Bush Backpedals on Iranian Role, Remains in Bubble on Iraq
February 15, 2007
At his Wednesday press conference, President Bush waffled on whether the Iranian leadership was providing lethal explosive devices to Iraqi extremists groups.
On Sunday in Baghdad, anonymous Pentagon officials told the media that senior Iranian leaders authorized such deliveries.
But Bush wasn’t so sure at his press conference.
Bush wouldn’t call it a civil war. All he would call it was “it.”
“What we don’t know is whether or not the head leaders of Iran ordered the Quds force [part of the Iranian military] to do what they did,” he said. “But here’s my point: Either they knew or didn’t know, and what matters is, is that they’re there. What’s worse, that the government knew or that the government didn’t know?”
Well, it certainly would be worse if the government of Iran at the highest levels were ordering this than if elements of the Quds force are smuggling weapons on their own.
Whichever, Bush made clear that he’s given the order to “go after” Iranians “who are moving these devices into Iraq.”
He denied that he was itching for a fight with Iran or trying to create a pretext for war. “To say it is provoking Iran is just a wrong way to characterize the commander-in-chief’s decision to do what is necessary to protect our soldiers in harm’s way,” he said.
He did play up another issue with Iran, though.
“The biggest problem I see is the Iranians’ desire to have a nuclear weapon,” he said. Even as he talked about trying to “solve the issue peacefully,” he hinted that he would do whatever it takes, including military action. “It’s an important issue whether or not Iran ends up with nuclear weapons,” he said. “It’s one of these issues that people are going to look back and say, you know, how come they couldn’t see the impending danger? What happened to them?”
According to Seymour Hersh, Bush doesn’t want anyone to be able to say of him that he missed the danger, and he feels he’s the only guy with the cajones to bomb Iran.
Another hint: Bush said, “We have no desire to harm the Iranian people.” That’s typically how he prefaces aggression.
On Iraq, Bush demonstrated that he’s living in a bubble.
In the following exchange, he all but copped to his isolation.
“Q: Do you believe it’s a civil war, sir?”
“Bush: I can only tell you what people on the ground, whose judgment—it’s hard for me, living in this beautiful White House, to give you an assessment.”
Bush wouldn’t call it a civil war. All he would call it was “it.”
As in: “No matter what you call it, it’s a complex situation, and it needed to be dealt with inside of Iraq. We’ve got people who say civil war, we’ve got people on the ground who don’t believe it’s a civil war. But nevertheless, it is, it was, dangerous enough that I had to make a decision to try to stop it.”
Dodging the label doesn’t dodge the fact that Bush has put U.S. troops into exactly the situation he vowed years ago that he would not do—and that is, to patrol a civil war. Our troops, he told us back then, were there to prevent a civil war. Not any more. Now they’re there to prevent the civil war from leading to greater bloodshed and regional chaos, he said.
He’s so out of it that he said, “I haven’t heard deep concern about the morale of the troops in Iraq,” though there have been many reports in the mainstream media that the troops are not hopeful about the escalation.
Bush claimed the only morale problem is “with the family members.” With amazing chutzpah, he said, “That’s one reason I go out of my way to constantly thank the family members.” As if by thanking them, he salves their pain or reduces their worry, when what they want is for him to bring their loved ones home alive, healthy, and whole.