‘Of course, we’re going to draw down, but…’

Yesterday, after a flurry of unexpected announcements from Republican senators about their dissatisfaction with the president’s war policy, there were several reports about the White House scrambling to change course. In reality, the president’s team, reportedly in the midst of heated debate, is desperate to figure out a way to rally support for the status quo.

According to a front-page WaPo report, the new strategy is … to beg for more time (again).

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.

This is the “new” campaign in a nutshell: if the nation gives Bush more time, and the same policy that’s been failing miraculously starts working, then the president will consider some degree of troop withdrawal. That’s it.

In other words, there’s no news here at all. The Bush gang are hard at work trying to shape a new sales pitch, not a new policy. They’re hoping to slap a fresh coat of paint on a car that’s already on fire.

“What the president has said all along is, of course, we’re going to draw down,” Tony Snow said. “But you have to draw down when it makes sense to do so.” So, troops can come home, just as soon as the administration’s policy stops failing so dramatically.

The new policy is exactly the same as the old one. The difference is that the president will now start expressing his “frustration.”

I feel better already.

Bush intends to argue that Congress and the public should look past this week’s scheduled status report on Iraq and wait for the fuller assessment due in September.

And why is that? Because this week’s scheduled status report will show that Iraq “has not met any of its targets for political, economic and other reforms.” Not one.

After Bush’s speech in Cleveland today, we’re likely to hear some talk about a “new” strategy, or a “new” policy. Don’t believe it.

On a related note, six months ago today, Bush unveiled his “surge” policy, with plenty of promises about progress and accountability. Atrios has a collection of quotes from all kinds of “serious” far-right commentators, all of whom told national television audiences that this was Bush’s “last chance.”

They were all wrong, but one has to assume they’ll all be repeating the exact same nonsense this afternoon.

Was the Vietnam War Johnson’s or Nixon’s?

If Bush prolongs this until he is gone, the new president will inherit the war and it will take much of their energy to end it, if they can.

We probably should look back and see how Eisenhower handled the Korean War.

  • Life’s too short to make a mistake
    Let’s think of each other and hesitate
    Young and impatient we may be
    There’s no need to act foolishly
    If we part our hearts won’t forget it
    Years from now we’ll surely regret it

    Oh give me just a little more time
    And our love will surely grow

    Too Bad George Didn’t Listen to the Chairmen of the Board

  • I have a feeling that al-Maliki will be going down any day now (one way or the other). Bush will come on teevee and announce that the NEW government will need “at least to the end of my term” to come up to speed.

  • starting in Cleveland today

    Uh-oh- that’s a bad portent- “no good thing must come from Cleveland.”

    Except, of course, for Howard the Duck- but that’s by way of Cleveland, anyway.

  • Bush is like a little child asked a question by his teacher he doesn’t have an answer for and his bright idea is to delay until the recess bell rings. Instead of an adult as president we have a second grader.

    This is, after all, the m.o. of George W. Bush’s life: wait until someone else bails him out of his immense failures.

  • Is it live or is it Memorex? Is this the real thing or a replay?

    I swear, it is getting hard to know whether what you are reading or seeing or hearing is coming to you in real time, or is just a replay of something said and done weeks or months ago.

    And I guess that’s what makes it so predictable, and why, even without the crystal ball, it isn’t hard to figure out what happens next. What I can’t understand, or figure out, is why the media isn’t on to it, or if it is, why it chooses to just report it blandly, as if it’s no big deal.

    Each and every time, there is an attempt to re-write history. No, they didn’t say this, or no, they never said that. Remember how “stay the course” was never their policy? How they never attempted to connect Saddam to 9/11?

    Now, it’s going to be about stretching out the time period from what they originally said would be needed. The “surge” was to buy the Iraqi government time to get the political work done – but the Iraqi government has been constructively absent for the better part of a year. At least.

    The problem is these people do not know how to be honest about anything. And because the war was built on lies, and started on lies, it continues on lies. There is no way for Bush to end the war without accepting that he failed, that the policy failed, that the advice failed, that the strategy failed. That there is no magic number of troops that will tip this toward whatever it is victory is supposed to be. That there isn’t enough blood and treasure to make democracy bloom in Iraq. That he not only failed, but he made a lot of things a lot worse than they were.

    What a sad and pitiful legacy from a sad and pitiful man.

  • Re: #1,

    AFAIK, Korea doesn’t even begin to compare to this war. This war is asymmetrical, Korea was not. This war is a quagmire, Korea was not. I doubt we could possibly draw any useful lessons from Eisenhower, unfortunately.

    I could be wrong though, as I’ve ignored your recommendation and haven’t attempted to look it up 😉

  • “Was the Vietnam War Johnson’s or Nixon’s?” (#1)

    Actually, it was Eisenhower’s. The Geneva Conference of 1954 temporarily divided Vietnam into North and South, a la Korea, but with unification elections scheduled for July 20, 1956. President Eisenhower expressed his belief that “80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh” and so withdrew US support for that election, thus killing it and institutionalizing the division which led to civil war (the US, of course, backing the losing side).

    Johnson saw the war as his chance to “bring home the bacon” (i.e., overcome his inferiority complex when it came to international affairs, much like the Shrub), and Nixon’s hubris propelled him to dig the hole wider and deeper (also much like the Shrub). But the Vietnam War was born in Eisenhower’s and Dulles’ paranoia about well-meaning progressive nationalists like Ho, resonating with the traditional American view of the rest of the world: a weird combination of ignorance and xenophobia.

  • DUH? We already knew then what we know now and we already know now what we will know then.

    Bush has no intention of leaving Iraq. He will call the occupation by another name ..he will call the splurge…(I’m sorry, I mean surge) something else always spouting his good intentions but the fact is…Bush will not leave Iraq unless he is forced to do so.

    Bush has built an embassy the size of a city in Iraq along with permanent military bases. He has bragged that he will make it impossible for the next president to leave Iraq…(now how do you suppose he plans to do that? This is a major point, don’t just gloss over it…how?)

    Congress seems content to just sit by and watch until things get so out of whack before they will attept to stop this madman that by then it will be too late and as we heard on NPR today from an anonymous WH aide, Bush now plans to play the ultimate “Gotcha” on Iraq war policy to the congressional dems.
    They refuse to impeach and now will pay the ultimate price for their cowardice as a powerless public must just stand there shaking our heads.
    Get ready Iran.
    Bush will never leave Iraq unless he is forced to do so.
    Everyday I live in fear of my president, of what he might do next.

  • It should be plainly evident at this point in mid 2007 that unless some very serious changes in WashDC take form and are fully powered up the Iraq Occupation will not end. The DC GOPers are going with a ‘party first,country second’ doctrine and the DC DEMS are stuck on stuck unless they marshall genuine political willpower and sustained clear target range and bearing readings and concentrated fire tactics to expose this DC GOP rot for what it is. The truth and fact abuse and rampant hipocrisy of the Bush/Cheney WH and the DC GOPers will not stop unless such exposure takes place.

    The Bush/Cheney regime is not going to stop doing what it is doing in Iraq unless they are fully beaten back/down and forced to do so.

    Impeachment likely enough will be the only effective means they will yield to. The Iraq debacle,the ongoing DOJ coverups,the Libby styled law break and obstruction and a record of similar law break activity from Bush/Cheney point to grounds for the impeachment tool to be used.
    Clearly for the Bush/Cheney regime Iraq is about USA ME oil control and military posture in this 21st century with demonstrated little concern about any present time American troop or funding burn rates.

    The Green Zone Iraqi Puppet Government is little more than a American enabled theatrical prop and very likely is about to be thrown out via American hidden hand methods because the oil law/oil grab(rightfully so in view of intense Iraqi opposition to this American created and desired Iraq Oil Law) is not presently going anywhere in Iraq other then down in failure.

    Iraq will very likely be getting another dictator who will be backed up with American power to do what Americans cannot get done otherwise. Saddam was an American creature and it seems very likely the Americans will find a new version of him to put in,back up and enable to do the killing and political ruthlessness Americans need a Iraqi front man for.

    The Americans want Iraq fully in the American sphere of ME influence and control. ME geography,Iraqs immense oil resources and fully empowered American ME strategy for economic hegemony and military suppression require it.

    Iraq has suffered tremendously already since early 2003.

    The Bush/Cheney regime will inflict lots more suffering in pursuit of its goals.
    Those goals are historically WashDC core ME doctrine and it is this shared vision on part of both DC parties that will make any DC DEM attack on Bush/Cheney Iraq positons hard to frame or position.
    This was the problem back in 2002. During 2004. Remains so now and surely will be very evident during the 2008 American elections cycle.
    Thus far the DC DEMS have not displayed they indeed have the political willpower or quality of attack leadership required in this fight.

    The DC GOPers are going with a party first,country second posture and that strategy will lead to the worst of Hitlerian outcomes in time for them.

    The DC DEMS? They can’t even shut down Joe Lieberman.

  • Rian Mueller

    There are many differences between the Korean War and the war in Iraq. However…

    The Korean War was unpopular. Eisenhower campaigned in part on a pledge to bring the troops home. IF Stone supported him over Stevenson because Stone thought that Eisenhower would not be bowled over by a bunch of generals saying that all they needed was another 50,000 troops and 6 more months.

    Ed Stephan

    Before Kennedy, Vietnam was just one of the hotter parts of the cold war. Kennedy, and even more so, Johnson escalated the war in to a full blown conflagration.

  • Comments are closed.