Published on August 30, 2005 By O G San In International
The film Fahrenheit 9-11 is overlong and lacks narrative drive in parts but it does contain some devastating passages of anti-Bush vitriol. One example is the series of clips showing how the US president tricked his country into war with a web of deception about Iraqi WMDs and links to Bin Laden. In a brilliantly edited section, Bush is shown on the stump in 2002 using the words “Saddam” and “al-Qaida” over and over again.

The staccato finally ends and the editor allows the US president an entire sentence: “He (Saddam) hates the fact, like al-Qaida does, that we’re free.” As he finishes the word “fact”, Bush swings his head and breaks into the smuggest grin imaginable. “I can’t believe they’re buying this” you can almost hear him thinking.

But buy it they most certainly did. Dubya’s spiel about the “threat” of Saddam propelled his party to victory in the 2002 midterms, winning a majority in both the Senate and the House. No Republican president had enjoyed such a powerful position for decades.

What a difference a war makes. Back in 2002 Bush couldn’t mention the word “Iraq” enough, it was electoral gold dust. But now three years later, Republicans are worried that the “I” factor could hurt them in the 2006 midterms. Some GOP figures, like Walter "freedom fries" Jones, have called for a timetable for US troop withdrawal. As his attitude to international diplomacy would suggest, Jones is no dove, but he is smart enough to know a quagmire when he sees one, and sensible enough to put some distance between him and it.

Nothing serves as a better symbol of the collapse of the neo-con dream than this tale of two midterms. The confident pre-war talk of easy victory and Iraqi-financed reconstruction have given way to grim words about "staying the course" against a decade long insurgency. Would the Americans who voted for war in 2002 have done so if they knew the consequences of this conflict, not just for Iraq, but for the US?

Let us review the wreckage: First and foremost, tens of thousands of Iraqis lie dead, most of them innocent civilians. Nearly two thousand US soldiers have lost their lives, with thousands more wounded. The war has cost the American taxpayer 300 billion dollars which their debt-ridden economy could ill-afford. In return for all that green, Uncle Sam has got a thirty month long advertisement for global jihad. Two years on from their “liberation”, Iraqis still struggle with water and electricity shortages. To top it all of, just to really sicken those who were hooting and hollering for Bush back in 2002, there were no WMDs and no link between Saddam and al-Qaida.

Given all this, it is no surprise that some of the more savvy Republicans are disassociating themselves with the architects of this disaster. By this time next year Bush may find himself in the same position as his best bud Tony Blair - disowned by the party he leads. Precious few Labour candidates in May’s general election thought it prudent to put their leader’s inane grin on their election literature.

It is still early days though, the midterms are more than a year off. But only the most determined optimist would predict that Iraq 2006 will look significantly better than Iraq 2005. It may well look a good deal worse. Should this be the case, then the GOP elephant, which is currently trotting away from Bush, may break into a gallop. Don’t be surprised if many more Republicans jump on the “bring the troops home” bandwagon before polling day.

To go from pro-war to pro-withdrawal will take a certain amount of ideological acrobatics from the fools and the yes-men (both Republican and Democrat) who rubber-stamped this conflict in the first place. But for those who planned and executed this debacle, rather than those who merely went along with it, there is no way to flip-flop out of responsibility. Barring something extraordinary in the next three years, Bush’s tenure in the White House will be remembered for one disastrous policy - Iraq. Like Johnson with Vietnam and Nixon with Watergate, Bush looks set to go down in history for a monumental folly.

Given all the misery he has inflicted, his coming humiliation brings the slightest of recompense. Yet Bush remains defiantly oblivious to all this. In fact, he’s as smug as ever.

Comments
on Aug 30, 2005
I think that GW's plan is to try to link the insurgents in Iraq with al-Qaeda--thus, making the war wholly legitimate and hopefully keeping support at an even level and ensuring midterm success for republicans in congress (which, to be quite honest, makes my job easier).

Here are two examples of how the President is doing this:

28/6/05--Speech at Fort Bragg. "To complete the mission, we will prevent al Qaeda and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban, a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends. " Link [Side note: after this speech there was a lot of talk about whether or not people bought the 9/11-Iraq link. Only half of the people polled doubted Iraq's connection to the "War on Terror" that started on 9/11. That to me says that there are quite a few people still on the President's side on this one]

22/8/05-- In a story about how the President is planning a series of speeches to shore up support for the war in Iraq "[Senior White House Aides] said the president also will invoke the September 11, 2001, attacks, arguing once again that the insurgents battling American troops in Iraq share the same ideology as the al Qaeda operatives who crashed hijacked jetliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field." [emphasis is mine] Link

To go from pro-war to pro-withdrawal will take a certain amount of ideological acrobatics


I'm not sure that you can make this change at this point (in rhetoric, yes, but in reality, no). At least without causing more harm. I would have preferred that the US never entered the war, but at this point, we can't simply take our toys and go home. Iraq is a disaster at the minute and I feel that we have a moral obligation to fix what we've broken (and then some). And so, while I like to see politicians realize that they made a mistake in the beginning, I don't think it will help us get out of Iraq any quicker.
on Aug 30, 2005
"The film Fahrenheit 9-11 is overlong and lacks narrative drive in parts but it does contain some devastating passages of anti-Bush vitriol. One example is the series of clips showing how the US president tricked his country into war with a web of deception about Iraqi WMDs and links to Bin Laden. In a brilliantly edited section, Bush is shown on the stump in 2002 using the words “Saddam” and “al-Qaida” over and over again."

I didn't know that one could vitriol oneself. Gosh darn Bush anti-Bush vitrioled himself.

"As his attitude to international diplomacy would suggest, Jones is no dove, but he is smart enough to know a quagmire when he sees one, and sensible enough to put some distance between him and it."

OG I'm surprised at you. Just because an obvious idiot such as Jones calls to pull out of Iraq does not prove that he's gotten more smart and sensible, it just proves that even obvious idiots are having doubts about ethics of the war. Eh c'est quoi au juste ton probleme avec les 'french fries', M. Jones? As for being worried about being beaten by his political rivals, I don't think that political strategy is what Jones has in mind given that his district is one of the most militarized in the country, if not the most. There are three Marine bases : 43,000 military and 5,000 civilians at Camp Lejeune in Onslow County; Cherry Point is the world's largest Marine Corp air station and Craven County's largest employer, and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base employs around 4,000 military and 500 civilians in Wayne County. Maybe Mr. Jones is just fed up of going to funerals, in any case he'll have more time to do the rounds now that his political career is over.

"Would the Americans who voted for war in 2002 have done so if they knew the consequences of this conflict, not just for Iraq, but for the US?"

Many Americans would argue that people don't vote for war, they vote for wartime leaders. The terror offensive had already begun way before 2002. Your not feeling the force, OG.

"To top it all of, just to really sicken those who were hooting and hollering for Bush back in 2002, there were no WMDs and no link between Saddam and al-Qaida."

OG tell the democrats, they were the ones to start the Saddam-al-Qaeda rumor. The Dems also helped spread the WMD thing (wittingly or not) "Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations."
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003





on Aug 31, 2005
Zena,

"OG I'm surprised at you. Just because an obvious idiot such as Jones calls to pull out of Iraq does not prove that he's gotten more smart and sensible, it just proves that even obvious idiots are having doubts about ethics of the war."

I don't imagine that he is having any doubts about the ethics of the war. I think he is having (well-founded) doubts about its popularity.

As for your point about the Dems, I've lost count of the number of times other Joeusers have tried to justify the mess in Iraq by saying "well, the Democrats were pro-war too." Indeed they were (well most of them anyway) and it's too their discredit, not too mine. I am not repsonsible for the actions of every single person who is even a millimetre to the left of Bush. In my opinion the "opposition" party in the US is composed, with a few notable exceptions, of invertebrates. Fools and yes-men (and yes-women too).
on Aug 31, 2005
"I don't imagine that he is having any doubts about the ethics of the war. I think he is having (well-founded) doubts about its popularity."

I guess we'll just have to wait and see which one of us is right. I suggest a friendly wager of say 5 euro that Jones doesn't get reelected.

"As for your point about the Dems, I've lost count of the number of times other Joeusers have tried to justify the mess in Iraq by saying "well, the Democrats were pro-war too."

Stick to the plot OG, you were arguing about those people 'hooting' and 'hollering' for Bush back in 2002 and that they should be sickened aby the fact that there were no WMD's and links between Qaeda and Hussein. My badly elucidated point was that they shouldn't be particularly more sickened than any other American voter because history proves that back in 2002, voters on all sides except perhaps Nader's got the shaft as far as the truth was concerned.
on Aug 31, 2005
Make it five pounds and you're on. Let's at least bet in a real currency

Fair enough point, those who voted for pro-war Dems should also be sickened. But, as I said, there is a difference between planning and executing this disaster and merely going along with it.

on Sep 01, 2005
Compared to what I'm using 5 Euros is real currency. Never mind, 5 pounds it is. And I will come to collect.