Amid the highly charged political infighting in Washington over what to do in Iraq, you might be excused for not noticing that a bipartisan commission quietly started work last spring with a mandate to help the Bush administration rethink its policy toward the war. Of course, anything labeled "bipartisan commission" seems almost guaranteed to be ignored by a highly partisan White House that is notoriously hostile to outside advice and famously devoted to "staying the course." But what makes this particular commission hard to dismiss is that it is led by perhaps the one man who might be able to break through the tight phalanx of senior officials who advise the president and filter his information. That person is the former secretary of state, Republican insider, and consigliere of the Bush family, James A. Baker III.
Since March, Baker, backed by a team of experienced national-security hands, has been busily at work trying to devise a fresh set of policies to help the president chart a new course in--or, perhaps, to get the hell out of--Iraq. But as with all things involving James Baker, there's a deeper political agenda at work as well. "Baker is primarily motivated by his desire to avoid a war at home--that things will fall apart not on the battlefield but at home. So he wants a ceasefire in American politics," a member of one of the commission's working groups told me. Specifically, he said, if the Democrats win back one or both houses of Congress in November, they would unleash a series of investigative hearings on Iraq, the war on terrorism, and civil liberties that could fatally weaken the administration and remove the last props of political support for the war, setting the stage for a potential Republican electoral disaster in 2008. "I guess there are people in the [Republican] party, on the Hill and in the White House, who see a political train wreck coming, and they've called in Baker to try to reroute the train."
As in everything the Republicans do, it's about the upcoming elections - staying in power and out of jail. If they have to try to convince the Chimp to change his policy, or, more likely, to change his talking points to give the appearance of a change on Iraq a little, so be it.
In any case, the Iraq Study Group won't issue its report until some time early in 2007. In a recent speech, according to a member of the task force, Baker said that to do something before the November 2006 elections would inevitably politicize the report, something that Baker desperately wants to avoid.
But with each passing day, the country is closer to the train wreck that Baker and others are said to fear. In the end, avoiding it might ride on the ability of Jim Baker to persuade the president that it's time to declare victory and exit.
"The object of our policy has to be to get our little white asses out of there as soon as possible," (my em) another working-group participant told me. To do that, he said, Baker must confront the president "like the way a family confronts an alcoholic. You bring everyone in, and you say, 'Look, my friend, it's time to change.'"
It's exactly confronting an alcoholic, one who's drunk on power, a (possibly) dry drunk* who doesn't have enough brain cells left to think for himself, who relies on deeply flawed advice from drinkin' buddies like Rove and Cheney, who got him in power in the first place. And no doubt remind him of it often, as in "we're the only ones who could have gotten a loser like you into the White House, and you goddam near lost a rigged election despite our efforts. You do what we tell you to do and shut the fuck up."
I'm all for it if saner, more realistic Republicans can get Bush to change his mind about Iraq. I think they're shovelin' shit against the tide, but if they get enough of 'em shoveling fast enough...
On the other hand, our nation's only real hope is the November elections so it suits me just fine if they just go ahead and have their train wreck. Whatever it takes to get rid of these bastards.
Don't get me wrong. I want to see our troops get out of Iraq as soon as possible, but I got a sneakin' hunch not much is going to happen on that front before November.
*Counterpunch, 10/11/02. Re-read this article about Bush if you haven't lately:
Dry drunk is a slang term used by members and supporters of Alcoholics Anonymous and substance abuse counselors to describe the recovering alcoholic who is no longer drinking, one who is dry, but whose thinking is clouded. Such an individual is said to be dry but not truly sober. Such an individual tends to go to extremes.
To summarize, George W. Bush manifests all the classic patterns of what alcoholics in recovery call "the dry drunk." His behavior is consistent with barely noticeable but meaningful brain damage brought on by years of heavy drinking and possible cocaine use.
Barely noticeable? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!
See also "President Wet Brain".
No comments:
Post a Comment