The President’s “mind”

Does the President think the citizens he serves are that stupid? Does he assume everybody has minds turned to jello by 24? In the face of mounting bi-partisan criticisms of his “surge” plan for Iraq, and huge public opinion poll margins against it, George III from his bunker declared in his weekly radio address that:

Members of Congress have a right to express their views, and express them forcefully. But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible.

Strange. Is he that shameless? What was the Baker-Hamilton Commission (BHC) report all about? It indeed is a plan – just one that the Bush-Cheney Administration and their neocon propagandists refuse to consider. But even the most ardent Fox-head surely knows there are many plans out there – including Helena’s here. What, if anything, was going through George III’s mind when he claimed his critics oppose everything “while proposing nothing?”
Alas, all too much of Congress, especially Democrats, was lukewarm to Baker-Hamilton (aka, “the Iraq Study Group” report) at first, particularly as it so frontally challenged core assumptions from “the lobby” regarding talking to Iran and Syria and linking what isn’t happening in the Israel-Palestine “peace process” to what isn’t happening in Iraq.
Yet it seems many in Congress are belatedly latching onto the BHC plan – as it’s “on the shelf.” To hear House Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emanual tell it, “We have all endorsed the Iraq Study Group — that is our plan.”
It’s obviously not the President’s plan, snow-job denials by his press secretary notwithstanding. In a crazily patched together paragraph in his Saturday radio address, George III declared:

America will expand our military and diplomatic efforts to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. We will address the problem of Iran and Syria allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. We will encourage countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf states to increase their economic assistance to Iraq. Secretary Rice has gone to the region to continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East.

Let’s see now, our approach to Syria and Iran is purely military – forget Baker-Hamilton and that “talk” softness. Yet our outreach to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, et. al. is merely to solicit money — no mention of the Salafi jihadis and financing for them coming from those quarters.
And just what “urgent diplomacy” is Rice being sent to “continue?” That one doesn’t pass the screaming laugh test.
George III’s resistance (lately that is) to the idea of talking with Iran is no doubt music to neoconservative and certain Israeli ears who seem capable only of conceiving Iran as an “existential threat” – one that can only be, by definition, contained, (or nuked – if one takes recent Israeli threats seriously).
Former Republican Senator (and BHC member) Alan Simpson (as quoted in WaPo) has it about right:

“Nothing is ever solved by not talking to somebody,” he said. Simpson said he was stunned by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s statement that Iran could use talks with the United States to extort concessions. “Where did that come from?” he asked. ” What the hell is gained by not thinking of some kind of system to talk? It makes no sense.”

Agreed – in spades. Alas, the only “bold” action since the President’s surge speech has been to capture and detain Iranians in raids on an established Iranian “consulate” in a Kurdish area of Iraq. Iran insists they are diplomats and demands their release.
Various Bush spokespersons counter that the captured Iranians are not diplomats – but then hedge their bets and imply, vaguely but confidently, that the arrested Iranians were engaged in activities not consistent with being diplomats.
Swell. Almost 28 years ago, when the Iranian students stormed the US Embassy (e.g., the “Den of Spies”) out of plausible fear the US was about to return the Shah to the Iranian throne (as we did in 1953), the world united in condemning the Iranian revolutionaries for conduct in flat contravention of all accepted international law.
Today, for George III, international law is something you invoke only to beat your opponents with, not apply to yourself. Besides, the bogey is Iran, and surely no one in the mainstream US media will actually ask for evidence…. Or will they? (He asks rhetorically, wondering if he still believes in miracles. The Guardian yesterday at least dared to consider the matter within one of its reports.)
Curiously, Iraqi and Kurdish authorities are quite unhappy about the detention of Iranians inside Iraq. At least to me, they appear to be backing the Iranian statements about who the “detainees” are.
Bush’s present confused state was again on display in last night’s 60 Minutes interview. Regarding Iran, Bush had this bizarre response to an awful question (note Pelley accepts the allegation as fact):

PELLEY: What would you say right now in this interview to the Iranian president about the meddling in Iraq?
BUSH: I’d say, first of all, to him, “You’ve made terrible choices for your people. You’ve isolated your nation. You’ve taken a nation of proud and honorable people, and you’ve made your country the pariah of the world. You’ve threatened countries with nuclear weapons. You’ve said you want a nuclear weapon. You’ve defied international accord. And you’re slowly but surely isolating yourself.” And secondly, that “it’s in your interest to have a unified nation on your border. It’s in your interest that there be a flourishing democracy.” And thirdly, you know, “If we catch your people inside the country harming US citizens or Iraqi citizens, you know, we will deal with them.”

Is this George III’s idea of talking to Iran – by prevaricating? Is that what it means to be “the educator-in-chief?” Where exactly has the current or any Iranian President “threatened” anyone with nuclear weapons. (That would be Israel, not Iran, btw.) Where did any Iranian leader admit to “want a nuclear weapon?” This isn’t even just a gross exaggeration – and either Bush knows it is, or something’s gone wrong in his bellfry.
And Bush (e.g. George III) is a fine one to talk about making one’s country into a “pariah of the world.” Imagine, George III lecturing any other country about “slowly and surely isolating yourself” and for making “terrible choices.”
Imagine.
Alas, Ahmadinejad is probably the only person Bush can castigate that, at least to Americans, makes Bush look smart. Iranians parliamentarians, by the way, recently started impeachment procedings against Ahmadinejad.
Hey, there’s an idea….
By the way, I agree with Bush’s second point – as do most Iranians! It indeed is in Iran’s interest to have a unified nation on its border. It’s also in their interest for Iraq to become a flourishing democracy. Why would Iran not want either of these things? (A “democratic” Iraq is far more of a problem for the Saudis and Jordanians.)
Speaking of absurd images of the President’s mind, how ironic indeed it was to have the President deliver his surge speech from a White House library – a room one wonders if he has ever previously used.
As a “Jefferson Fellow” at Monticello, I picked up a souvenir Jefferson mug, inscribed with one of my favorite Jefferson quotes, “I cannot live without books.”
For Bush, a future mug might read, “At Yale, I read a book.” Or, “I cannot be bothered by books.”
Ah, but in an interview with 60 Minutes, the President surely restores our faith in him, when asked a question about the influence of Vice President Cheney. Bush ducked the question and instead replied,

Oh, yeah, sure. I mean, I rely upon my National Security Council, and I expect everybody to make contributions, and I expect to hear everybody’s opinions. And when I make up my mind, I expect them to salute and say, “Yes, sir, Mr. President.”

Comforting to know, isn’t it? It is what’s in that “mind” that frightens me.