Bush Changes His Mind (Or Not)

May 30, 2007

There was some truth in this statement:

April 13, 2004

As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation — and neither does America.
President Addresses the Nation

But that knowledge seems to be lost now:

May 30, 2007

President George W. Bush would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea to provide stability but not in a frontline combat role, the White House said on Wednesday.
Bush envisions U.S. presence in Iraq like S.Korea,

Has Bish changed his mind? Of course not. Fifty years of U.S. troops in South Korea, supporting a military dictatorship for most of that time, is not indefinite occupation and that is all he talked about.

And there is even hope some Iraqis will agree to such a not-idefinite occupation. Those living in London and Washington may even like the idea.

Posted by b on May 30, 2007 at 19:24 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Since very early on in the occupation they’ve been using the term ‘permanent bases’. That should have given it away right there, but I guess most people weren’t paying attention.

Posted by: mikefromtexas | May 31 2007 1:46 utc | 1

Bush never changed his mind; it was set on a permanent military presence from the outset. He has merely come to alter his public utterances.

Posted by: ralphieboy | May 31 2007 5:44 utc | 2

This is early positioning of the GOP as “the Party that Won the War” for the 2008 Election.
The GOP will keep the surge going right into next spring, in order to strong arm the Shia and Kurds into signing the Production Sharing Agreements that hand over 70% of Iraq’s oil wealth to the American oil companies.
Once that law is signed, the American grunts will be increasingly used only for guarding the remote oil fields and pipelines, otherwise staying put on their permanent bases.
The American death toll will drop, which is all the GOP needs to run on in 2008.
Of course, the strong arming of the Shia and Kurds, neither of whom wants to sign those PSA’s — has yet to succeed. And might never succeed.
That’ll be the end of the GOP, and every one of its hobbled together political coalitions, in detail. They’ll have to form a new party, the National Socialist Workers Party or some such.

Posted by: Antia | May 31 2007 7:15 utc | 3

This ought to play well with the Iraqi government and the internal debate over the long range U.S. plans. No wonder bush was “furious” over the leak. Is there a special German word to describe that fury? Something like faking outrage for opposing audiences for opposing reasons.

Posted by: anna missed | May 31 2007 8:05 utc | 4

@4:
Topfenstrudel …. ?

Posted by: dolce | May 31 2007 12:36 utc | 5

That would be like having a permanent military base in *North Korea*.
As far as I can tell, there is no part of Iraq that is friendly towards the Conquerers.

Posted by: pb | May 31 2007 16:07 utc | 6

On bush’s mind: From the Dallas Morning News – A Spreading Terror

The White House sees terrorists as born, not created by history, bearing the mark of Cain, not the mark of circumstance. There is a scarlet “T” written on their foreheads at birth and the only answer is to destroy them. This kind of thinking, of course, relieves the thinker of any responsibility for the presence of the insurgent-terrorist-whatever in our innocent midst.
What’s more, there is not much real give in the administration’s policies. True, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other American diplomats met Memorial Day weekend with the Iranians in Baghdad (a good first move but limited, since the Iranians have most of the power because of our incredible stupidity in Iraq). But by all reports, President Bush is more convinced than ever of his righteousness.
Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated “I am the president!” He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of “our country’s destiny.”

Posted by: beq | May 31 2007 16:50 utc | 7

beq,
maybe that “T” on their forehead stands for “Texan”…

Posted by: ralphieboy | May 31 2007 19:06 utc | 8

An interesting chronology of events

Posted by: pb | May 31 2007 19:32 utc | 9

thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated “I am the president!”
Il Duce used to do that didn’t he? Before the Paysanos turned on him… As I recall, it wasn’t pretty.

Posted by: pb | May 31 2007 19:56 utc | 10

thanks pb @9 – remarkable chronology on Iranq
—
Usually Atrios at Echaton has just short one liners.
Today he has an insightful rant on Why Do We Stay In Iraq?
Excerpt:

…
Tom Friedman and others went to war because they have the mentality of 5 years olds and they thought that the smartest thing we could do was whip out our giant schlong and wave it around for awhile. Tom Friedman and others stay in Iraq because they think that if they don’t keep popping cialis (“If your occupation lasts longer than 6 months…”) the world will notice our little tiny shriveled up thingy.
Karl Rove went to war so his boy could prance on the aircraft carrier and win re-election. He stays because leaving Iraq will anger wingnuttia.
…

Posted by: b | May 31 2007 21:42 utc | 11

This is somehow so very fitting:
Iraq Slogger – Coerced Labor Building Baghdad Embassy?
More Iraq, interview with a British private security detail – We are a taxi service with guns

Posted by: Alamet | May 31 2007 23:39 utc | 12

Back to Main