The Past Is Gone . . . But Is It Forgotten?

In the space of just a few hundred words during his latest remarks to the press, Bush used the word “sober” twice. Such fondness for this adjective calls to mind certain peccadilloes of the president’s past that might help explain his problems with remembering time.



If there’s anything the president didn’t want to call to his audience’s attention during his remarks about the Congressional Iraq spending legislation, it’s the past—with the obvious exception of September 11, 2001, which was mentioned twice. The president’s remarks revolve around the present and future alone (a future in which, according to him, the stingy “Democrat [sic] party” will undermine the troops by cutting money from the troops—never mind that the bill gives plenty of money to the military, with the caveat that there be some plan for getting them the hell out of Iraq in the foreseeable future).

Why should this be the case? I think the answer lies with one of the favored rhetorical techniques of this administration—one that only works if the pesky past is ignored: projecting one’s own faults onto others and attacking them (a process rhetorical scholar Kenneth Burke called “scapegoating”).

Burke suggested people often do this in a way of dealing with their inner tensions and conflicts. With the president, I doubt any deep psychodrama is getting plaid out. It’s politics, plain and simple.

Notice that Bush accuses Democrats in Congress of putting their own judgment ahead of that of military commanders, of not providing for the troops, and wasting money.

Now, let’s remember that the administration ignored the pleas of the Pentagon to focus on Afghanistan rather than ramp up for an unnecessary invasion of Iraq, ignored (for utterly political reasons) the estimates of high ranking military officials saying hundreds of thousands of troops would be necessary to properly secure the country, sent tens of thousands of combat troops into the maelstrom of Iraq without proper body armor or fully armored humvees, gave cushy corporate no-bid contracts to companies chummy with the administration, staffed the reconstruction effort in Iraq with neophyte GOP operatives rather than qualified staff, etc., etc., etc. (See the fantastic book Fiasco by Tom Ricks for all the appalling details.)

The shamelessness with which Bush levels these attacks at others without any attempt to cover his flanks rhetorically speaks volumes for his contempt of the American people’s collective memory and the willingness of the press to do their homework (and their job). On the latter point, he certainly has reason for his overconfidence. On the former, he’d best be more careful.

And as for “winning this war” (as the president puts it), let’s remind ourselves of a couple of things.

First, what “war” is he talking about? Whatever war might have been fought has long since been won, for whatever it might be worth. If “war” describes our current situation in Iraq, the president is duty bound to move for not a “surge” of 20,000 troops, but a massive mobilization to occupy the country. What possible excuse could there be not to?

Well, that it’s not truly a war. And he’d be right. What we’ve got is an occupation (of sorts). The war, to the extent it exists, is a civil war among various factions in Iraq, with the U.S. in the middle. And with most Iraqis wanting us out of their country, and around half saying it’s just fine to kill American troops, what possible purpose can it truly serve to have soldiers sitting in the middle of it all?

“War” is a term the president invokes when it suits his purposes politically. He doesn’t believe it’s truly a war, nor do his staunchest supporters. If they did, they’d be making the case for a huge occupation force to move in (the sort that was needed in the first place). But they don’t.

A related point is that, whatever you might want to call the situation in Iraq (“quagmire” is an overused but accurate candidate), 20,000 troops is not going to solve it. They weren’t meant to. And the relatively toothless Congressional bills recently passed don’t do much either. Instead, we’ve got a game of political hot potato (that’s “potatoe” for you Quayle fans out there) in which the administration attempts to keep things at an only mildly disastrous level until they are out of office. To actually *do* anything, either through massive escalation or pulling out of Iraq, would be politically risky. Better to fiddle while Baghdad burns, then, when decisions are forced on a future administration, blame them for whatever nightmare unfolds (and it *will* unfold, one way or another).

Congress, for its part, is doing largely the same thing. The benchmarks and timeline ostensibly provide a chance for troops to be brought home before the next presidential election, but the bills don’t hold the president’s feet to the fire.

The president might be right that Congressional Democrats are putting politics over meaningful action on Iraq, but they are doing it only to the extent that the president himself is trying to run out the clock and pass the mess he’s created for no earthly purpose on to his successors.

But with each tick of the clock, the chimes strike midnight for more U.S. soldiers and Iraqi men, women, and children.