Gates struggles to defend the administration

August 5, 2007

From Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ interview on “Meet the Press” this morning:

Russert: You mentioned that we misunderestimated [sic] some of the divisions between the factions in the [Iraqi] government, the Shiites and the Sunnis. Mr. Secretary, for Americans watching today, many are saying to themselves, “The administration was wrong about weapons of mass destruction, wrong about the size of the force necessary to occupy Iraq, wrong about the costs of the war, wrong about Shiite and Sunni division. Why should we have any confidence in what they say about the future of Iraq?”

Gates: Well, what I think we should have confidence in is the evaluation that Ambassador Crocker and Gen. Petraeus are going to make in early September. These men have been on the ground for quite some time now; they are best of our professionals; they will look at this.

First, that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Bush administration.

Second, this notion of putting the onus on Petraeus is misguided. As Wesley Clark explained at YearlyKos on Friday, Petraeus is executing the president’s Iraq policy, not the other way around. “Mr. President we’re not questioning the generals, we’re questioning you,” Clark said. “Stop hiding behind Dave Petraeus and come out and defend your strategy. It’s your strategy. You defend it.”

And third, “misunderestimated”? Has the president really had this kind of impact on our discourse?

And as Frank Rich reminded us the other day, Pet … Pet … Pet … Pet … Petraeus has already shown a cheerful willingness to prostitute himself for political purposes

  • Ah, but when we went “what I think we should have confidence in is the evaluation that Ambassador Crocker and Gen. Petraeus are going to make in early September”, maybe that “we” refers to “we, the Bush administration”…

  • Gates seems spontaneous, but that is under the Russert ‘Hot Light’s, which glow with
    the warmth of sub-par voltage. We need someone with an IQ in the triple digits to interview
    this guy.

  • The problem is that all us sniveling cowardly traitorous liberals misundervalue the troops on the ground and the help that God given gravity has been to keep them on the ground and not floating around in the air unsupported.

  • Nobody ever became a four-star general in the U.S. Army if he has ever uttered, at any time in his entire career, the words “Sir, this mission can’t be accomplished. This battle can’t be won.” The military selects leaders for their “can do” attitude, right? And so does this pResident, who listens to his generals whenever they tell him what he wants to hear.

    Petraeus’ September report is going to say “We’re making great progress. We just need to keep our resolve a little bit longer.” Anyone out there want to bet otherwise?

  • For the record, the weird phrasings of republican politicians trying to get a grip on the real world- things like “misunderestimated” and “strategery” and “intertubes” (not Stevens alone on that one, but you get the point)- these new additions to the lexicon are the parts of this period of american history I hope have the most lasting impact. I’m fond of them, and compared to all the other BS, they’re fairly harmless.

  • In addition to getting all he wanted for his warrantless wiretap program, Congress left town for a month, which De Facto means Petraeus gets ’til September to make his case. They did nothing to bring anything about Iraq to a head before the President’s time table. Congress declared their disgust with Iraqi lawmakers for taking a month off and then took a month off. This feels like the seeming underdog (Bush) going in at the half with a lead and the home team in disarray. Crocker and Petraeus will not say just “a little more time” in September. They are going to ask for enough time for that despicable jerk in the Whitehouse to run out his clock. They plan to help Bush cover up all the chickens arriving home to roost until it is the problem of somebody else. So – in the absence of the terrorist attack for which Bush Backers devoutly wish (to teach all us soft-on-terrorism liberals a lesson), it will be a pissing / spitting match from here to Jan 2009. Bush does not have to stand for election; he can behave as shamefully as he wishes and be as self-serving as he feels is necessary. I do not think it possible to plumb the depths to which this uniquely slothful politician can sink. I feel like we wait only for him to lay down another marker.

    • Comments are closed.