• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Slate : Why President Bush should apologize

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
A good piece that points out many of the intractable problems the Bush administration brought on all by themselves.

I like the by-line "Take your money, Mr. President, but at least say you're sorry."

But being a dictator means never having to say "I'm sorry."

And Bush was a dictator in forcing his invasion of Iraq on the US and the world. There were enough people and nations protesting his plans and enough warnings which are now all coming true.

There is little else that can be done now in Iraq but stay there and spend hundreds of billions to clean up Bush's mess. An apology would be appropriate since the Bush administration got us into this mess single handedly and it's we who will have to pay to get us out of it now.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Bush will never apologize. I simply don't believe it will happen. Not only that, he'll be back in another 6-12 months asking for more cash, mark my words.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Bush will never apologize. I simply don't believe it will happen. Not only that, he'll be back in another 6-12 months asking for more cash, mark my words.
That is, unfortunately, a forgone conclusion.

Even if the UN agrees to help. Even if NATO allies agree to help. The time between their agreement and deployment will be months. And we will continue to incur massive costs.

Also, even if they agree to supply troops they will, from what I've read so far, insist the US pay the bulk of the costs for rebuilding Iraq. As the Bush administration knew before they invaded - once they did invade the economic responsibility for rebuilding Iraq became ours.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Here is a perspective from the NY Times on this subject.

MID-COURSE CALCULATIONS
Bush Bets That the World Will Help Him in Iraq
By DAVID E. SANGER


WASHINGTON ? Now that President Bush is going back to the United Nations for troops and money to save his occupation strategy in Iraq, the question is whether he has burned too many bridges to get the help he needs.

More than a few countries have taken not-so-quiet satisfaction in watching Mr. Bush move, in four months, from triumphal declarations to a plea to the world to help an occupying army beset by troubles. Some are clearly tempted to think of this as payback time.

But Mr. Bush is betting that in the end, even the nations that refused to back the war in the spring now have a compelling interest in making Iraq work.

It is a bet whose outcome may prove a critical turning point in the wild ride of Mr. Bush's presidency that began on a Tuesday morning two years ago when terrorists attacked the United States, prompting Mr. Bush to declare the world divided between countries that were with America and those that were not.

Now, the troops that marched into Baghdad with little opposition see no easy way to march out. And a year after the administration issued its National Security Strategy, there is little talk in Washington of the next pre-emptive action. Instead, even Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, along with other conservatives, talks of a need for a "midcourse correction in Iraq." And Mr. Bush, who is to address the nation tonight about the war on terrorism, with emphasis on Iraq, has rediscovered the need for give-and-take diplomacy.

But around the world last week, many people were asking whether Mr. Bush was changing his strategy, or just his tactics.

Either way, the president and his aides know that they are facing the brutal mathematics of troop deployments and budget deficits ? and the allies know it, too.

While Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld notes that about 30 nations have made contributions to the occupation, the fact is that of the 163,000 troops now in Iraq, 86 percent, or six out of seven, are American. And when promised anonymity, Mr. Bush's most senior aides concede they would be lucky to bring in another 30,000. Those could come from India, Pakistan, Turkey and other nations. Even if they were willing, the French are already tied down in other countries, and the Germans are busy in Afghanistan. "There's not a lot of excess capacity in the world," one of Mr. Bush's closest aides said Friday.

So even if the Iraqi military can be retrained and deployed on the streets, none of Mr. Bush's aides can foresee a large withdrawal of troops in the next 18 months. That makes it almost certain that American troops will be deeply engaged in Iraq a year from now, when Mr. Bush is deeply engaged in seeking re-election.

Against that backdrop, the most interesting test Mr. Bush will face in the next few weeks will be whether other nations will see America's distress as an opportunity to re-balance a power relationship with the United States that they see as lopsided.

Benjamin R. Barber, a University of Maryland professor who has written about the problems the United States has had with its allies during the Bush administration, put it this way last week: "I suspect that the Germans and the French and Kofi Annan are now thinking about saying, `Are you reconsidering a strategy in which you claim the right to unilaterally decide what is in your interest, or are you just asking us to come in and help clean up your mess?' "

Professor Barber's own impression is that Mr. Bush is acting tactically and, in the end, the allies will do the same. They are likely, he expects, to name their price ? more shared political control in Iraq, more oil contracts, a bigger role in reconstruction ? in return for offers of modest help.

So far, foreign leaders are playing hard to get. France's president, Jacques Chirac, after meeting with the German chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, told reporters that Mr. Bush's plan seems "quite far from what for us is the primary objective ? that is, to transfer political responsibility to an Iraqi government as rapidly as possible."

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said last week that Mr. Bush was trying to do just that, and many administration officials portray their proposal for a new United Nations resolution as a way to build a bridge to the creation of a new Iraqi army and free elections. Mr. Powell's new mission is to build that bridge without surrendering too much American control over the troops and over the shaping of a new political culture.

The problem is that the White House wildly underestimated the cost of that effort. White House officials say they did not account for the poor state of Iraq's infrastructure, and a report being drafted for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, parts of which were leaked last week, says there was insufficient planning for the possibility that Iraqi troops would melt away, and that Baathists would conduct a guerrilla war.

But there is no sign that Mr. Bush sees his setbacks in Iraq as anything other than the growing pains of any occupation. One of his closest aides noted recently that occupied Germany looked like a mess for a year and a half ? until the Marshall Plan began.

Still, there is evidence that Mr. Bush's thinking about America's role in nation-building is evolving in ways he could not have imagined during his last campaign.

He came to office deeply opposed to using the military for such purposes, and talked of reducing the American presence in Kosovo and Bosnia. When he visited Kosovo early in his presidency, and saw its economic stagnation, he turned an aide in their helicopter and said he now knew the United States forces needed to stay and help build a real economy.

Now, in Iraq, he faces the other side of the problem: His partners in Kosovo and Bosnia ? and now Afghanistan ? say they are plenty busy, and too strapped to help in Iraq.

"There is suddenly a new appreciation for alliances around here," one of Mr. Bush's foreign policy officials said the other day. "But if the world doesn't put its shoulder to the wheel in Iraq, how long will it last?"

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I don't see an easy way out of this problem. France and Germany really do not have troops or money to spare. Plus every country with excess capacity (Russia, Turkey . . . umm North Korea) will demand payment for troops. India is unlikely to contribute a significant force b/c . . . well the world's largest democracy shares a border with an Islamic state that has an autocrat at the helm. Arguably the one country in the best position to provide suitable troops for stabilizing Iraq would be . . . Iran. But unlike the "debating society", "weasel", "Old Europe" comments . . . there might be some hard feelings over the "Axis of Evil" thing.
 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I don't see an easy way out of this problem. France and Germany really do not have troops or money to spare. Plus every country with excess capacity (Russia, Turkey . . . umm North Korea) will demand payment for troops. India is unlikely to contribute a significant force b/c . . . well the world's largest democracy shares a border with an Islamic state that has an autocrat at the helm. Arguably the one country in the best position to provide suitable troops for stabilizing Iraq would be . . . Iran. But unlike the "debating society", "weasel", "Old Europe" comments . . . there might be some hard feelings over the "Axis of Evil" thing.
LOL! I can see it now...


**Breaking News!!**

President Bush formally asked North Korea today to send some of it's troops to help in Iraq.

:Q:D
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY