For a while it seemed that Bush's chickens would not come home to roost until he had flown the coop, leaving a vast wasteland of unparalleled blunders for his successor to clean up. That's been the president's strikingly transparent plan for at least a year -- Come on, boys, hop on these powder kegs with me and let's weigh down the lids till I escape to Crawford for good, where I'll brag of the stability I left behind, and blame the subsequent, inexorable convulsions on the new guys.
And you have to give the devil his due. For a while, it looked like he just might pull it off -- that he would indeed keep enough assorted fireballs in the air, that he would whack a sufficient number of moles, that he would weigh down the power-kegs just long enough to dump them, yet unexploded, on someone else.
But fate -- that conspiracy of the inevitable -- has a way of biting one in the ass at the most inopportune times, especially when one has contributed all the fateful decisions. And as I write, it's taking a huge chunk out of Bush's butt. He may, after all, not make it to the finish line of 2009 quite so cleanly.
As the Washington Post reports this morning, "President Bush held an emergency meeting of his top foreign policy aides yesterday to discuss the deepening crisis in Pakistan, as administration officials and others explored whether Thursday's assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto marks the beginning of a new Islamic extremist offensive that could spread beyond Pakistan and undermine the U.S. war effort in neighboring Afghanistan."
His house of cards is being scattered by tangible blowback, and even Bush is aware of it. For him and his co-bunglers, it's serious panic time.
"They are concerned that continued instability eventually will spill over and intensify the fighting in Afghanistan" -- you think? -- "which has spiked in recent months as the Taliban has strengthened and expanded its operations. Unrest in Pakistan and increasing fuel prices have already boosted the cost of food in Afghanistan, making it more likely that hungry Afghans will be lured by payments from the Taliban to participate in attacks, a U.S. Army officer in Afghanistan said."
Then paraphrasing the officer: "If there is indeed a new challenge by Islamic militants emerging in Pakistan, then the United States will have to do whatever it can to support Musharraf."
So we're back to square one, the principal occupant of which, with Bush's support, has been at the problematic core of so many firestorms since the beginning.
But it was the words of two U.S. officials who've served in Afghanistan that unwittingly revealed the deeper problem.
Said one: "My prediction is, Musharraf will go into a bunker mentality and be nicer to the Muslims. He goes through the pretenses of crackdown but never follows through."
Said the other: "Pakistan isn't really engaged in a fight against terror. One of the mistakes amongst many U.S. policymakers is to project the American construct of a war on terror onto the Pakistani regime's struggle for survival. There are some congruencies between the two, but even more differences."
Sorry, fellas, but the congruencies smother the differences.
Ever since George W. Bush hit his trifecta in 2001, his much-vaunted "war on terror" has never "really engaged in a fight against terror." There was a "pretense of crackdown" immediately following 9/11, but no critical "follow through," because Mr. Bush's wars have been, above all, politically domestic ones since the run-up to the 2002 elections.
And now the unintended, and unattended, consequences are swaggering around large, carrying the biggest club imaginable. Looping back to the above-quoted Army officer: "Pakistan must take drastic action against the Taliban in its midst or we will face the prospect of a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of al-Qaeda -- a threat far more dangerous and real than Hussein's arsenal ever was."
Which further loops us back to the almost purely political since 2002 -- hypernationalistic distractions at home in the pursuit of a permanent Republican majority that in fact have embodied Mr. Bush's "war on terror," and which now have been reduced to his mere "struggle for survival."
I pity the poor schmuck who inherits this mess -- and it's looking like it'll be even messier much sooner, what with all those chickens running around, finally coming home to roost.
I ran thru all the MSM articles on Bhutto before coming here and finally settled on the Washington Post article as the one I needed. I set out highlighting all the key phrases from it, and guess what? They were the exact same ones you picked out.
So here is the question: If this crap is all so obvious to us, the rabble, why don't these guys, after all this time, even have a clue? This stuff really isn't that hard.
Posted by: Benedict@Large | December 29, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Why don'these guys have a clue? The problem with being religiously pure, or ideologically pure is that the chosen exclude all others. Competence is not even considered. I remember reading an article where Jack Abramoff states that his Zionist/Jewish awarness was awakened and nurtured by his viewing of the movie "The Fiddler on the Roof." A zionist or jew would find this statement inspiring while I a rational thinking human views it as a sign of mental illness. As far as the Christianists are concerned Bu$h is G*D. That he and his cabal are insatiably insane is beyond all doubt. To even believe that the USA can control Afghanistan and Pakistan is utter insanity. Are our young people ready to fight and die in Afghanistan and Pakistan for G*D and Country? Stay tuned as alcoholic huberistic insanity is the rule of the day. PEACE
Posted by: Easterling | December 29, 2007 at 02:46 PM
There are a few items that have slipped under the radar in all the fracas. Read the transcripts of a White House briefing from Thursday. WH spkesman Scott S. states that Bush first learned of Bhutto's death from an intelligence briefing at 07:30 CST, I would find that disturbing that no one informed him earlier than that. I heard it on the news earlier that him! Then during the press conference a reporter had asked it Bush had spoken with Musharraf, this is at 11:37 CST. His reply was "No he has not spoken Musharraf yet". One would think that Bush would need to know what the f@#$ was going on in a country with a combanation of nuclear arms,muslim extremists, political instability, rioting. But no, vacation comes first. This does not sound quite right either they knew it was coming or he really is a village idiot.
Posted by: Ricochet | December 29, 2007 at 03:50 PM
Long after anti-bush commenters have disappeared, Bush will still be quietly leading, via his legacy, which whether you like him or not, will go down as one of the greatest / strongest legacy's in American history. Lets not forget that Abe Lincoln was very unpopular in his own day.
Posted by: Hiram Bertoch | December 29, 2007 at 04:58 PM
I don't think Bush will go down as great or strong at all - there is too much evidence to the contrary, and thanks to the Internet, Bush and his followers can't just silence it.
There is absolute proof that Bush invaded Iraq for no reason at all. There is good proof that Bush didn't have a reason to invade Afghanistan. No circumstances can excuse his allowing torture and shredding the constitution. There is reasonable doubt as to whether 9/11, the excuse for all the crimes commited by the Bush administration, was what Bush says it was.
As long as those facts remain available -- and they will -- Bush will go down into history as the Nazi war criminal he is.
Posted by: Bernhard | December 29, 2007 at 05:32 PM
Oh Hiram, your first mistake is mentioning those two in the same paragraph, but to actually compare the two, come on...
Interesting that he seems to be in Crawford at the most convenient times. Coincidence?
Either way, his legacy will be as THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER. When the true cost off his time in office becomes undisputable even by MSM, the only time "greatest" is used to describe Bush, it will be as in "the greatest tragedy ever inflicted upon mankind".
Posted by: Colinjames71 | December 29, 2007 at 05:43 PM
UNFORTUNATELY, YOU ARE SENDING YOUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS TO DIE IN ILLEGAL INVASIONS AND OCCUPATIONS FOR CHENEY'S CORPORATE FRIENDS (INCLUDING THE BUSH TRIBE) AND HE TAKES HIS INSTRUCTIONS FROM AIPAC AND ISRAEL. MEANWHILE ISRAEL JUST QUIETLY GOES ON DAILY COMMITTING CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY WHICH ARE NOW OBVIOUSLY BECOMING A GENOCIDE AGAINST GAZANS WHILE AMERICANS WHO ARE PAYING WITH THEIR TAX DOLLARS FOR THIS TO HAPPEN JUST SAY NOTHING. YOUR POLITICIANS ARE BOUGHT BY ISRAEL SO OF COURSE THEY DO WHAT IS BEST FOR ISRAEL NOT AMERICA.
AS FOR GEORGE B. it is hard to imagine him as a human being -most of the world see him as an idiot. During his first reign of terror over the Muslim Middle East we blamed him but since you voted him back in YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE ALSO FOR THE MANY CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST THE MUSLIM WORLD IN YOUR NAME AND GEORGE BUSH.
I WONDER IF HE WILL GO TO THE GALLOWS WITH AS MUCH DIGNITY AS SADAAM?
Posted by: llyndel24 | December 29, 2007 at 06:20 PM
Bush quietly Leading? Even if that weren't so sad a statement..
The US involvedin 2 wars at least.Used as a pretext 911 for invading Afghanistan and later Iraq for WMD.911 was clearly an inside job by the Us/Israel.But I digress.Al-Quiada what preposterous nonsense.This crew running the US need leg irons waiting for their war crime trials and Noose.
Posted by: Bob | December 29, 2007 at 06:24 PM
My tax dollars are being used for wars without my permission. Have been that way since I've learned over the last year that the Federal reserve which is not Federal or a reserve.but have been a private entity that has been abusing my monies. Go after them their the criminals not the American peoples.So since my money is used for crimal things I want a refund!!
Posted by: schallb | December 29, 2007 at 07:58 PM
Find and read "The Protocals of the Learned elders of zion".
Posted by: john smith | December 29, 2007 at 08:17 PM
Schallb ... wants "a refund". In the land of the almighty buck, you never heard 'let the buyer beware'?
How about 'if you break it, you bought it'?
You are stuck with Bush. You are also stuck with Afghanistan and Iraq until the damage your homicidal nation caused is put to right.
Deal with it.
Posted by: Ron | December 29, 2007 at 09:10 PM
Two points:
1. There's a shaky premise way back at first base, there--that Mr. Bush has any intention of giving up the Oval Office peacefully come January 2009. One hears a lot less about this possibility since he's become so decidedly unpopular--but he really, truly doesn't care whether he's popular or not. This is not the "principled resolve" of the "true leader," who does what he believes to be right despite the ebbs and flows of popular opinion; no, friends, this is the absolute, arrogant indifference of a man raised from the ground up with a sense of entitlement and an ill-disguised contempt for the commoners around him. In any case, the fact that even most conspiracy-loving liberals aren't seriously contemplating a coup at this point makes it more likely, rather than less, that it will happen.
2. The clueless US officials critiquing Pakistan's "un" War on Terror are not necessarily incompetent--they may simply be career-conscious guys who know that at all times, the fiction of an actual US effort to quell terrorism must be maintained. They can speak the truth about Pakistan, provided that truth answers to Party discipline at the moment--but never about the US, its glorious leader, and the endless resource-grab that is our "War on Terror."
Posted by: Battling Bob | December 29, 2007 at 09:20 PM
Yabba-dabba-do...
Bush Inc.'s quest for oil is not going very well? Or is it...
So what that Pakistan has nukes? We have more, so there!
Bush reportedly used to give his brothers to the count of ten before he shot them in the ass with a bb gun.
So here's how it works for Bush in the Middle East?
1-2-3-4-5-6-7-2008-
Posted by: ras | December 30, 2007 at 12:55 AM
how can one person, bush, create so much chaos.
Posted by: epppie | December 30, 2007 at 06:13 AM
eppie: It's not just Bush -- it's also Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gates, Gonzales, and everyone else in the Bush administration, as well as the criminally negligent congress that could have stopped their crimes hundreds of times, but consistantly failed to do so.
It's also the criminals behind the mainstream media, for failing to report just how much damage the terrorist organization known as the "Bush administration" is causing.
Not even Bush can create so much chaos on his own.
Posted by: Bernhard | December 30, 2007 at 08:55 AM
choas is the natural state of things-maybe bush is really mr. natural?
Posted by: beamer | December 30, 2007 at 06:12 PM
Bush's record is really past discussion. For those that put their head in the sand or have deluded themselves to believe this pariah,there can be no reason. The decks are awash and it's only a matter of time. Justice for Bush and his fellow travelers will be in the afterlife....Eternity is a long time to fade heat.
Posted by: Robert | December 31, 2007 at 10:25 AM