Dems’ and Casey’s plans are different — because Snow says so

June 26, 2006

Many congressional [tag]Democrats[/tag] have backed a plan for Iraq that calls for significant troop withdrawals by the end of the year. Gen. George W. [tag]Casey[/tag], the top American commander in Iraq, has a plan that calls for the same thing.

Today, [tag]White House[/tag] Press Secretary [tag]Tony Snow[/tag] was asked to explain why the Dems’ plan was reckless and irresponsible, while Casey’s plan is not.

“Well, actually, he has one, and it — you know, again, this is not, I believe the way, at least it was reported, is you’ve got two brigades by the end of the year, September being short of the end of the year. But I may be misreading it. In any event, you’ve got to keep in mind that this is not a statement of policy. Again, Gen. Casey keeps in mind a number of scenarios. You’re talking about scenarios here … And so I would caution very strongly against everybody thinking, well, they’re going to pull two brigades out. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. That really does depend upon a whole series of things that we cannot, at this juncture, predict. But Gen. Casey — again, I would characterize this more in terms of scenario building, and we’ll see how it proceeds.”

That clears things up nicely, doesn’t it? (Update: this, apparently, wasn’t the dumbest thing Snow said today.)

In the broader context, it’s worth taking a moment to consider the landscape that Tony Snow can’t quite bring himself to describe. Congressional Dems want a timed withdrawal; Gen. Casey wants something similar, and perhaps most importantly, Iraq’s new Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has called for a withdrawal timetable for coalition forces from Iraq. As Newsweek reported over the weekend, “Mahmoud Othman, a National Assembly member who is close to President Talabani, said that no one disagrees with the concept of a broad, conditions-based timetable.”

Does that include Bush? Well, that depends on the limitations of the president’s options.

Greg Sargent described a fascinating political dilemma for the White House yesterday.

[F]or Bush, a timetable isn’t really an option politically — both because Dems have been calling for it and because the GOP has scorned Dems for doing just that and has now dug itself in too deep with a “stay the course” position. More to the point, a timetable would force the Bush administration into a real discussion of what it’s really trying to accomplish in Iraq, something it’s been scandalously loath to talk about in specific terms at all.

The real tragedy here, though, is this: Not only is decreasing the troop level politically impossible for Bush, but increasing it is politically untenable, too — no one would stand for it. So the only remaining option happens to be the one that’s the absolute worst option for the soldiers in Iraq: Keeping things exactly as they are.

I think that’s absolutely right. No wonder Tony Snow is tongue-tied.

Classic Snow-job tactics. Start one sentence, and when you realize it has no workable conclusion, drop it and start another. Then jumble that to the point of incomprehension.

So Snow says this is a scenario, one of many we can presume, that does include removing forces this year, and that while it is not policy, it is a possibility, therefor it could become policy. And of course it’s not a statement of policy now, because clearly the administration cannot make a statement about something it does not have.

So a scenario that could become a possible policy exists, but whether this scenario becomes policy depends upon “a whole series of things we cannot predict”. Now, did anyone follow up with what the items in that series are? Is politics a consideration – it sure seems to be. Are they saying that the whole series has to occur, or that they have no clue on how to predict any of the things that might occur in whatever order in that series.

Could Tony have said anything less useful, and could the reporters have failed any more completely in their duty to pin him down on what matters?

  • If soldiers’ and marines’, not to mention Iraqi civilians’, lives weren’t at stake, this would be laughable. The republicants’ bitter partisanship has really painted them in a corner this time. Speaking of partisanship, I hope the democrats can use this to score political points — and bring the troops home.

  • Well, you have to remember the knowns that we know, and the knowns that we don’t know, compared to the unknowns that we know and the unknowns that are currently unknown to us. Ya know?

  • Why can’t the dems frame this issue better by becoming hawks on Korea and GWOT? If you say redployment with one breath, why shouldn’t the next one say that we need those forces to counter Iran, North Korea, AQ, and all the others this WH has forgotten about since we moved into Iraq. Why don’t we take Drum’s advice and lay out when we’d be willing to use force against those states and stateless actors? Why don’t we get out in front of the iraqi base issue and set the agenda for debate for once?

  • The original Times story on Sunday alluded to the potential political significance of reducing the force levels in Iraq a month or two before the fall elections.

    So why hasn’t anyone raised the question why our supposedly politically-neutral professional military is devising a plan that is so very politically convenient for this administration?

  • First there was “Bushisms,” now there are “Snowisms.”

    CBS News Online reports: Bush’s press secretary, Tony Snow, … played down reports that the U.S. may draw up to two combat brigades, or as many as 7,000 troops, from Iraq in September.

    “I would caution very strongly against everybody thinking, `Well, they’re going to pull two brigades out.’ Maybe they will, maybe they won’t,” Snow said.

    Scotty McCellan left the White House as the Human Pretzel; Tony Snow is no less a contortionist.

  • I’m with MemoryServes. In a country where half the electorate is operating with limbic systems rather than actual, functioning memories, complete with access to recall, I find it entirely plausible that we’ll see this drawdown “chatter” continue up through the mid-terms. Secure in knowing MSM are hardly likely to break a sweat pointing out the GOP’s flip-flopping on the issue of getting out of Iraq, or that the Dems’ plan pre-dated what the military and the White House will claim as their own, Rove & Co will play this tune long enough to convince those who feared they might actually have to vote the rascals out that really their heroes in the White House are in control of events, that all is well, and that now is not the time to cut & run the GOP. Mysteriously, come the Wednesday morning, November 8th, we’ll find our withdrawal plans were perhaps a bit premature, and -dag gummit – we’re gonna have to stay on in full force a while longer.

  • Casey is just senario building? Uh, not according to CNN.com

    Headline:
    Bush: Generals, Iraqis will decide on future troop strength

    Monday, June 26, 2006; Posted: 3:06 p.m. EDT (19:06 GMT)

    President Bush says Gen. George Casey and the Iraqi government will decide future U.S. troop presence.

  • and could the reporters have failed any more completely in their duty to pin him down on what matters?

    I sense a rhetorical question… 🙂

  • Here is the key sentence in Snow’s response:
    “Well, actually, he [Casey] has one”

    Now this happened before Snow starded tripping all over himself and doubspeaking like crazy but he got the talking point in solid. The difference between Casey’s plan and the Democrats plan is that Casey has a plan. It is obvious because the Democtats have no plan. Casey does and therefore that is the differnece. See, clear. I think the important thing to remember here is the Democrats have no plan.

    What an ass.

  • “[T]he New York Times and other news organizations ought to think long and hard about whether a public’s right to know in some cases might override somebody’s right to live, and whether in fact the publications of these could place in jeopardy the safety of fellow Americans.” – Tony Snow

    Tony Snow ought to think long and hard whether a citizen’s right to bear arms might override somebody’s right to live (including their own).

    What a f**king moron.

  • George W. Bush, 4/9/99:

    “Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

    George W. Bush, 6/5/99

    “I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

    Damn Internets.

  • Does BushCo’s “withdrawal” plan reveal them to be hypocritical in their condemnation of the Democrats plan? Let’s take a look at the various plans.

    The goal of theDemocrats troop withdrawal proposal:

    Congressional Democrats, seizing on public discontent over the war in Iraq, will offer legislation this week calling for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq and a shifting of forces to other nations, where supporters say American soldiers will be less likely to come under attack.

    The goal of the Malikitroop withdrawal proposal:

    His package of measures is also reported to include the promise of a United Nations- approved timetable for withdrawing the coalition forces…

    The goal of the Casey/BushCo. troop “withdrawal” proposal:

    The New York Times reported on Saturday that Casey had drafted a plan that would reduce U.S. troops in September by two of the current 14 combat brigades in Iraq, and then cut to a total of five or six brigades by the end of 2007. A brigade generally has about 3,500 troops.

    Let’s summarize Democrats and Maliki want zero US troops in Iraq when the withdrawal is complete. BushCo. see at least five brigades in Iraq at the completion of their plan. That is a big difference. In my judgement BushCo. is purposefully conflating troop withdrawal with troop reduction. In the hope of confusing and appeasing the majority of Americans that want our troops out of Iraq.

    This is not the first time this BushCo has played this game. In September of last year, as support for the war began to slide, Casey told Congress that,

    U.S. troops could begin coming home from Iraq next year, but it depends on conditions during and after the upcoming elections there,….

    Then in November after John Murtha came out in favor of redeployment it was announced that

    The top U.S. commander in Iraq has submitted a plan to the Pentagon for withdrawing troops in Iraq, according to a senior defense official.

    Strictly speaking BushCo. is being disingenuous not hypocritical. However, by leveling the charge of hypocrisy at BushCo. the Democrats force them to reveal that they are being disingenuous. I think it’s a good rhetorical strategy.

  • The key difference between the Democratic and Republican positions: The Dems want to pull the troops out alive, the Republicans hope to only pull them out in body bags.

  • Rege has largely nailed it. We are still running the PNAC (Project for the New American Century) playbook, we just aren’t openly talking about it.

    That means permanent bases to ‘project’ US influence and self interests. The self interestes just happen to coincide with moving still more global wealth into a small number of pockets.

    -jjf

  • I think it is important to note the fate of Maliki’s plan,

    Under intense pressure from leaders of the Shia-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki offered a greatly softened national reconciliation plan when his National Assembly met Sunday. The UIA, which includes Maliki’s own Dawa Party, met in an emergency session late Saturday night to hammer out the changes, removing any explicit mention of amnesty for insurgents, or of a timetable for withdrawal of coalition forces

    When news of the plan broke over the weekend I had trouble reconciling its call for coalition troop withdrawal with the fact that US Amb. Zalmay Khalilzad played a role in negotiating it. Khalilzad is a card carrying member of PNAC. How could he allow for a plan which would result in US troop withdrawal which would be a betrayal of a primary PNAC goal of permanent bases in Iraq.

    I think I have it figured out now. BushCo. leaked details of the plan in the hope that opposition to it would build before Maliki had a chance to present it to the Iraqi National Assembly.

  • What a crock … this is nothing more than election year spin conceived by Karl (KKK) Rove in yet another attempt to keep the neocons in power.

    I personally have no, nada, zilch faith in our system any longer. I believe we have gone too far down the rabbit hole to recover. Nothing this administration does surprises me any more. .

    If they actually do withdraw from Iraq, it will only be in preparation to attack Iran anyway … so what is actually going on is anyones guess. But the absolute certainty is, we are not being honestly informed in any way, shape, or form by this administration. Moreover, it will always be the Bush administration policy to deceive the citizens of this country. But what is more troubling, in that the Congress is in on the fix. This means democracy as we KNEW it is gone, gone, gone..

    My opinion of the war, click the link below.

    Forgive them.

  • O” yeh Mr.Bush it is only a election year
    for the repubicans to change
    seats in the house of reprsentives
    just more to get at the Deomcratic
    party to bicker more how the
    country is run.

    but Canada is a step beind you as it is the sister country
    may be Canada will use peace to come in power they want
    to build there plaines and war ships do u think u can offer them some money that whiched is piped from Iraq? to build there
    navy and airforce

    • Comments are closed.