February 2008: Bush denies that the Iraq occupation is a drag on the economy

John McCain has been lecturing us for months about how well things are going in Iraq. The metrics back him up. Violence is down, whether because of the Surge or by use of a new top-secret weapon. Just yesterday there was a report from Baghdad that U.S. commanders were transferring control of the 100,000-strong Sons of Iraq militia to the Iraqi military.
Why not force George Bush to some responsibility for two of his messes — Iraq and the economy — on his watch?

It costs us about $10 billion a month to stay in Iraq, and since we can’t afford to pay it out of the Treasury, we borrow every penny from the Chinese and others. In 2009, we’ll charge an additional $120 billion dollars onto the next generation’s credit cards to pay for the occupation — on top of the new $700 billion we’re charging them for the Wall Street bailout.

If Iraq is stable, and if the financial debacle facing us is as bad as George Bush says it is, it seems pretty clear that we can no longer afford to stay in Iraq.

There’s another, more karmic reason to withdraw immediately. Two years ago, Bush slipped up and accidentally told the truth about his “exit plan” for Iraq. “We’re not leaving,” he said at a news conference in August 2006, “so long as I’m the President.”

Shunting the post-withdrawal collapse of Iraq onto the next president fits George Bush’s lifelong pattern of screwing things up and leaving his messes for others to fix.

During the run-up to the war, then Secretary of State Colin Powell warned Bush about the risk of screwing up Iraq by saying, “If you break it, you buy it.” Powell was half-right. Bush did break Iraq, but he did not buy it. The American taxpayers are picking up the trillion dollar tab. More profoundly, it’s the hundreds of thousands of dead U.S. soldiers and Iraqi men, women and children who paid the ultimate price.

Eight months ago, NBC’s Ann Curry asked George Bush if he thought there was a connection between the drag on the economy and the $3 billion per month the United States is borrowing to pay for his occupation of Iraq. His answer will not surprise you:

CURRY: Some Americans believe that they feel they’re carrying the burden because of this economy.

BUSH: Yeah, well…

CURRY: They say we’re suffering because of this.

BUSH: … I don’t agree with that.

CURRY: You don’t agree with that? It has nothing do with the economy, the war — spending on the war?

BUSH: I don’t think so. I think actually the spending in the war might help with jobs.

CURRY: Oh, yeah?

BUSH: Yeah, because we’re buying equipment, and people are working. I think this economy is down because we built too many houses and the economy’s adjusting.

(Shorter Bush: The cash I’m giving my fatcat war-profiteer buddies trickles down on the little people. That’s why we call ‘em “peons.”)

As the time ticks away toward January, it is obvious that not only are George Bush and Dick Cheney not going to be impeached, they are not going to be held accountable for the damage they have done to our democracy, the military, the economy or our standing in the world. As has been noted before, they will only receive the same mild rebuke given to Cheney’s old boss, Richard Nixon: They will grow old in disgrace.

Unfortunately, unlike Nixon, neither Bush nor Cheney will be at all bothered by the fact that they are embarrassments to themselves and the nation.

At the moment, it appears that McCain and Sarah Palin are flaming out. Barack Obama has said he will withdraw troops soon after he takes office. So why wait? Why not force George Bush to some responsibility for two of his messes — Iraq and the economy — on his watch?