Tuesday, January 16, 2007
This time Bush can't blame it on the generals. From the interview
on the News Hour:
- ... I have made the decision that it is best to try to help this government stop this sectarian violence.
- ... some of my decisions actually have worked, like getting rid of Saddam Hussein and helping the Iraqi government form a unity government ...
- I made the decision, let's succeed; let's work for success not work for failure.
- ... I thought long and hard about the decision [to add troops]
- Obviously it's a big decision for this theater in the war on terror ...
- ... I want the Iraqi government to work. And it's in our interests that we help it work, it seems like to me, and that's why I made the decision I made.
- ... the decision I had to make was, does it make sense to help the Iraqis with additional U.S. forces ...
And then there was this exchange:
MR. LEHRER: Let me ask you a bottom-line question, Mr. President. If it is as important as you've just said - and you've said it many times - as all of this is, particularly the struggle in Iraq, if it's that important to all of us and to the future of our country, if not the world, why have you not, as president of the United States, asked more Americans and more American interests to sacrifice something? [...]
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, you know, I think a lot of people are in this fight. I mean, they sacrifice peace of mind when they see the terrible images of violence on TV every night.
So you see, we've all been sacrificing.
Sure, it's easy to criticize, but where's YOUR plan? Huh? Huh? Sissy? Huh?
This time Bush can't blame it on the generals
Can you give us some previous examples of Bush blaming the problems in Iraq on his generals?
JMS - Are you serious? If your memory is that impaired you can do a quick Google and come up with lots of examples. Here is one:
From CNN on 6/26/06
Responding to a reporter's question about the Times' report, Bush said, "In terms of our presence there, that decision will be made by General Casey as well as the sovereign government of Iraq based upon conditions on the ground."
Now that Bush has ignored the Iraq Survey Group, ignored the Joint Chiefs and removed General Casey; I wonder if anyone will follow up on the "dangerous hypothetical."
From CNN December 20, 2006
Asked if he would overrule his own military commanders if they opposed a plan to increase troop levels in Iraq, Bush called the question a "dangerous hypothetical."
Just to be clear JMS, "it" refers to troop levels, not problems. You kind of jumped the shark.
Yup, this was the grandaddy of them all. We can all do our part by shopping and watching TV.
And of course those of us who actually try to DO something besides that, like suggest a new direction, elect new Congresspeople and blog, well, wer're just traitors.
I completely reject the underlying premise of this post.
The idea that anything, even public utterances and facts, will keep Bush from blaming something on someone else is absurd on its face. He won't hold himself to account (for example: "We never said 'Stay the course.'"), and jeebus knows the media won't really hold him to account (check out the flaccid and passive reporting by the NYTimes on the Bush Admin now saying they will use FISA).
What he says today ("Dead or Alive") has no impact on tomorrow ("I truly am not that concerned about him.").
We must not allow anyone to push us into a war with Iran.
Wesley Clark told Arianna Huffington about the push for war on Iran, "How can you talk about bombing a country when you won't even talk to them?" said Clark. "It's outrageous. We're the United States of America; we don't do that."
AIPAC is pushing us to war with Iran. AIPAC is the reason that no Democrats are coming out strongly against war with Iran. - Alterman
Anon -- neither of your quotes are examples of Bush placing blame on his generals, or any other military subordinate.
Replacing someone is not the same as blaming them. Go find me an example of Bush criticizing Casey's performance.
Ignoring the dewy fantasy of an egotistical collection of failed former-administration policy hacks (the Iraq Survey Group) does not constitute blaming the generals. The Iraq Study Group has nothing to do with the war -- it did not contain a single Iraq war veteran, nor did any member of the study group set foot outside of the Green Zone.
Your "dangerous hypotheticals" quote doesn't prove anything either. Of course, Bush would overrule his generals if he thought it was necessary. He's the commander in chief. That's his job. That question was an attempt to set a political land mine -- if Bush had said, "no", then the press would be interviewing every general in the armed forces, in order to find some who opposed the surge. Bush knew it, and called it exactly what it was.
You'll find lots of examples of Bush changing strategy, and replacing key staff members. However, your premise is that Bush has a record of "blam[ing] it on the generals, and that's what I'm calling you on.
Can you produce any examples of Bush making a public statement criticizing one of his generals?
JMS - To repeat my second post I see the problem with your arguement being you changed what "it" is.
Now you respond by ignoring the second post. To help me understand where you are coming from I will ask you four questions.
Has the President repeatedly stated that troop levels are based on the advice of his commanders?
Is the President now taking ownership of the troop levels?
Where in the post does it says "problems in Iraq"?
Do you underestand that "it" in the post is troop levels?
the author of overblown will be on cspan2 in 15 minutes, after this emerson fearmonger.