Two Really Good Examples of Bush Being Full of Hot Air

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Two simple points about Bush’s speech last night are making their way around the web.

1. If we are really cracking down on Maliki and insisting that he ends the sway of the militias, then we must be prepared to leave if he doesn’t, with our dreams of “victory” dashed. But Bush said yesterday that failure is not acceptable, implying that we aren’t leaving any time soon. So will there be accountability, or won’t there?

2. Why would Maliki crack down on al-Sadr when al-Sadr’s influence provides the votes that keep Maliki in power?

Read more at Talking Points Memo, who traces the thinking to Andrew Sullivan and John Derbyshire.

(One additional note: Bush said yesterday, as part of his murky explanation of why things will be different THIS time around, that Iraqi police will be increased in numbers and will start patroling the streets to better protect the local populace. Specifically, he said they will be “conducting patrols and setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.” Honest to god, if I was a citizen of Baghdad, I’d be scared to death. Iraqi police already operate checkpoints and go door-to-door. That’s how they kill people.)


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend