Here's part of George W. Bush's legacy to his nation and the world:
An unpublished 513-page federal history of the American-led reconstruction of Iraq depicts an effort crippled before the invasion by Pentagon planners who were hostile to the idea of rebuilding a foreign country, and then molded into a $100 billion failure by bureaucratic turf wars, spiraling violence and ignorance of the basic elements of Iraqi society and infrastructure.The history, the first official account of its kind, is circulating in draft form here and in Washington among a tight circle of technical reviewers, policy experts and senior officials. It also concludes that when the reconstruction began to lag -- particularly in the critical area of rebuilding the Iraqi police and army -- the Pentagon simply put out inflated measures of progress to cover up the failures.
In one passage, for example, former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is quoted as saying that in the months after the 2003 invasion, the Defense Department "kept inventing numbers of Iraqi security forces -- the number would jump 20,000 a week! 'We now have 80,000, we now have 100,000, we now have 120,000.' "
Mr. Powell's assertion that the Pentagon inflated the number of competent Iraqi security forces is backed up by Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the former commander of ground troops in Iraq, and L. Paul Bremer III, the top civilian administrator until an Iraqi government took over in June 2004.
Among the overarching conclusions of the history is that five years after embarking on its largest foreign reconstruction project since the Marshall Plan in Europe after World War II, the United States government has in place neither the policies and technical capacity nor the organizational structure that would be needed to undertake such a program on anything approaching this scale.
The bitterest message of all for the reconstruction program may be the way the history ends. The hard figures on basic services and industrial production compiled for the report reveal that for all the money spent and promises made, the rebuilding effort never did much more than restore what was destroyed during the invasion and the convulsive looting that followed.
Read on, to the part about Rumsfeld, if you want to really get angry. The verdict of the American people on the stewardship of George W. Bush and the Republican Party is just. The problem is, the Democratic establishment is complicit too -- and I would not be surprised if Barack Obama found himself in the same situation as Richard Nixon did taking over from LBJ, trying to follow the same policy goals with different methods.
Anyway, one can sympathize this below, on the video. The poor devil oughtn't to have done it, but I can't say that I don't get where he's coming from:

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
Don't know why you left out the Rumsfeld bits -- did you see the one where he declared we would never spend a billion dollars on a country like Iraq? In the words of Beverly Hills teen Cher -- as if.
Has there ever been a more arrogant jerk in the history of Washington D.C. than Donald Rumsfeld? I mean, jeez. Nixon was capable of self-criticism. Bush has a sense of humor. Even Cheney speaks the truth once in a while (warning Republicans recently that it'll be "Herbert Hoover time" if the they reject the Detroit bail-out, which of course they did). What good did Rumsfeld do anyone, ever?
Maybe world leaders would act more humbly and carefully if more people threw shoes at them...
Michele, I respect your sticking to your point, but I'm not sure it's clear as yet (at least to me). Your answer to one question might serve to help me understand.
Is a US citizen burning an American flag a valid act of protest?
Thanks.
The reporter who threw the shoes has been detained and turned over to the Iraqi criminal court system, where it seems he will face charges. Eventually. Iraq's judicial system, like most which are based on commonwealth rules, will assume guilt until innocence is proven. He's probably not going to have a good time of it. Throwing shoes at a world leader is very disrespectful and a bad idea, justified or not. Folks are out in the streets protesting, of course, as his actions merit him the label hero by many Iraqis on the street.
On the plus side, they CAN protest, and this guy WILL get a trial.
Iraq's looking a little better. It won't turn out like the neocons wanted it to: in order for stability to take hold, the people currently in power will likely solidify their positions against Sunnis, and Kurds, if they can get away with it. There might be rather fewer free elections once U.S. troops are drawn down in great numbers. (But that's no different that the last few wars we've drawn down from, come to think of it!) Christians will likely not be welcomed back warmly either. Iraq will probably cozy up a little closer to Iran that we'd like. But that's better than them dissolving back into anarchy and getting into a war with Iran, right? Talk about the lesser of two evils...
Eep that was me. CAPTCHA may keep your text, but not your name, if you have to reload.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.