Secret Bush Administration Memorandum


New York Instances Reveals Bush Administration?s Behind the Scenes Communications on the War in Iraq

The following hyperlink will take you to the full article, which I?ve teased under, that seems in today?s New York Occasions, purporting to expose a secret Bush administration memorandum about the Iraq war: Text of the National Security Adviser’s Memorandum on the Political Scenario in Iraq – New York Times: Published: November 29, 2006

Following is the beginning of a Nov. eight memorandum prepared for cabinet-level officials by Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, and his aides on the National Safety Council. The 5-web page document, classified secret, was read and transcribed by The New York Times.

We returned from Iraq convinced we want to decide if Prime Minister Maliki is each prepared and able to rise above the sectarian agendas being promoted by other people. Do we and Prime Minister Maliki share the exact same vision for Iraq? If so, is he in a position to curb those who seek Shia hegemony or the reassertion of Sunni power? The answers to these questions are crucial in determining whether or not we have the proper strategy in Iraq.
You can go to the above hyperlink to read the full post. It is fascinating.

Bush?s Large Mistake

To me, this secret memorandum reveals why the Bush administration has failed miserably in explaining the Iraq war to the American folks. The memorandum reveals an truthful, sophisticated assessment of the predicament in Iraq. This is the type of evaluation I have been trying to conduct on my weblog. It is also the kind of thinking my commenters have been positing, from the left and correct. I believe the American men and women are adult sufficient, and sophisticated enough, to hear these types of thoughts and considerations.

Alternatively of speaking the truth, as is the mission of this weblog, the President continues to pronounce his talking points, like ?Stay the course,? ?We?re fighting for freedom,? and ?We promise not to withdraw till the mission is achieved.?

I don?t discount the genuine need for slogans, propaganda, continued repetition, and so on. Just because the Nazis employed propaganda effectively, and the Soviet Union, and North Korea et al, doesn?t mean it isn?t a very good tool for democracy as well. We utilised it effectively in this nation in the course of WWII. I?m not opposed to it, when it?s for a excellent lead to.

On the other hand, I do believe the American people are far more mature than politicians picture. Yes, you can win them more than with the hateful mantras of the left?which is exactly what happened in the last election. The purpose these mantras worked, although, was that voters had no option. Bush has never ever explained to Americans, as mature adults, what is really going on in the planet, and specially in Iraq. Bush has by no means been an articulate champion of conservative values.

Bush?s Theory of Politics

Bush, like a lot of other politicians, believes that the primary function of a president is to be a diplomat. Diplomats are tight-lipped. They are aware of every word they speak they offend no a single they are eternally good at the worst they are guarded. They reveal absolutely nothing when they open their mouths.

Bush is the supreme diplomat. He does this with the American men and women too. He is ultra-careful about what he says, for example, about Iraq.

Beyond becoming a diplomat, Bush tries also to be a champion of his causes, which are, amongst other individuals: the war in Iraq democracy in the Middle East open borders with Mexico tax cuts and so on. In getting a champion of causes, he is producing arguments. He is communicating to sell his point of view. He is acting like a debater, taking a single side of an concern and advertising it, stacking all the evidence to make the sale. He desires to win the war in Iraq, and get the American individuals on his side in this aim, so he pushes his selling points at all occasions, like a very good life insurance coverage salesman. He is our cheerleader-in-chief.

The Difficulty

I believe an American president needs to be a diplomat, yes, and a champion of causes, and a cheerleader but he or she demands to be a lot more than this. Like Ronald Reagan, or John F. Kennedy, or Franklin D. Roosevelt, he also requirements to be a communicator.

I bear in mind taking a course on military history when I was a student at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska. The professor, a military man, mentioned that the American soldier is as opposed to soldiers from totalitarian nations, in 1 way at least. In totalitarian nations, the commanders give orders and the soldiers execute them, period. The professor stated that you can do this with American soldiers as well, and get the same benefits. He stated, though, that you can get even greater outcomes if you clarify to your soldiers the purpose for the orders. What are they fighting for? What is the mission? What are the dangers and techniques to handle them? What is the strategic situation? What are the ambitions, signposts, exit approaches, and so on?

Bush has completed a miserable job of explaining the situation in Iraq. By limiting himself to the roles of diplomat and cheerleader-in-chief, he has failed to engage the American public in this crucial war work.

Lessons of the Memorandum

First, I think that the New York Times has accomplished it again?come close to being treasonous in a time of war, revealing secret conversations about an issue of national security.

On the other hand, I don?t care. I?m glad the memorandum got out. It ultimately shows me what I?ve suspected all along?that there is sophisticated thinking going on about the Iraq war in the Bush administration. Bush?s large blunder, in my opinion, is hiding this sort of pondering from the American public. The public is scratching their heads, questioning if they?ve got a moron for a president. I?ve recognized that he is a vibrant man in a lot of ways, despite his Bushism?s and his inability to communicate. He has created the largest mistake of his presidency, nonetheless, in being tight-lipped about the complexities of this war, and about numerous other items.

If Bush ever desires the American men and women to understand why we are in Iraq, what to expect, and what will be the sacrifice, he demands to open up and grow to be also yet another wonderful communicator, like Ronald Reagan, JFK, and FDR. I know he, and most in the public, do not think that he has it in him to communicate in this way, but I?ve noticed him do it in some of his very best speeches. He needs to trust the American men and women that they can comprehend the complexities he will clarify.

If he ever does this, which I doubt he will?some folks will commence to listen to what he says, trust what he says, and begin to have faith in him once more.

Yes, the American people have underestimated George Bush he is no idiot. Winning the American presidency twice, and operating the country for eight years is impossible for an idiot. But George Bush has also underestimated the American individuals they are far a lot more mature and sophisticated than he imagines. They can handle the truth. They can recognize the complexities.

Start off telling the entire truth, Mr. President. Open up. Lay it out for us, in all its detail and uncertainty. Step out of your roles as diplomat and cheerleader-in-chief sometimes to become also the wonderful communicator. Your poll numbers will rise, and you might get the public support for your worldview that you?ve often craved. This way, you can safe your legacy. Plus, this will squash the impact of the moronic left. They will be the ones, then, left with the straightforward pronouncements with no substance.


Truth?The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

(*Wikipedia [ page:] is constantly my source unless indicated.)