Bush talks frequently of his disdain for micromanaging the war effort and for second-guessing his commanders. “It’s important to trust the judgment of the military when they’re making military plans,” he told The Washington Post in an interview last month. “I’m a strict adherer to the command structure.”
But over the past two months, as the security situation in Iraq has deteriorated and U.S. public support for the war has dropped, Bush has pushed back against his top military advisers and the commanders in Iraq: He has fashioned a plan to add up to 20,000 troops to the 132,000 U.S. service members already on the ground. As Bush plans it, the military will soon be “surging” in Iraq two months after an election that many Democrats interpreted as a mandate to begin withdrawing troops.
Pentagon insiders say members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have long opposed the increase in troops and are only grudgingly going along with the plan because they have been promised that the military escalation will be matched by renewed political and economic efforts in Iraq. Gen. John P. Abizaid, the outgoing head of Central Command, said less than two months ago that adding U.S. troops was not the answer for Iraq.
But, and this is important, don’t say that Bush lied. He just left out one little caveat . The President apparently meant to say that he always listens to his commanders, except when they don’t tell him what he already wants to hear. Then he goes with the head voices. Minor difference. Hardly worth mentioning, n’est-ce pas.
Steve Benen has more.
***Update***
An excellent discussion of the surge “plan”‘s practicalities over at DefenseTech.
ThymeZone
If you think it’s hard to follow the logic of a pathological liar, just imagine how hard it must be for him to do it.
Which is why, I suppose, he doesn’t even bother.
Pb
That voice in his head is a commander–The Commander-in-Chief! It’s all starting to make sense now, isn’t it…
Elvis Elvisberg
A pointless, flaccid surge, based purely on political considerations. Marvelous.
Remember when Republicans were full of fury at President Clinton’s so-called “wag the dog” attacks on al Qaeda? And that was shooting missiles! Now we’re talking about 20,000 troops into a war zone! That number of troops has no possibility of affecting things, if Gen. Petraeus’ counterinsurgency doctrine is to be believed, but it still sucks to be among them. Good thing the president doesn’t know any of them.
James F. Elliott
The press should be scourging the President for this “policy.” They should drive him through the streets like a rabid cur, chasing him down like a mob weilding planks with nails in them. Metaphorically speaking. It’s no less than he deserves.
Zifnab
That was during the height of a sex scandal. Everyone knows the world would normally sit on its hands and wait until Congress was finished checking out the size of Clenis’s gear before anything really bad happened. Why do you think 9/11 occured under Bush? Because if it had happened sooner, he wouldn’t have had the press coverage.
Filthy McNasty
Speaking of pathological liars, notice that the Dem’s, who were (they claim) elected to get us out of Iraq, are going to hold “symbolic votes” on Bush’s plan for more troops.
Now THAT is a good way to get the respect and confidence of the electorate! Frame the issue like it’s Vietnam, but don’t actually take a firm stand and use your power of the purse to pull funding. That would require principles. Better to take the safe, media-friendly route and hold symbolic votes. Iraq is the issue that the Dem’s ran on this past election. Now they have the power to actually do something, to act like the adults they claim that they are, and they do this???
Absolute fucking pussies, you are. Form your own country somewhere and make the white flag your national banner.
LITBMueller
Of course, we’re all assuming that the “surge”, i.e., putting more troops into Iraq, only has to do with Iraq. Bush has twice demonstrated his eagerness to “multi-task” – by going into Iraq before the dust has settled in Afghanistan, and, now, by getting us militarily involved in Somalia (again – was Congress ever informed?). Meanwhile, Bush sent an additional carrier battle group to the region as “a show of force” for Iran, put a Navy Admiral in charge of the theater, shuffled some more generals, replaced Rummy, demoted Negroponte, and let a guy who advocated attacking N. Korea preemptively in 1995 craft his “surge.”
And this is all about Iraq? I highly doubt it. They are “history’s actors,” indeed, and the cure for Iraq is taking out Iran. Bush doesn’t need generals – he has his “insticts.”
Steve
One of my least favorite personal qualities of George Bush is that he’s a complete buck-passer. He loves being the Decider and getting to boss everyone around, but any time something goes wrong it’s always someone else’s fault. He’d be the worst kind of boss to work for.
Filthy McNasty
Speaking of pathological liars, notice that the Dem’s, who were (they claim) elected to get us out of Iraq, are going to hold “symbolic votes” on Bush’s plan for more troops.
Now THAT is a good way to get the respect and confidence of the electorate! Frame the issue like it’s Vietnam, but don’t actually take a firm stand and use your power of the purse to pull funding. That would require principles. Better to take the safe, media-friendly route and hold symbolic votes. Iraq is the issue that the Dem’s ran on this past election. Now they have the power to actually do something, to act like the adults they claim that they are, and they do this???
Absolute fucking pussies, you are. Form your own country somewhere and make the white flag your national banner.
Jake
I think I begin to understand how this man works. There is no such thing as an “adherer.” Adherent, yes. Adherer, no. So it sounds like he has said or tried to say he sticks to the command structure but he’s really just throwing out meaningless gibberish. The verbal equivalent of crossing one’s fingers.
Or sticking out the middle ones at the military.
Pb
Filthy, you were an idiot the first time–chill, dude, Mission Accomplished already.
Filthy McNasty
Sorry for the double post up above.
That aside, I have to comment on this:
Didn’t Clinton claim he would “bring to justice” those responsible for Khobar Towers in 1998? We all know that he never followed through on this, but it looks like that nasty Dubya made good for Clinton’s malpractice in Somalia this week, taking out one of the men responsible for the bombing at Khobar Towers.
Davebo
How could anyone be responsible for a building that was destroyed two years previously?
Redhawk
The Democratic Party would never withhold funding, so that argument is moot. Nobody in their right minds cuts off meals, ammo, and tanks to their military in a battlefield, regardless of ideology.
Punchy
Anyone see the Bush Admin’s new slogan for what they’re going to call this new debacle? It’s so halarious…I don’t know where to start:
I think I heard this once in a porn flick….
Pb
Redhawk,
It’s possible for Congress to deny funds for additional troops, but not for the rest of the war–in fact, that’s what Sen. Kennedy’s bill would do. We’ll see if and when it comes up.
Tsulagi
To be fair, Bush didn’t micromanage before. Cheney and Rummy did that. Bush kept his eye on the big picture like what was to be barbequed.
But now Rummy is gone, and Cheney is upset so he’s giving Bushy the silent treatment. Plus, he was maneuvered into putting one of daddy’s men in Rummy’s spot. Sucks. So now he’s going to show them all, he’s going to do the micromanaging
We are truly screwed.
BARRASSO
Blame the democrats quick, sure we voted for and carried water for and excused and bullied and called naysayers traitors, but what about Khobar towers in 1998!! It’s them dirty liberal traitors dammit!
Redhawk
There’s a world of difference between what’s possible and what they’ll actually do. Kennedy’s bill—should it defy all logic and pass–will be vetoed 1.3 milliseconds after it hits President Bush’s desk.
RSA
As Steve Benen describes it, the Democrats seem to be following the strategy of lining up political support, including Republicans, to demonstrate (to the President, who’s the only one who still needs convincing, I guess) that he’s completely isolated in his views. It’s a first step, to be followed up with less symbolic action. We’ll see.
Pb
Redhawk,
Agreed. And then the Republicans in Congress will be on the hot seat…
Tim F.
It is a useful first step. Republicans who have reelection in mind will have a hard time voting for escalation when voting against has no real consequences and voting for will make a useful weapon for their Democratic challenger. But once they have put their name to a symbolic protest, keeping it off of a real protest will be even more painful. Almost John Kerryish.
Nikki
From Filthy’s link:
Shorter: It’s more than the Repubs have done since this war started.
Bombadil
And that makes it an excellent political move, something apparently beyond Filthy’s comprehension.
Pennypacker
The perpetrators weren’t indicted until June 2001.
John S.
Didn’t Bush claim he would “bring to justice” those responsible for September 11th? I recall something about wanting the culprits “dead or alive”.
So where is Bin Laden vacationing these days?
AkaDad
John S. Says:
You just don’t get it. That’s just a success that hasn’t occured yet.
Jake
You know that “undisclosed location,” Cheney hid in? Well he’s not there, he’s at Camp David.
BARRASSO
Oh shit Balloon Juice is now listed on the left hand side of the Daou Report, this blog is now in the land of filthy hippies and free love and our precious juices are at risk.
Zifnab
In the midst of Monica-gate I certainly couldn’t tell. Certainly none of the Republicans gave a flying flip or they might have focused more on terrorism than smearing the opposition party.
I still totally agree that the Dems need to move more aggressively on this issue. Votes to censor the President were fine when we were a minority party. Get those bills up and make the ‘Pubs take a stand. If it gets killed, who cares. But I am sure Filthy McNasty much prefers Ted Kennedy’s bill that actively denies funding for escalation. That’s a much more proactive approach and I’m glad Filthy McNasty can put aside the partisan squabbling and support Ted Kennedy of Massachuetts in this piece of legislation.
Perhaps with true blue Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Filthy McNasty supporting this legislation we can finally see an end to this tragic war. Filthy’s support of Ted Kennedy’s legislation is truely touching.
Pb
If only. It’s ‘censure’.
The Other Andrew
I’d love to see the Dems do more to stop the war, but, in practical terms, their options are somewhat limited. To me, the options all fall into two categories: they’re either realistic, hard choices that will play into crazycon stereotypes about Democrats (i.e., cutting funding to a limited degree), or they’re more of the same sort of easy-to-swallow denial/rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic (tonight’s speech, I imagine).
Though Bush would never respect it, I’d love it if the Dems could find a way to revoke the supposed war authorization. (The resolution is a political figleaf, obviously, having been retrofitted to apply to Iraq.) Realistically, though, a symbolic “no confidence” vote is about the best they can do.
TenguPhule
Shorter Filthy: Why won’t Democrats commit Political Suicide?! I am *outraged* that they will not willingly open themselves to charges by assholes like to that they ‘lost the Iraq war’ and ‘hate the troops’ by cutting the funding for those troops. Never mind that they’re trying to cut the funding for Bush’s escalation. After all, the only principled Party are the Republicans, why won’t the Democrats treat them nice! Wahhhh! Wahhh! Change my diaper!!
mrmobi
I would never have guessed that Filthy is a Democrat, or for cutting and running. Way to go, Filthy!
Zombie Santa Claus
Hey, that’s our flag! Keep those moonbats away from the North Pole. Put them in Canada where they belong.
TenguPhule
Finally, something I can agree with Redhawk on.
mrmobi
Redhawk, you are wrong about the war, but not about the above. This is the President’s war to run, he has his authorization. It’s just too bad he’s not capable of doing the job he’s been charged with.
kchiker
I thought it couldn’t get any worse. And then they out-Orwelled…Orwell.
Steve
I’m actually pretty impressed by the Dems’ moves so far, although it goes without saying that I wouldn’t be satisfied if they held a “symbolic” vote and then dropped the issue. The idea is to take the most basic approach in order to co-opt as many Republicans as possible and demonstrate bipartisan opposition to the escalation; if that doesn’t budge the Decider, stronger steps can be taken.
The problem with starting off on Day 1 with a hyper-confrontational measure is that you lose the option of bringing the other side on board. Sure, it would be politically useful to tie Republicans to Bush’s plan for 2008, but politics is not the primary concern. Changing the course is the primary concern and I think the Dems are going about it in the right way. Reid and Pelosi have shown every indication that they understand the message of the voters from November.
Filthy McNasty
It’s easy to do. They wanted the power they have, and now that they have it they can’t bring themselves to use it. Real guts they have. At least there are the Blue Dog Democrats, like Joe Donnelly, who I can respect because they aren’t coming from a place of shrinking fear and/or wanting to undermine the president just for sport.
Pelosi best not pull a Gingrich and overreach in her early days as Speaker. She was elected to her post by her Bay Area district and sycophants in the House, not by the nation. Bush was, like it or not, so he has the bully pulpit, not Pelosi. The Blue Dogs understand the real balance of power.
SeesThroughIt
It should be believed. If we had been listening to Shinseki and Petraeus instead of ass-licking Tommy Franks and that useless dickhead Wolfowitz from the beginning, Iraq probably wouldn’t be the total mess it is now. It certainly wouldn’t be the Bush administration’s vision of flowers and gumdrops and ponies for all, but we’d have been waging a much more viable campaign from the start instead of half-stepping through the entire thing.
From what I’ve seen, it’s listed to the left when the post being linked is one of Tim’s, and it’s listed to the right when the post is one of John’s. Makes sense to me.
Nikki
So when Ted Kennedy’s bill is enacted, you will recant?
RSA
First this from Filthy:
Then this?
I don’t get it.
TenguPhule
Her majority was elected from the nation, Mr. Kumbaya GOP Surrender Monkey.
And it belongs to the King, not the voters, right?
Because we must be ‘civil’ and not call the GOP Turds what they are.
TenguPhule
Let me translate Filthy-speak for you.
Translation: Commit Political Suicide Democrats! I want to be able to accuse you of loving terrorists over the troops.
Translation: The King is not accountable to the peasants, bitch!
The Other Steve
Boykin is Out
Newsweek is reporting that Gates is removing General Boykin from his position as head of intelligence operations. Boykin is the general who said we are fighting Satan and we need Jesus on our side and caused quite a stir.
More importantly, I think was a report that came out a month or so ago about the Pentagon’s intelligence team going around the world stirring up trouble and forcing the CIA and/or State Dept to bail them out…
I can’t find the article right now.
The Other Steve
All I know is the Republicans better not try to fillibuster the minimum wage bill in the Senate, or we’re going to have to invoke the Nuclear Option!
Steve
This is the spoofiest paragraph of the day. Mandate, bitches!
Zifnab
I just want Filthy to come out and admit he is fully in support of Ted Kennedy’s legislation to cut funding for troop escalation.
Come on Filthy. Say it. Say you support Ted Kennedy, or you’re a traitor.
LITBMueller
RE: Khobar Towers. Wrong terrorist/wrong attack. The guy we reportedly iced in Somalia, Fazul Abdullah Muhammed, was tied to the U.S Embassy bombings in Africa. The Khobar job was in Saudi Arabia – you know, the country that is supposed to be our ally.
As for the perpetrators of the ’98 embassy bombings, Clinton seized assets and launched Operation Infinite Reach (the infamous “aspirin factory” bombing)and a bunch of guys were tried and convicted in 2001.
But, hey, ready for a healthy dose of irony? We actually reached out to the Islamic Courts Union in June 2006, and asked them to help us track down Fazul. The overture was made by Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer. She was asked if the US would support Somali warlords in order to capture the terrorists, and she replied, “Certainly we will not support violators of human rights.”
Heh heh. Guess that went out the window, as the President of the Transitional Government we are now supporting, Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, was implicated by the State Sept. in 2002 of killing his political opposition.
How much you bet you won’t hear anything about THAT in our supposedly liberal media, hmmm?
Tsulagi
About time. The guy is very capable in some ways, but he’s totally loony. He literally thought he saw Satan hovering over Mogadishu when he was commanding Delta units in Somalia. Thinks he has a photo to prove it too. When he says God has chosen Bush, he isn’t sucking up, he believes it.
Fe "E"
Way to go you morally bankrupt leftists–just keep rooting for Bushitler to fail so you can act all superior. If we don’t succeed in Iraq, well you tell me what you think will happen.
As long as America loses you’re as happy as Pigs in 5H17
Tim F.
You can always tell when somebody ventures out of the womblike wingnut boards for the first time.
ThymeZone
Well, we already didn’t succeed in Iraq, and what happened?
The world is not coming to an end, but Bush’s reign of bullshit is coming to an end. Rapidly.
TenguPhule
I thought they spawned from the graveyards like ameboas on sugar.
numbskull
Possibly your link to DefenseTech is mispointing to some other thread. I went over there, read the thread, and saw no analysis whatsoever. Nearly all the posts supporting the escalation say it will work because, well, because it will work. A few suggest that it will work, but only if the additional 20K are allowed to kill them all and let Allah sort them out later.
I’m geniunely curious. What post(s) in that thread led you to link to it?
Fe "E"
Let me tell it to you moonbats straight America is not for a withdrawal–that’s not what we voted for–no matter how much you convince yourselves otherwise.
Explain to me what happened in Connecticut.
Tim F.
My feeling is, if there exists a justification for the President’s strategy then you will probably find it there. Shachtman has a pretty informed crew, on both sides of the issue, and I think they all deserve a look. As you point out, some are dumb. But as long as every “side” here deserves a decent airing, that post is as good a place as any to find it.
James F. Elliott
They’re what, less than a week into the new session? Sheesh.
What? That makes no sense. Does it never occur to fellows like Filthy that the president should be undermined because he’s a horrible president, that his policies should be opposed because they are truly awful policies?
I call this the ‘death by dhimmi buggery fallacy.” It never takes a breather to make some sense. Yes, you have us figured out: Our egos matter far more than our physical safety.
Explain to me what happened to the majority of Congressional districts? More importantly, explain to me how 35 percent (the highest-end number I’ve seen arguably “in favor” of the surge) constitutes a majority? Or, rather, how does the 81 percent that thinks the war has been run badly constitute a minority? This must be that New Math. Seriously, Connecticut is the bellweather for the entire nation? Come on, even someone with the grammatical ability of a twelve year old must be able to see the flaw contained within that logic.
Perry Como
Pelosi should overreach?
Pelosi should not overreach?
Jeezus man. Make up your mind. I know that you want the Democrats to succeed, but you are sending mixed signals.
Steve
This is an easy one.
Among people who felt the war in Iraq was an “extremely important” issue, Lamont beat Lieberman 62-30. That’s better than 2 out of 3.
Among those who felt the war was either “extremely important” or “very important,” Lamont won 49-42.
But the people who felt Iraq was either “somewhat important” or “not very important” went overwhelmingly for Lieberman, 65-23.
That’s how Lieberman won the election – with the support of people who didn’t care about Iraq. Look at these numbers, and tell me again how the Connecticut election bolsters the Republican position on the war.
numbskull
Fair enough.
Apparently, there does not exist a justification for the President’s strategy [sic].
Can we call the whole thing off now?
merlallen
The Saudis executed the men who bombed the Khobar Towers, you idiot. Before the FBI could question them.
SeesThroughIt
Also, Republicans abandoned their own candidate to vote for Lieberman.
Punchy
Now THATS some funny shit…I just picture Jesus with a M-60 and a ton of ammo slung around him, Rambo-style, with a helmet on, and on top of the helmet…a crown of thorns.
MrSnrub
The crown of thorns is camoflage.
Fe "E"
Not a chemist among you all, eh?
Say it out loud.
Frank
I got it the first time Doug. Its just not that funny.
Iron E.