Bush hopes Maliki has a few ideas he can borrow

November 28, 2006

The president has been busy in Eastern Europe this morning, making brief appearances in [tag]Latvia[/tag] and [tag]Estonia[/tag]. [tag]Bush[/tag] fielded a handful of questions about [tag]Iraq[/tag], but unfortunately, he didn’t have anything encouraging to say.

“There’s one thing I’m not going to do, I’m not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete,” Bush said in Latvia. “We can accept nothing less than victory for our children and our grandchildren.”

That’s fairly predictable palaver, but in advance of his Thursday meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki, does the president have any thoughts on how he might achieve “nothing less than victory”? Not so much.

Instead, the president hopes [tag]Maliki[/tag] will fill in some answers for him.

“My questions to him will be: What do we need to do to succeed? What is your strategy in dealing with the sectarian violence? […]

“I will ask him: What is required and what is your strategy to be a country which can govern itself and sustain itself? And it’s going to be an important meeting, and I’m looking forward to it.”

Let me get this straight. After nearly four years of war, and with conditions deteriorating by the day, Bush has given up on articulating his own vision for victory, and plans to ask Maliki if he has any ideas?

In other words, Bush says we’re stuck in Iraq and we’ll accept nothing less than victory. Asked how we achieve this victory, the president seemed to respond, “Beats me; let’s see what that Maliki guy has to say.”

The White House also seems a little confused about how to describe the current conditions. Asked yesterday about whether Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, National Security Advisor Steve Hadley told reporters on Air Force One that it isn’t a civil war, but “we’re clearly in a new phase, characterized by this increasing sectarian violence.”

Less than a day later, the president said Iraq is not in a new phase at all.

Q: Mr. President, thank you, sir. What is the difference between what we’re seeing now in Iraq and civil war? And do you worry that calling it a civil war would make it difficult to argue that we’re fighting the central front of the war on terror there?

BUSH: You know, the plans of Mr. Zarqawi was to foment sectarian violence. That’s what he said he wanted to do. The Samarra bombing that took place last winter was intended to create sectarian violence, and it has. The recent bombings were to perpetuate the sectarian violence. In other words, we’ve been in this phase for a while.

So, what have we learned from the Bush gang about Iraq over the last day? That we’ll achieve victory, but the president doesn’t know how; Bush will meet with Maliki, not to offer solutions, but to ask questions; and that Iraq has and has not entered a new phase.

That ought to clear things up, right?

Bush lied to Congress and the American people in order to start a completely unnecessary war. He is the classic example of a president who deserves to be impeached.

Whether or not he is impeached, he will burn in Hell forever, if there is such a place.

  • Where does one start commenting on this post?
    – What is W’s distinction between Mission Accomplished and “the mission is complete?”
    – At out current pace of arresting this conflict, Bush’ s comment should have read,”“We can accept nothing less than victory FROM our children and our grandchildren.”
    – “My questions to him will be: What do we need to do to succeed? What is your strategy in dealing with the sectarian violence? ” Since when does the Decider ask leaders of Islamic countries how to fight his wars?
    – “In other words, we’ve been in this phase for a while.” – An admission from W that this has been a civil war for some time.

  • It seems very obvious that our long term plan is to wear down the Iraqi resistance by encouraging them to more and more violence. Sooner or later they will get tired and then we can declare victory and go home.

  • “There’s one thing I’m not going to do, I’m not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete,” Bush said in Latvia. “We can accept nothing less than victory for our children and our grandchildren.”

    What, in the name of the sweet baby Jesus, is “the mission”? I realize that you haven’t even half a clue as to what “victory” might look like, but I guess if you’re holding out for the children it’s okay then. Will someone please wake me in two years?
    [BARF]

  • Unbelievable. The only thing holding Maliki up is the U.S. military, so are we going to turn over command of our troops to him? I think not, so what’s the point of asking him what his strategy is except to pin the blame on him when he can’t come up with a magic wand to fix what Bush broke?

    BTW, I read an article yesterday that there are “thousands of former officers” actively planning to storm the Green Zone at some point, which if true would confirm my earlier prediction of the GZ eventually being evacuated by choppers like Saigon after the Vietnam conflict.

    Wish I’d saved the link, but maybe somebody else did.

  • Two best Bush quotes of the Press Conference:

    1. “What you’re seeing on TV has started last February”

    2. “Prime Minister Olmert has reached out at one point to Prime Minister Abbas — President Abbas.”

  • “We can accept nothing less than victory for our children and our grandchildren.”

    “Who will be the ones who have to fight to keep the disaster I started from spreading all over the globe.”

    If Maliki’s suggestion is that every one who is not a citizen of Iraq bugger off in 48 hours do you think Bush will listen? This is just another round of BushBaby Passes the Buck. “Hey, I asked him and he didn’t have any ideas! Heh heh.”

    Of course it may be irrelevant. If Sadr does pull out of the government Bush will just blame him for the ensuing chaos.

  • Earl has got it! Our exit strategy is to let our opponent punch himself out and once he is exhausted knee him in the groin and run away. It is the same basic plot as Rocky Balboa.

  • I wonder what Bush would say if Maliki told him to get his troops out of Iraq?

    And can someone please get a copy of the official whitehouse definition of “civil war”? It would be nice to see if it really could ever apply to Iraq, or if it’s just a concept reserved for other countries.

    I’d also like to see a poll of all the American politicians, to see how many of the Republicans are as delusional as Bush on the question of whether Iraq is having a civil war or not. This would be handy for two things: 1)showing how stupid some of them are and 2) beating Bush up with.

  • More photo-op foreign policy to give the illusion that we’re still in a position to affect the outcome of events.

    Unfortunately, I think the civil war is metastasizing too quickly for Bush to either get us out with our dignity intact, let alone keep things going with bailing wire and duct tape for two more years and dump it all on the next guy. Our forces may be facing Saigon redux or the Mogadishu Mile very soon. Good luck, boys and girls serving in Iraq–you’re going to need it.

  • In some ways this is good news. the unjustified impression that Republicants are “strong on defense” continues to go the way of the dodo bird every time Bush speaks. The Dems and their talking heads should be blasting this to the public every media opportunity they get. They should challenge the Hannitys of the world with this stuff every chance they get.

  • “My questions to him will be: What do we need to do to succeed? What is your strategy in dealing with the sectarian violence?”

    The ventriloquist will then try not to move his lips as he proceeds to answer his own questions.

  • “There’s one thing I’m not going to do, I’m not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete,”

    He is just going to dump it all on the next president and let them deal with it. All he has to do is keep going for 2 more years and then it is no longer his problem. And because he lives on the other side of the Looking Glass, they WH spin will say they left everything OK or at least heading to OK, the press will either swallow it whole or not do much of anything to contradict that, the GOP zombies/lemmings will go along, and when things don’t end up like the WH and the neocons predicted, they will blame it on the next guy who ever that is – hopefully it will be a Democrat so the GOP can do their whole “the Democrats can’t do foreign policy or defense” and everyone will swallow the spin therby further cementing the tired and totally untrue Convention Wisdom that Democrats can’t do FP and defense because they hate America.

  • Re #12: That was the one, Erik. Thanks. 🙂

    The relevant portion I was referring to reads:

    “Another friend, a Sunni sheikh of the Shammar tribe noted to me that thousands of former officers are prepared to assault the G[reen] Z[one]. It is no longer a matter of can they do it, they are only mulling over the timing.”

  • Jesus Christ, our national humiliation, aka George Bush, is almost a completed work of art. I cannot think of anything as tragically embarrassing as a nation, but this analogy does come to mind — the poor schmuck explaining to the doc in the emergency room, “well, I just was curious to know what it feels like to have a cucumber stuck up my ass.” That is GW, sticking the US up Iraq’s ass, getting stuck, and asking the world’s help in the extraction. Funny how showing our strength can leave us pickled.

  • “I will ask him: What is required and what is your strategy to be a country which can govern itself and sustain itself?” – BG2

    What is Boy George II going to do when Maliki asks him to nuke Anbar province?

    ‘Cause there is no other way to keep this “Iraqi Government” in power which appears in the end to be all the “Victory” that Boy George II is going to give America.

  • Anyone else get the feeling that herr dubyah is praying that the next 2 years could be over tomorrow? He’s clearly just buying his time and has given up on America and his war. His rhetoric is getting more pathetic by the day and it’s pretty clear that he doesn’t even buy it any more. He knows Iraqnam is in a full civil war conflict, but he’s TOO PROUD to admit that he’s wrong and that he failed. People with VERY tiny intellects can never admit they are wrong. His legacy is written clearly—->FAILURE.

  • Whooda thunk Dick Gephardt would be so absolutely spot-on accurate when he called Bush a ‘miserable failure.’

  • Clearly, Bush is delusional. Bravado doesn’t cut it; yet he still thinks that he can decide the outcome just by force of will. Maliki can’t piece the eggshell back together. There will be Hell to pay for this hubris when it is over – a broken army, great debt, thousands returned home killed and/or maimed, and a Mideast in far worse shape than when he began his Iraq misadventure. If blame can be approtioned, I think the Republican Congress bears the greater share for permitting this stupid potemkin president to have his way entirely without voicing any objections or taking any action to reign him in. Second in line, the voters who put him and them into office. Third, the media that bought into Republican spin machine early on.

  • I READ ALL THE COMMENTS, BUT ONE IN PARTICULAR STRUCK MY FANCY.
    BGII. NOW THAT’S FUNNY.

    I HAVE BEEN CALLING THE MISERABLE FAILURE “BANTY ROOSTER” EVER SINCE HE AND CHENEY STOLE THE WHITEHOUSE. HE STRUTS LIKE ONE!!

    I THINK I’LL FILE CHARGES ON HIM WHEN HE’S OUT OF OFFICE – MURDER!
    I HAVE HEARD THIS QUOTE TWICE – 2 TIMES. “THE LIVES THAT HAVE BEEN LOST IN IRAQ HAVE BEEN WORTH IT”.

    I ABSOLUTELY HATE GEORGE WALKER BUSH – BGII – BANTY ROOSTER.

  • I wish I knew what the young men and women fighting in Iraq are thinking or if they are even aware of what Siagon was. My biggest fear is that they don’t and as lame as this whole war has been more deaths will occure in the wake of our being forced out than in the last 3 1/2 years. I believe we aint seen nothin yet. I believe that left to Bush he will leave them to fend for themselves.

  • -RacerX

    From the GOP Dictionary:

    civil war (‘si-v&l ‘wor)
    Function: noun

    1. Sectarian violence between opposing groups of citizens of the same country that occurs if and only if Democrats or a liberal cause can be blamed.

    2. A Guns ‘n Roses song from the album Use Your Illusion II that should be banned do to it’s anti-war themes and intoxicating guitar solos.

    3. Something the South should have won.

  • Perhaps congress should stop FUNDING this madness.

    This war was never honorable, and it was never winnable, no matter how many delusional clichés the war hawks and pandering pundits use to describe the situation.

    Remove the funding. Begin investigations.

    The world demands it and the families of those whose blood has been spilled, both Iraqi and American, deserve nothing less.

  • Torturing Children
    By William Rivers Pitt
    t r u t h o u t | Perspective
    Seymour Hersh, the New Yorker reporter who first broke the story of torture at Abu Ghraib, recently spoke at an ACLU convention. He has seen the pictures and the videotapes the American media has not yet shown. “The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling, and the worst part is the soundtrack, of the boys shrieking,” said Hersh. “And this is your government at war.”

    http://www.mormon.citymax.com/LDSJudge.html

    As far as I know Nazi concentration guards didn’t do anything like this.

  • “Another friend, a Sunni sheikh of the Shammar tribe noted to me that thousands of former officers are prepared to assault the G[reen] Z[one]. It is no longer a matter of can they do it, they are only mulling over the timing.”

    Like say, oh, when Maliki is out of the country?

    Hey, worked in Thailand

  • Conservative military analyst Cordesman did a study weeks ago that said according to the Pentagon military reports Iraq is in a civil war. None of the media have quoted the study but it has been passed around and he has been quoted in a few places like the WP and NPR using that term. Two weeks ago he was quoted in the Washington Post stating Iraq was in a civil war in an article that still used the headline “sectarian strife.”

    http://elemming2.blogspot.com/2006/11/601027-additional-dead-iraqis-since.html

  • In the eighteenth century, one large reason the French Revolution occurred was because the French government for the previous years had persisted in getting involved in (occasionally starting) international wars they couldn’t afford. This started around the time of Louis XIV and continued through his next two successors. Ultimately the French government went bankrupt and its citizens violently revolted against the high taxes.
    Am I extrapolating too much, or does anyone else see potential repercussions of this nature from the multiple U.S. wars of the last half-century? Even superpowers aren’t superpowers forever, if history is any indication.

  • As far as I know Nazi concentration guards didn’t do anything like this. — doxa, @26

    No, they did not; with the Nazis, death came mercifully fast, unless they were trying to extract information, which was never the object at Abu Ghraib (the object of Abu Ghraib is as mysterious as the definition of “victory”). But then, efficiency was the Nazis’ god and you can’t say the same about the 43’s administation.

  • I really don’t care for Bush at all, but there are so many valid things to criticize the man for that it’s hard to think the quotes described here were even worth the time to mention. It seems pretty clear he was just trying to be diplomatic (and will likely, as always, continue to fail at it). It didn’t sound like a desperate cry of “I have no idea what to do!” but rather the way people should approach dealing with thorny situations — asking other people involved what they think. This seems especially relevant when the people involved are ostensibly the rulers of the land with the problem.

    I fully expect him to ask, to be given input by Maliki and his politicians, and then ignore all the input as he nearly always does. But saying he’s going to ask is not the character failure here.

    This is normally a very insightful blog, please don’t stoop to the lowest level of discourse which is so common now, with perfectly reasonable utterances being characterized as egregious errors. It wasn’t right for Kerry’s detractors and it isn’t right for Bush’s.

    • Comments are closed.