Chestnut-colored, long mane with floppy ears....

Posted by: McGee | Aug 22 2006 0:05 utc | 27

Well Gylan I planned that for a long time. Why is it funny?

Posted by: Diogenes | Aug 22 2006 1:12 utc | 28

@McGee:

Now that's a dream worth making reality.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 22 2006 2:47 utc | 29

Yeah, I think he's back on the gargle too. I'm guessing he fell off the wagon sometime between "heckuva job" and the early '06 polls showing his approval down in the low thirties. The mix with his meds is completely unpredictable but if they discontinue the meds abruptly he will start biting people--HARD. We've had gonif presidents, chucklehead presidents, empty suit presidents, devious and amoral presidents, but I think this is the first time a certifiable wackmobile has been Chief Magistrate of the nation. (Well, TR, but I think he went nuts after he left office.)

Posted by: rootlesscosmo | Aug 22 2006 4:33 utc | 30

@gylangirl -

I have to laugh when I hear you guys saying say that your post peak oil preparation includes moving so close to work that you can walk to it.

Yes, I keep hearing that, and it is funny. As if everything will remain the same, just with less oil. :-) "Yup, once we burn up all the oil, I'll be putting in some miles on my feet, be good for me too. I definitely need the exercise."

Posted by: SteinL | Aug 22 2006 4:33 utc | 31

Funny, as in you will not be getting a little extra walking done once we pass peak oil, you will be running . . . around with a weapon and whatever ammo you've stocked up in the basement (you are doing this, right everybody?) hoping to find some food and shelter on a day-to-day basis in the post-apocalypse world you once called "home".

Unfortunately, all the handguns seem to be in the hands of the Rupublicans, so I don't many on the left will be able to enjoy that post-apocalypse carnival after all -- walking or running.

At any rate, history provides no analogies to peak oil, so there's no way to tell whether this scenario or some back-to-nature hippie luddite society (minus 90% of the population, natch) emerges. I can't say I'm rooting for either one, so I just hope America elects a genius next time to pull us outta this shit.

My pony will need to be black with white spots, a short brushy mane, and wings if at all possible.

Posted by: Jason Bergman | Aug 22 2006 23:26 utc | 32

@Jason Bergman:

Funny, as in you will not be getting a little extra walking done once we pass peak oil, you will be running . . . around with a weapon and whatever ammo you've stocked up in the basement (you are doing this, right everybody?) hoping to find some food and shelter on a day-to-day basis in the post-apocalypse world you once called "home".

Yes, I'm sure that, once the oil runs out, the best way to keep yourself fed won't be to try things like growing food yourself, it will be to pin your hopes on ANOTHER non-renewable resource (ammunition) which will tie you to one location (your storage area) and prevent anyone from helping you. Sounds like a brilliant idea. And shelter? Well, everyone knows that the minute the oil runs out, all the buildings in the world will suddenly crumble into ruins, and everyone will conveniently forget how to do things like carpentry and brickmaking.

It's not like there might be any future in investigating any alternatives. Nope, we're just flat-out doomed to living in smoking ruins, where every stranger is an enemy.

Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | Aug 23 2006 4:16 utc | 33

cool link, truth.

Following it to www.pathtofreedom.com is worthwhile too.

Posted by: citizen | Aug 23 2006 12:41 utc | 34

Funny, as in you will not be getting a little extra walking done once we pass peak oil, you will be running . . . around with a weapon and whatever ammo you've stocked up in the basement (you are doing this, right everybody?) hoping to find some food and shelter on a day-to-day basis in the post-apocalypse world you once called "home".

I think a little more an deeper thinking of how things will play out should peak oil hit. (Which I happen to hold the minority positions here that it won't for a long time, barring a US caused world war, but not for technical supply issues.)

You are implying a total breakdown of the capitalist system here. How would we have jobs? Who would pay us? Who would be printing money? Where would we get money for bullets? Would the bullet manufacturers be supplied with food? Who would protect the convoys? Who would patrol the farmland?

Surely, it makes more sense to imagine more intermediate stages which we might better be able to predict -- and then move from there.

Will the average American need guns to procure his food, or will the fifty percent of the world who gets by on less than two dollars a day be the first to suffer? Will the suffering spread from the bottom up, or will it be more equalized? How will the rich maintain their lifestyles? Will there be a massive de-population event, which will take the pressure off for a hundred or more years?

Can we map out the changes from where we are now, and how they will take place -- or do we just pick out our worst nightmare at random and act as if that were the obvious foregone conclusion and throw it in others faces, like a few peak oil writers of reknown are doing. That is too intellectually sloppy for me, and therefore bound to mislead, though I do recognize the emotional appeal of this approach.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 23 2006 14:02 utc | 35