Chutzpah (UPDATED x3)
MichaelW on Jan 10 2007 at 4:02 pm | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Media, MichaelW's Page
**** 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.
(H/T Insty)
****
**** 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):
“We 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.†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?
Technorati Tags: Bush ignores generals, Bush doesn’t listen, media, MSM
powered by performancing firefox
Sphere: Related Content13 Responses to “Chutzpah (UPDATED x3)”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
The View From the Bluff: Lance’s Economic and Finance Blog
Michael,
It is only listening if they are saying what I am saying. If they are not he isn’t really listening because they are not saying what they really think, unless they agree with me and then they are “BRILLIANT!”
I think this is a little disingenuous, clearly the mantras are different:
Old: Bush listened to cronies who ignored to the JCS.
New: Bush is now directly ignoring the JCS.
Hell, everyone ignores the JCS these days. It was fashionable in the Rumsfeld era! GEN Franks played lapdog to his “do more with less” doctrine and allowed the security vacuum subsequently filled with opportunists like Sadr. The free elections fell predictably along sectarian lines and now you have an Iraqi PM beholden to those causing all the problems.
Meanwhile, back home we elect anyone who suggests abandoning every Iraqi citizen caught in the middle to the men of the gun.
Iraq: From Bad to Worse
What really saddens me is that this debacle has re-enforced the “those people need a dictator” argument that has justified our blind-eye to tyranny for decades!
I call it confusing cause and effect.
Yes, but the WAPO states that Bush has in the past avoided ignoring them. Still not what they said in the past is it? Still, I don’t really disagree with your other points, though possibly I should.
Heh. Clearly.
Here in the D.C. area you can’t go anywhere that politics are discussed (which is most everywhere) without hearing something along the lines of “Bush NEVER listens to his generals, or anyone else!” I think the big tip-off is in the Time and Newsweek cover stories asking “Will Bush Listen?” Why does that question even occur to them if they thought he was listening all along?
You make a good point there. Whether or not one agrees with starting the war, we should all, in the very least, agree on actually finishing it. I don’t know if a “surge” is the answer or not, but I’m quite certain that just up and leaving is no solution.
In related news: For the surge, before they were against it.
(H/T Insty)
Thanks for link, ChrisB. I moved it up to the body of the post.
You’ve nailed it. Before, the ex-generals were calling for troop increases and the pundits told us that’s why Iraq was unstable. Now he is willing to increase troop levels because the situation has gotten worse in Baghdad and they’re criticizing him for ignoring the generals who didn’t want to increase troop levels. Heads I win, tails you lose.
He got rid of the generals who believe the surge wouldn’t help and found a general who is willing to play the game. Does that make him Lincoln at Appomattox, or Hitler at Leningrad? I doubt even Bush could turn Iraq into Stalingrad but the way he’s going, a few fronts here and a few there….
Before, generals (and ex-generals, but not necessarily ex-generals before they started disagreeing with Bush) were calling for troop increases. *Large* troop increases. And it was *before* things had deteriorated so far that the generals were saying that *large* troop increases might help them get control of the situation.
Now, the generals aren’t calling for *small* troop increases like the one Bush is giving them. They’re saying that *small* troop increases are too little, too late. Bush isn’t listening to them by giving them a *small* troop increase *after* things have deteriorated so much. He’s playing a political game designed to postpone accountability.
(And BTW, on that “before it before they were against it” link, be sure to take the above considerations into account. Supporting the sort of increase military leaders were saying might have helped two years ago *two years ago*, then *not* supporting the sort of mini-surge that military leaders say won’t make any real difference now, *now*, is a “flip flop” only to those who are desperate to find a way to deflect attention from the real causes for the current situation in Iraq.)
It’s not coincidence that the proposed size of the increase is pretty much exactly what they can manage without doing anything that would cause big political pain, like reinstating the draft. It’s a small increase driven by political considerations, not by trying to do what military advisors have ever said would be sufficient to win.
[...] By: Sister Toldjah in: Grandstanding, Congress, Buffoonery, Clueless Wonders | EMail This Post | Print This Post | Trackback URI for this post:http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/01/10/playing-games-with-the-iraq-war-democrats-supported-troop-surge-before-they-were-against-it/trackback/ » [...]
[...] Second Hand Conjecture says the Iraq Study Group Report – so beloved by some on the left – was “for” a surge. He links to the pdf.file. [...]
While that is the President’s privilege as CIC, I think you make a fair point there.
Another fair point, and another one that misses the point of my post. The media and the Democrats had been pounding the “Bush doesn’t listen” drum for years, and then in the openning paragraph of an article meant to preface Bush’s remarks this evening, the WaPo finally admits that they (the MSM, et al.) were lying all along, and that Bush had been following the recommendations of his generals. Moreover, either Bush follows the ISG (”Will Bush Listen?”) and butts heads with some brass, or he listens to some brass and ignores the ISG — either way, according to this meme, he is “not listening.”
I can’t believe that I missed your point, I will have to do some research on this.