I don’t know if you are a fan of Keith Olbermann of MSNBC’s Countdown, but he usually hits the nail right on the head. I really like his hard hitting, unabashed assessments of Bush and his war. Recently he did a piece on the way that Bush keeps spinning the war to make us believe that he is “on board” and is sympathetic to the American publics’ cry for troop reductions. With the latest spin cycle aggressively promoting his alleged surge success, Bush is relentless in his “bully pulpit” side shows calling for “more time” and with hints of “some” troop reductions. But underneath his empty promises lies a man bent on keeping us in Iraq indefinitely. What this all boils down to is more of the same and more time, no matter what. If you aren’t sure about this, then would having Bush state that he wants a permanent presence in Iraq in his own words convince you? Well, that’s exactly what Bush has said and it’s in print.

In an article on alternet.org, Olbermann notes a recent book about George W. called Dead Certain by Robert Draper. In Draper’s book, he quotes Bush as saying…

I’m playing for October-November to get us in a position where the presidential candidates will be comfortable about sustaining a presence.

Does that sound like someone who is planning to get us out of this catastrophic war? Doesn’t this man have a clue as to what a “sustained presence” will do to further inflame terrorism? Should someone tell our “Commander Guy” that the reason we have terrorist attacks and the very reason for 9/11 was because of the American presence on sacred Islamic lands? And this man wants a “permanent sustaining presence”? Does Bush know how to spell “O-C-C-U-P-A-T-I-O-N”? Doesn’t he understand that when Islamic extremists chant “Death to America” that what they really mean is get the hell out of our country?

Sorry for all the ranting but I have really had it with Bush. He makes his ridiculous appearance in the only part of Iraq that he could possibly appear, al-Anbar, and makes empty claims to worn out, exhausted troops offering hope of a troop reduction and the possibility of maybe not being killed, but all the while knowing that he has no intention of reducing our troop force or getting out of Dodge. No, he wants the next president to be “comfortable” with sustaining a presence which basically means…”stay the course”.

So, here we go again. A president who has no problems in lying about getting us into this war and now is at it again, lying about staying. I think Olbermann put it best when he said…

And there it is. We’ve caught you. Your goal is not to bring some troops home, maybe, if we let you have your way now. Your goal is not to set the stage for eventual withdrawal. You are, to use your own disrespectful, tone-deaf word, playing at getting the next Republican nominee to agree to jump into this bottomless pit with you, and take us with him, as we stay in Iraq for another year, and another, and another, and anon.

Everything you said about Iraq yesterday, and everything you will say, is a deception, for the purpose of this one cynical, unacceptable, brutal goal: perpetuating this war indefinitely.

War today, war tomorrow, war forever!

What I don’t understand is that we continue to allow this maniac to to pursue his own failed personal ideology of spreading democracy throughout the Middle East, but selling it as a war against terrorism. If he really wanted to fight the war against terrorism he would: 1) remove the U.S. as an occupying force in the Middle East 2) go after Bin Laden, and 3) concentrate on eliminating the terrorism revival in Afghanistan. But you know what? It may be too late. The damage he has already done may not be able to be undone. What he has managed to do in Iraq may be the Pandora’s box of Islamic radicalism. The box has been opened and there is no way to close it.