Irrational Exuberance
AP and NYT’s gleeful wishful thinking may have led to overstatement. Washington Post has a somewhat more measured report on how Bush may react to GOP defections and Dem Cong exit pressure re Iraq. More in line with the White House’s actual pronouncements and past practice of damning the torpedoes:
President Bush, facing a growing Republican revolt against his Iraq policy, has rejected calls to change course but will launch a campaign emphasizing his intent to draw down U.S. forces next year and move toward a more limited mission if security conditions improve, senior officials said yesterday.
Top administration officials have begun talking with key Senate Republicans to walk them through his view of the next phase in the war, beyond the troop increase he announced six months ago today. Bush plans to lay out what an aide called “his vision for the post-surge” starting in Cleveland today to assure the nation that he, too, wants to begin bringing troops home eventually.
The White House devised the political strategy after days of intense internal discussions about how to respond to several prominent Republican senators who have broken with Bush’s war policy recently. Bush decided against heeding their proposal to begin redeploying U.S. troops as early as this summer, but he and his team concluded that he needed to shift his message to show that he shares the goals of his increasingly restless Republican caucus and the broader public.
“Look, the president understands the American people are frustrated,” said a senior official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid upstaging Bush. “We’ve been at this a long time. We’ve sacrificed some of our best and brightest. . . . But they want to see that we have a vision for success that will allow us to gradually downsize our role and reduce our footprint. The president needs to and wants to remind everybody that he shares that frustration.”
Some reports and commentary would give you the impression the Bush administration favors open-ended war. This has largely been a reflection of their own inability to see any potential for progress, the kind of thinking that prefers genocide to another moment of U.S. presence in Iraq. Here, again, is what the administration actually has to say about that:
Although it initially envisioned a troop increase lasting six to eight months, the administration lately has anticipated keeping the extra troops in place until next spring and then beginning to pull them back, one brigade at a time. Logistically, senior military officials have said, it would be extremely difficult to sustain such a force in Iraq beyond March or April. Bush has said he wanted to then shift to a more limited mission and presence. But amid all the debate, said one aide, “the argument has been lost of late,” which is why the president plans to make a new sustained effort to talk about it this week.
“What the president has said all along is, of course, we’re going to draw down,” White House press secretary Tony Snow said. “But you have to draw down when it makes sense to do so. And furthermore, what he said is, ‘Everybody, take a look first at what’s going on.’ “
One more time. Read and learn.
Welcome RCP, Salon readers, etal. Think NYT’s embarrassed? It should be.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:13 am on Tuesday, July 10, 2007
16 Responses to “Irrational Exuberance”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Re: “Here, again, is what the administration actually has to say about that:”
However this is the Bush Administration we are talking about. And what they SAY and what they DO are vastly different (in fact even what they SAY will vary from day-to-day. (Remember Donald Rumsfeld saying that if we were in Iraq more than six months, that would be “too long”? Or the Administration firing their O’Niell when he suggested Iraqi occupation might cost more than the $60 billion projected?)
What is happening, as eveyone knows, is that Bush is Running Down theClock to January 2009, when he will ride off into the sunset, singing the song, “we were winning when I was running it” about Iraq. And someone else will have to clean up Bush’s mess, and take the blame from NeoConservatives for ruining Bush’s “Splendid Little War”.
The blood for all those lives lost between now and January 2009, when a real solution is begun, lies squarely on the hands of those Bush enabelers who assist him in Running out the Clock.
Shame on them. From Joe Lieberman to Bill Kristol.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Web Reconnaissance for 07/10/2007
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:24 am
once again we are going to begin to draw down forces next year. last year we were going to begin to draw down forces next year, which is this year, in which cheney chose escalation instead. the same thing the year before, and the year before, all the way back to the beginning.
“What the president has said all along is, of course, we’re going to draw down,” White House press secretary Tony Snow said. “But you have to draw down when it makes sense to do so.” When has this administration shown that they have the sense to judge anything? The judgements of cheney’s administration has been totally f’ed from the get go. And yet they have the arrogance to act like they are the only ones who know how to prosecute this mess they have gotten us into. It’s so ridiculous that you couldn’t make it up.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
A pox on all their houses.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
The Baathists got the snot beat out of them in Iraq.
Naturally, their lefty allies in the west are a little bitter about failing to prevent the war.
Better luck next next time, peaceniks.
July 10th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
“We’ve been at this a long time.”
Yeah, about 17 years. So?
July 10th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
‘…cheney chose escalation instead…’
I think you’re confused about who the president is. ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ was just a movie.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Bush does what he says he will do. Now a lot of other people do what ever is politically advantageous at the time and then just rewrite history to suit them..but Bush tends to hang in there.
I think we should remember that once upon a time the left hated Saddam Hussein, but once his reign was about to come to an end he became someone who needed their protection. It did not matter how many laws he broke or people he killed.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:53 am
oldmantyme…
it’s pretty clear who is really running things and it ain’t the cowboy from new haven.
terrye…
bush said he was against nation building, now we are in the biggest nation building project in history.
bush said he would pursue a humble foreign policy, and then pre-emtively invaded and occupied a sovereign nation that posed absolutely no threat to the united states.
so much for that theory. next…
July 11th, 2007 at 9:12 am
‘it’s pretty clear who is really running things and it ain’t the cowboy from new haven.’
Crystal clear.
‘…bush said he was against nation building…bush said he would pursue a humble foreign policy…’
Stuck in 9/10/01?
July 11th, 2007 at 9:42 am
no…stuck in iraq…don’t conflate iraq and 9/11. the cowboy from new haven likes to say it’s important to stick to your principles. except when he doesn’t. you can’t have it both ways…principles are principles. if they weren’t then we could just scrap the constitution and name dick king.
July 11th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
When I read stuff like this:
‘…cheney chose escalation instead…’
‘it’s pretty clear who is really running things and it ain’t the cowboy from new haven.’
I can’t take the author seriously from that point on. He/she is ignorant and a fool.
‘…don’t conflate iraq and 9/11…’
I’m not. One was a terrorist strike on our country in an ongoing war being waged against us for almost 30 years. The other is a battle in the war that strike finally forced us to begin to take seriously and fight proactively. Anyone who thinks that a 9/10/01 viewpoint from before the strike is still viable foreign policy for the US after the strike is again an ignorant fool that I can’t take seriously. As a matter of fact, that viewpoint was demonstrably stupid is retrospect given events that occurred as far back as 1993.
One can knowledgeably and with a clear head make a good case critiquing the battle management in Iraq just as one can do the same critiquing DDay’s battle management. But the key’s are knowledge and a clear head. You don’t exhibit either. Someone who does not see that the strategic relationship of the battle in Iraq to the war against terrorism might be simply uninformed. Someone who propagates the meme that there is no strategic relationship is, one more time, an ignorant fool that I can’t take seriously.
Or a liar.
July 11th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
“bush…pre-emtively invaded and occupied a sovereign nation that posed absolutely no threat to the united states.”
The bigger and more absurd the lie, the better.
July 11th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
“…someone who does not see that the strategic relationship of the battle in Iraq to the war against terrorism might be simply uninformed…” if you suddenly decide on 9/11 that you are going to pay attention to terrorism, as the cheney administration did, and you decide as part of that new attention that you are going to attack and occupy iraq, then sure — there is a strategic relationship by definition. if japan attacked us and we in turn attacked mexico then it would by definition have a strategic relationship. that means nothing — the strategy is flawed at it’s very basic level. the reality of the situation, which is borne out by report after report, is that iraq posed no credible threat, and our invasion has been completely counterproductive to any efforts against terrorism. unless you, and for that matter dick cheney, begin to take opposing views seriously you will continue to be confused. but this is america and that is your right.
July 11th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
‘…as the cheney administration did…’
Tell someone his a nitwit for having an asinine position and he comes back with, ‘ya wanna see nitwit, I’ll show ya just how witless I can be’. Priceless.
‘…you decide as part of that new attention that you are going to attack and occupy iraq, then sure — there is a strategic relationship by definition…
No. There is no strategic relationship by definition just because someone claims it’s so, anymore than there isn’t because someone says there isn’t. The term strategic relationship itself is a null statement. You analyze a problem, establish a strategy to deal with it, and follow through. An action is either part of the strategy or isn’t. You don’t know the definition of strategy.
‘…if japan attacked us and we in turn attacked mexico then it would by definition have a strategic relationship…’
No, it wouldn’t. You don’t know the definition of strategy.
‘…the reality of the situation, which is borne out by report after report, is that iraq posed no credible threat…’
Such reports ignore official US policy and strategy concerning the WOT, and as such there conclusions do not pertain. A country does not have to pose a credible direct threat to the US. That’s the old failed policy that gave rise to the threat level of 9/11/01 Look up the official US policy on terrorism from the fall of 2001. A country only has to meet the definitions of a terrorism supporting regime, and Iraq did in several particulars. There is no excuse for your ignorance on this matter
‘..our invasion has been completely counterproductive to any efforts against terrorism…’
This is a lie. There is no credible support for the statement. I won’t soften that by saying you’re confused. You’re a liar.
July 11th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
I just had to register and log in just to thank and shake the virtual hand of OldManTyme for giving a good HONEST beatdown to the dimwitted, intellectually dishonest, lefty-cliche-flinging, shift-key-phobic jay k. OMT, you’ll never change this buffoon’s mind, but it’s fun to watch you roll him up between your thumb and forefinger and flick him to the wall like the crusty booger he is!
Jules, I love your blog. Keep it up