The Bush administration has seen it’s fair share of good news in the last few weeks. Well deserved good news too.
In a White House that had virtually forgotten what good news looks like, the past few weeks have been refreshing. A Republican won a much-watched special congressional election. President Bush recruited a Wall Street heavy hitter as Treasury secretary. U.S. forces killed the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. And now the architect of the Bush presidency has avoided criminal charges.
The death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a big one. That guy has been responsible for so much violence in Iraq, it’s great seeing him bite the dust.
With Zarqawi dead, a new Baghdad government in place and Rove freed from prosecutor’s cross hairs, the White House hopes it can pivot to a new stage in which it is no longer on the defensive. In recent weeks, under new Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, the White House has tried to do more to set an agenda, moving aggressively into the immigration debate and agreeing to join direct talks with Iran over its nuclear program under certain conditions.
Anyway, Bush made a “secret” visit to Iraq yesterday. Some think he may be laying the groundwork for troop reductions in Iraq. I don’t really see that though. To me it seems to be more of a pep-rally sort of thing. Bush was there letting everyone know that we need to stay until the job is done. Or at least until the Iraqi forces are able to handle the insurgents on their own. Even when the Iraqi forces are ready, we should still maintain a military force in the country, just to ensure the job is done right. It’d be terribly depressing if the country fell into a civil war or something once the U.S. packs up and leaves. In my eyes, we need to have a decent number of troops there for the next 50 years, just to protect our investment. “Our investment” being the nation of Iraq itself, not their oil.
Flopping Aces has some nice pictures and a video. Hot Air also has the video and a link to the transcript from Bush’s speech.
Others blogging include:
Blogs for Bush
Big Dog’s Weblog
Bush and Blair have decided to “Concede Missteps on Iraq.” Hot Air has a video of the news conference.
In a joint news conference, Bush said he had used inappropriate “tough talk” — such as saying “bring ’em on” in reference to insurgents — that he said “sent the wrong signal to people.” He also said the “biggest mistake” for the United States was the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, in which guards photographed themselves sexually tormenting Iraqi prisoners, spawning revulsion worldwide. “We’ve been paying for that for a long period of time,” he said.
George Galloway used this as an opportunity to attack Tony Blair, saying “it would be entirely logical and explicable” for him to die via suicide bomber. Galloway is obviously off his rocker. The fact that he even suggests a suicide bombing to kill Blair is sick. Let’s face it, suicide bombings are a pretty sleazy and cowardly way to take a life.
The Respect MP George Galloway has said it would be morally justified for a suicide bomber to murder Tony Blair.
In an interview with GQ magazine, the reporter asked him: “Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber – if there were no other casualties – be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?”
Mr Galloway replied: “Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it – but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq – as Blair did.”
Whose side are you on Galloway? Wait, I don’t think you should answer that. Decision ’08 asks a good question, “George Galloway: Human Or Snake?”
Sister Toldjah is wondering if Galloway can be censured in front of the Parliament for his remarks. I would certainly think so, wether any action is actually taken against Galloway is probably up for debate.
Cold Fury dropped a great analogy in their Galloway post:
Listening to Leftard hero/terrorist-loving blowhard George Galloway talk about ethics and morals is roughly akin to listening to Ronald McDonald opine about fine wines and filet mignon.