Shifting Rationales For the Iraqi Insurgency
Shifting Rationales For the Iraqi Insurgency
Yesterday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld predicted that the U.S. troops would experience an increase in insurgent attacks due to the upcoming December elections. DECEMBER. That’s approximately six months away, and Rumsfeld is already using it as a convenient explanation for the raging insurgency:
Rumsfeld: “The progress on the political side is so threatening to the insurgents that my guess is it could become more violent between now and the constitution referendum and the election in December.” [AP, 6/27/05]
This rationale is not new. Pending political events in Iraq have repeatedly been used by the Bush administration to explain the insurgency dating back prior to the transfer of sovereignty in June 2004.
Prior To Transfer of Sovereignty
Bush: “There’s likely to be more violence before the transfer of sovereignty and after the transfer of sovereignty.” [Bush, 5/24/04]
Condi Rice: “Obviously there is a difficult security situation. They’re making an appeal to Iraqi citizens not to let the foreign terrorists and the rejectionists, who have no future in a free Iraq, not to let those people derail the political transition that is taking place, and I think they’re being quite successful with the Iraqi people.” [ABC, "This Week," 6/27/04]
McClellan: “Well, we’ve said that as Iraq moves forward on holding elections, that you can expect the terrorists and the Saddam loyalists to continue to seek to derail that transition, because they know it will be a significant blow to their vision.” [WH Press Gaggle, 7/16/04]
Prior to January 2005 Elections
Bush: “As election day approaches, we can expect further violence from the terrorists. ” [Bush, 12/7/04]
Rumsfeld: “We expect the level of violence and difficulty to increase between now and the Iraqi elections in January, so I don’t see any likelihood that we’d have a reduction in U.S. or coalition forces here in this country between now and January, which means that the current rotation schedule very likely will stay roughly what it is.” [Rumsfeld, 10/10/04]
Andy Card: “They’re attacking, but they’re not attacking all of the people all of the time. They’re kind of running timid campaigns to try to intimidate people from participating in democracy.” [ABC This Week, 12/19/04]
The Bush administration always seems to have a convenient excuse for why the number of attacks will go up. The American public wants a plan to bring the attacks down.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
And here’s that strategy: Bring the troops home.
June 27th, 2005 at 2:53 pmWhatever happened to “we will be treated as liberators” and “freedom is on the march”.
Why does the American news media continue to let the administration get away with lying continuously?
June 27th, 2005 at 2:54 pmThere’s a corollary to this rationale: bad outcomes happen near elections, so bad outcomes must have been designed to affect the election. Osama releases a video the Friday before the US Presidential election. He must want Kerry to win. The media figure out that the al Qaa Qaa weapons site was looted and report this relevant information before the election — must be trying to “affect the election.” Even the DSM, which by coming out in April was, it is said, designed to affect the British election, but this still somehow restricts the US media from reporting on it. Before long they’ll be telling us that it’s unpatriotic to report deaths in Iraq because it might affect the elections for dog-catcher in Ann Arbor. Or is that the deaths happen because we’re close to the elections for dog-catcher in Ann Arbor?
June 27th, 2005 at 3:01 pmThis is the same band of corrupt crooks who insist that “…since we are now Empire, we can define and set the course of history. We are no longer at the whims of others…”
So, which history do they really want to write? Domination of oil? Profits from death and war? Christianity is the only true religion? Liberals are the source of all evil? What? Please. Someone tell me.
June 27th, 2005 at 3:54 pmThe entire regime needs to admit that they are failures.
And resign and let some sane (or semi-sane) people take over.
I’m sure Big Bird could do a better job.
June 27th, 2005 at 5:24 pmI should have my head examined for hoping that tomorrow will prove “1984″ was just a novel, but until 51% (give or take a few percentages) pull their collective heads from the sand doublespeak is about all one can expect–its all we’ve ever heard from a terrible man and an ever worse leader.Or, as he would put it “worser”.
June 28th, 2005 at 12:04 am