Running out the clock

July 30, 2007

Atrios noted today that it’s “amazing that the rather obvious fact that for years the entire ‘Iraq policy’ has simply been to postpone leaving until after Bush leaves office has managed not to penetrate the skulls of some of our very smart pundits.”

For what it’s worth, Bush and Gordon Brown held a brief press conference today at Camp David, at which a reporter asked the right question: “Your own military commander suggests that, in Iraq, the Iraqi forces are not nearly ready to take over security for their own country, and that U.S. troops will need to stay in the region for many months, if not years. Are you prepared to pass on the fate of the war to the next President?”

I’m sure it will come as a surprise to absolutely no one, but Bush dodged the question.

“David Petraeus, the general on the ground, will be bringing his recommendations back to the Congress on or about September the 15th. And I think it’s going to be very important for all of us to wait for him to report. […]

“I would ask you and the Congress to wait — to do what I’m doing, which is wait until David to come back [sic] and make his report. And I think you’ll find it will be considered and based upon the evidence there on the ground.”

We already know, of course, that the latest plan from the American command in Iraq is to establish “sustainable security” at some point in 2009. The chances of Petraeus reporting in September that we can start withdrawing troops now is approximately zero.

So, the answer Bush wasn’t prepared to give was pretty obvious: of course he’s prepared to pass on the fate of the war to the next President.

I was just listening to Rush for about 5 minutes on the way back from lunch and he is convinced that the Petraeus report is going to make the surge sound like the greatest success story in the history of war.

If Bush spins it that way, how will the Democrats react?

My guess is that the report will be more than good enough to hold the Republican filibuster together. I also think that Iraq will be a big winner for the Democrats in 2008 unless they figure out a way to screw things up.

What do you think?

  • This is off topic, but I can no longer hold back. Every time I see or hear “on the ground”, “the generals on the ground”, “the situation on the ground” and on and on and on, I don’t know whether to scream or throw up. The constant use of such cheap phrases is an example of what’s wrong with Bush Inc. They do it to sound important and knowledgeable and to disguise the reality that they are a bunch of cheap hucksters. Everything that oozes from their mouths is tainted with sleaze. Of course the troops are on the ground, unless their in transport on a boat or plane or flying saucer or something! Oh, and do you remember “Let’s roll!” Uh oh, I think I might throw up after all!

  • “very smart pundits”?

    That’s a good one, Atrios.

    Their skulls are impenetrable, and they just keep showing up on TV, when the people who were right about this whole mess from DAY ONE are still out in the cold.

    Our media SUCKS.

  • Ha! You guys kill me. Neil, no prizes for being right, but you can certainly see the stage being set for a fairly positive “surge” report. Similarly, anybody who says it smells quite strongly of bullshit will be shouted down as partisan and anti-American.

    Gorp, I feel your pain. The phrase prior to that which began to turn my teeth sideways as its use escalated was “boots on the ground”; overnight, every reporter thought he/she was a field grunt, or at least talked like one. After a few days of regular repetition by people who wouldn’t recognize an armored vehicle or field gun if they found it in their parking space when they showed up for work, and thought “infantry” was a division of pediatrics, it was hard not to throw something at the TV.

    Listen, is it just me, or is there something creepy about the way Bush constantly uses General Petraeus’ christian name? Sometimes he doesn’t even bother to use his rank, which normally is de rigueur for civilians hoping to use the cachet of a flag officer’s judgment when speaking about military matters. Sometimes he just refers to him as “David”, like they were old pals. I recall he used to do that with Paul (who was called “Jerry” for some inexplicable reason) Bremer, but the only thing military about HIM was his boots – he was a civilian. He certainly never was so chummy, in my recollection, with George Casey, John Abizaid, Ricardo Sanchez or Jay Garner, all of whom were Generals with positions of significant responsibility in the Iraq debacle.

    With Petraeus, George Bush seems to have found a kindred spirit. And that can’t be good.

    • Comments are closed.