Amazing as it is after all this time...today's Akron Beacon Journal editorial "Letter From Bremer" still seeks to protect and defend the worst president this nation has ever seen. Timid, as usual, and seeking to blame others rather than the man who calls himself the Decider and Commander Guy, the Beacon editorial summarizes this N.Y. Times piece about letters Bremer had sent to Bush, and Bush back to Bremer, about disbanding the Iraqi military.
From the Times piece here's Bremer's reason for releasing the letters to the public....
In releasing the letters, Mr. Bremer said he wanted to refute the suggestion in Mr. Bush's comment (as recounted in the new Draper book) that Mr. Bremer had acted to disband the army without the knowledge and concurrence of the White House.
Bremer, seeking to not be made the fall guy as this White House is prone to do with those no longer useful, was making it clear that he did not act alone in disbanding Saddam's old military. This is acknowledged by the Beacon editorial....
Bremer argues the letters make evident that the president knew about the choice before it was announced. Link
But do you see the "Bremer argues" part? Not that Bremer is telling the truth, as is obvious from the letter back from Bush, but "Bremer argues". This isn't an argument, it's a fact.
Then in typical MSM mode, if there is blame to be placed, the ABJ editorial looks away from Bush to find the place......
Actually, the letters shed little light on how much the president knew. What comes as no surprise is the prominent role of Rumsfeld. The invasion and subsequent occupation were a Pentagon operation. It rings true that Rumsfeld would know, yet others in the administration would remain in the dark.
What proof does the editorial writer offer to defend this lame "it rings true" statement accusing Rumsfeld of keeping the "administration" in the dark? I don't see any. What this statement does do is take the blame, at least somewhat, away from Bush and put it on Rumsfeld, which actually, I believe, is the point of the editorial.
So typical of a wimpy media paralyzed, I suppose, because of the fear of lost subscribers, the Beacon's editorial finishes with this flurry of, what can only be called, Bush protection....
This challenge in establishing presidential accountability suggests larger and familiar troubles. Might the president have been better served by a memorable meeting in which all relevant players deliberated and decided? Instead, the letters point to planning on the fly, the Iraqi army proving hard to hold together, Bremer heading in an entirely different direction, wishing democracy would heal all wounds. In essence, the letters confirm the disappointing truth. The president and his team didn't look hard at the consequences of invading Iraq.
What are these "larger and familiar troubles" that suggest "presidential accountability" is a "challenge"? The Beacon editorial doesn't specify any. Could any of these "familiar troubles" be that Bush lies, repeatedly, and so no one can believe anything he says? Could any of these "familiar troubles" surrounding "presidential accountability" include the Rubber Stamper Republican group that refused to oversee their Dear Leader? A reader would never know from the editorial.
The Beacon says "memorable meetings" should have happened to "better serve the president". I mean,....Jesus. Who, in God's name, is the Commander in Chief? Who would be the person to call for these "memorable meetings"? The freaking White House janitor?
Worse still is the dishonesty in the "Bremer heading in an entirely different direction" comment. And what was Bremer doing, according to the editorial?.... "wishing". The Beacon, with that off the cuff remark, attempts to place the blame on the disbanding of Saddam's army directly on Bremer's shoulder, echoing White House tactics.
Truth is this White House, including George W. Bush, had planned the invasion of Iraq for over 2 years. There is evidence everywhere demonstrating that this is true. But the Beacon attempts to make us believe the Iraq event was planned "on the fly" which led to not "look(ing) hard at the consequences". You know, they were just in a hurry and they didn't take enough time to weigh all the issues. That explanation is not an explanation at all, it's a Republican talking point. That talking point, masquerading as an explanation, is total horse-pucky.
I predict we will never see in the editorials of the Akron Beacon Journal the truth about Bush, Cheney, the rest of the neo-cons and why, indeed, America was drug into a conflict in Iraq that has been so disastrous. Even after all this time, and after all the information that has dribbled out proving these neo-con criminals lied every step of the way.....the Beacon is still asking how the president "might...have been better served".
About This Blog