**** UPDATE: Insta-lanche! Welcome Instapundit readers! Wow, those Insta-lanches sure hit fast … er, which is probably why they’re not called Insta-drips. Anyhoo, my co-bloggers have many interesting posts here as well, so please stay awhile and look around.****
**** UPDATE 2: From the comments, ChrisB alerts us to this:
In related news: For the surge, before they were against it.
**** UPDATE 3: I am reminded via email from an Anonymous tipster of something that I forgot to include in the body of the post. Specifically, that the Iraq Study Group, who Bush was encouraged to listen to, was for a “surge” (pdf):
â€œWe could, however, support a short term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective.â€ p. 50
Move over you poor orphan, a new definition is in town. According to the Washington Post, President Bush will be entering new political territory for him tonight; he will officially be giving orders contrary to military advice:
When President Bush goes before the American people tonight to outline his new strategy for Iraq, he will be doing something he has avoided since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003: ordering his top military brass to take action they initially resisted and advised against.
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.
Bush’s decision appears to mark the first major disagreement between the White House and key elements of the Pentagon over the Iraq war since Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, split with the administration in the spring of 2003 over the planned size of the occupation force, which he regarded as too small.
Funny, I thought the mantra was that Bush, and his cronies, did not listen to his military advisers, and that’s why Iraq is such a mess. I’m sure I’ve heard that somewhere before (perhaps in the Washington Post?). Something about Bush ignoring top brass, and doing only what he wants to do in a state of denial, acting as a sort of Admiral Farragut on the U.S.S. America. I seem to recall that many in the media found Bush to be so obstinate, that a cover story for Newsweek was entitled “Will Bush Listen?”
Maybe I just heard it from the Democrats:
“It is now clear that our military commanders agree with the Iraq Study Group’s bipartisan findings that we must place more responsibility on Iraqis to protect their country and end sectarian violence,” said Democratic National Committee Press Secretary Stacie Paxton. “When will President Bush keep his promise to listen to military commanders who are now finding common ground with the Baker-Hamilton Commission?
powered by performancing firefox
13 Responses to “Chutzpah (UPDATED x3)”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS