The Old College Try

Well, it looks like Shrub's speech made a pretty quick exit from the collective radar screen (excepting possibly a few wingnut deadenders)...and, with about five minutes seconds nanoseconds of consideration, it's pretty easy to see why: he offered...nothing new...whatsoever.

This underscores the strategic, not to mention moral, bankruptcy of the administration. It seems as if they were so enraptured by their own propaganda that they found it unnecessary to even think about, much less establish a contingency, in the event that the rose tinge coloring their shades was actually red blood cells from the carnage.

Aside: I believe an interesting, although certainly never-to-be-asked question from the nation's water boys mainstream media to any high ranking official, i.e., Bush, Rummy, Cheney, etc., would be whether they've considered, or otherwise worked on a possible contingency in Mesopotamia that assumes a casualty count (among US forces--we know they don't "do body counts" for the insurgents/civilians killed--even though they do)...anyway, I wonder if they've planned for a scenario of 3500-4000 fatalities/25-28,000 wounded (roughly the ratio at present). In other words, what we see presently, but extrapolated over the NEXT two years. And, if they haven't considered this, why not?

At the VERY least, 3500-4000 deaths should be considered a "worst case" scenario (in fact, it might well be a "best case"--if things deteroriate further, that is, and it's not all that far fetched to think things WILL deteriorate--in fact, that's a pretty safe bet, actually). The military planners should be, well, planning accordingly. This ain't bean bag.

I find it troubling, although not all that surprising, that the press hasn't asked questions like that. It's merely a symptom of a much larger disease in the body politic, sort of a combination of "we went too far in Watergate" thinking combined with both raw survival instinct (my guess is that a real reporter in DC would have a pretty short career) and, at least for those at the top of the slag heap, an enjoyment of the perks that come with that sort of lifestyle. Finally, the lifestyle itself generates a degree of familiarity with the people they're ostensibly reporting on--and, while friends might not let friends "drive drunk," as it were, friends rarely call the cops when it happens.

But I digress. I honestly think that, while SOMEONE at a lower echelon might be "our tax dollars at work" on a project like that, I doubt seriously that the gang at the top is aware of the work product itself--or, if they are, they most certainly AREN'T in the mood to hear the details.

In a word phrase: they are completely out of touch (or "disconnected from reality," if you prefer). Ironic--the very same malady that supposedly afflicted Democrats some twenty years ago, when the "Reagan Revolution" was sweeping the nation turns out to be surprisingly non-partisan in pathology. And, in the case of the war, being out of touch makes for a nasty pathogen, indeed.

Again, to underscore this point--news reports report a miniscule audience for Peptalk Tuesday. While other factors certainly played into this, it's still not a good sign for Shrub--in order to CONVINCE people to 'join the team,' you have to catch their ear first. There is also decidedly little in the regular press in terms of follow up. Perhaps the wingnuttiasphere is still crowded around the embers if not carrying the dimming torch, but I really haven't checked. Besides, even if I did, what good would it do?

Bush want's to "transform the Middle East into democracy?" He want's to "train the Iraqi's so they can fight the insurgents themselves?" He want's to "root out the terrorists?" Um, gee, that's nice--but, how does he plan to actually DO these things? As it stands, Team Bush hasn't even PROPOSED a strategy, much less announced how implementation is to occur. It's all cheerleading...and more cheerleading (with an occasional snarl from the bald Rove terrier). But there's nothing behind it.

The Rude Pundit today makes the case that Shrub's latest attempt to wow the red-staters met with a collective yawn (at least in his direct experience). Whether or not his observation about Iraq itself--"...the United States (or the "coalition") has transformed Iraq from a relatively stable, if insane and murderous, dictatorship to a battle-scarred, body-part strewn shitstorm of a terrorist magnet, using American soldiers as bait and Iraqis as pawns"--has hit home with the public remains to be seen, except perhaps the last part about "soldiers as bait." No one likes to be strung to the end of a hook--if nothing else, it makes for a miserable time at the victory party (that won't come anyway... check out the entire post for more on that).

Finally, Bush himself seems to be getting smaller and smaller, at least when he ventures out into "the public." Unlike Reagan--or Clinton--any "Teflon" attached to Bush was of the manufactured variety, not the natural type that seemed to ooze from the pores of Bill or Ron...but now we're finding out that process of fabricating the stuff carries a high risk of cancer--which is what this administration is becoming, if it isn't already.