‘So long as he’s president, we’re in Iraq’

August 16, 2006

As part of an apparent drive to highlight the president’s new-found interest in competing ideas, the White House hosted a 90-minute meeting yesterday with Bush, his war cabinet, and several outside experts yesterday to discuss the war in Iraq in considerable detail. It reportedly included a wide range of ideas — but I’m still not sure what the point was.

President Bush made clear in a private meeting this week that he was concerned about the lack of progress in Iraq and frustrated that the new Iraqi government — and the Iraqi people — had not shown greater public support for the American mission, participants in the meeting said Tuesday. […]

“I sensed a frustration with the lack of progress on the bigger picture of Iraq generally — that we continue to lose a lot of lives, it continues to sap our budget,” said one person who attended the meeting. “The president wants the people in Iraq to get more on board to bring success.”

Bush, in particular, was reportedly confused about why tens of thousands of Shiites would take to the streets in support of Hezbollah and why “Iraqis had not come to appreciate the sacrifices the United States had made in Iraq.” (The president appears to still be stuck on the greeted-as-liberators talking point of 2003.)

As for the participants, the NYT noted that even fierce critics of the war in Iraq “give credit to the White House for beginning to listen to alternate viewpoints. Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a retired Army commander who has been very critical of the war, said, “They’re listening to new ideas and they’re listening to the reality.”

Talk about your soft bigotry of low expectations. The president deserves credit for being in the same room as a policy expert who’s willing to share “reality” with Bush?

And yet, for all this apparent introspection, there’s one thing that hasn’t changed: the president isn’t willing to change course.

The New York Times reported, “Bush showed no signs of veering from the administration’s policies.” The LA Times added comments from Reuel Marc Gerecht, a Mideast analyst at American Enterprise Institute, who said Bush made it clear that “as long as he’s president, we’re in Iraq.”

The experts said in interviews that Bush signaled that he intended to make no policy changes in Iraq, despite warnings from military leaders and election-year arguments from Democrats that the war is a drain on resources and a distraction from the administration’s campaign against terrorism.

The administration can host all of the discussions and internal reviews it wants, but the one constant is the same policy that hasn’t worked. I don’t doubt that Bush sat through the 90-minute meeting yesterday, and probably played close attention, but I can’t help but question the point.

These meetings-of-the-minds appear to be put together for our benefit, not Bush’s. He’s already convinced that “freedom is on the march” and we need to “stay the course.” I suppose it’s indicative of some progress that he’ll let a few diverse thoughts into his bubble, but wouldn’t we all be better off if the president were willing to take these competing ideas seriously?

What’s the point of a broad, unrestrictive discussion when “The Decider” made up his mind before the conversation even takes place?

“And yet, for all this apparent introspection, there’s one thing that hasn’t changed: the president isn’t willing to change course.”

Will the madness of our own version of King George lll spark an American Revolution?

Note to medical historians:

How does the alcohol-posioned mind differ from one diseased by arsenic?

  • And when one makes decisions based upon faith, not facts, this is the type of disaster that follows.

  • “President Bush made clear in a private meeting this week that he was concerned about the lack of progress in Iraq and frustrated that the new Iraqi government — and the Iraqi people — had not shown greater public support for the American mission, participants in the meeting said Tuesday.”

    BUSH is frustrated??? Gee, sorry that the Iraqi people, who have suffered the most in this disastorous adventure, and who are seeing their country ripped apart by Washington incompentence, isn’t throwing flowers and gushing praise on YOUR war.

    I was trying to think of an intellectual adjective to call the Boy King, but nothing can really top “self-righteous asshole”

  • Maybe this is just another instance of the Regal Moron taking delight in pushing the snotty intelligent hirlings’ heads in the toilet, or some equally banal frat-rat prank.

  • At my daughter’s elementary school, they used to have a fund-raising auction and one of the items on the block was being “Head of School for a Day.” One kid each year would get to sit behind the big desk and call a fire drill, make announcements, etc. I often get the feeling that’s how dubya approaches being president.

    I mean, he’s frustrated that the Iraqi’s don’t appreciate our sacrifices on their behalf. He’s confused about Shiites supporting Hezbollah. Other people offer assessments and ideas, but they don’t seem to register.

    How I wish that, at the end of the day, the real Head of School would get back behind the desk.

  • I don’t doubt that Bush sat through the 90-minute meeting yesterday, and probably played close attention,

    i don’t doubt he had his ass in a seat there but i totally doubt that he ‘payed close attention’.

  • What he wants is for the Iraqis to stop trying to be a sovereign people and let the neo-con plan to occupy the country in perpetuity under the guise of a compliant puppet government proceed as scheduled.

    He just can’t understand why they won’t let him do it.

    Poor George.

  • “What’s the point of a broad, unrestrictive discussion when “The Decider” made up his mind before the conversation even takes place? ”

    Public Relations, period.

    This is the presidency by photo-op, remember? Since the Regal Moron is not willing to change directions, I can only surmise that he BELIEVES that the course that his advisors have chosen is the only correct one.

    Now he is “covering his butt” by announcing to all of the world, “Hey, look at us, we’re listening to critics! Now you can stop criticizing us, and check out the coverage of the latest photogenic missing white girl.”

    This stuff is for the Kool-aid drinkers and the weak of mind only.

  • “The [P]resident wants the people in Iraq to get more on board to bring success.”

    See, it’s really the fault of his victums that his policies aren’t working.

    I suppose that this is better. I expect that before 2009, Boy George II will be blaming the soldiers and marines for dying in Iraq and making his war look so bad.

    I could go on, I suppose, but just coming off a summer flu, I don’t think I have the energy.

  • This goes along with Mehlman’s new “Adapt to win!” talking point. See how serious they are, they’re having meetings! With actual differing viewpoints!

  • On the previous thread about Scarborough, a commenter had a great line about the 2000 debates when the media congratulated Bush for “failing to fail” in his first debate. This time Barry McCaffrey gives Bush credit for being in proximity to dissent. Whoa! He will now actually tolerate having someone with a contrary viewpoint within earshot! That’s far too much credit for something any rational leader would insist upon.

    I see Ken Mehlman’s “adapting to win” means we’re changing the photo-ops but the big guy’s still not going to change his mind. The decider decided once and he doesn’t undecide his decisions. Got it Ken.

  • I see Ken Mehlman’s “adapting to win” means . . .
    petorado

    In retrospect, Ken was obviously referring to campaign tactic, and November 2006.

  • I hadn’t realized that Mehlman meant the Iraqis were supposed to “adapt to win.” As in, they need to be more Bush-friendly; domestic U.S. politics requires it!

    And really, why don’t they show more gratitude for all we’ve done?
    * let some of the countries most prized cultural artifacts be looted and detroyed when we lacked adequate security to replace the deposed government;
    * failed to have a plan to restore the basic utilities services that we chose to bomb into last century;
    * tortured Iraqi citizens in our custody in a way calculated to humiliate them based on their religion — the religion shared by all of the non-insurgents we claim we want the support of;
    * failed to protect them from sectarian violence in their homes, markets and mosques because we refuse to put an adequate number of boots on the ground. . . (I could go on, but I do have to do some work today)

    Gee, Mr. Pet Goat, I can’t imagine why these selfish Iraqis aren’t more grateful to America. Maybe they just haven’t seen the “real America” you and George Allen seem to live in.

  • Those ingrates! Can’t they see what we have had to sacrifice in order to destroy their society? Sure their cities are in flames, but don’t they realize how much this is costing us? Cluster bombs don’t grow on trees, you know. It’s just like the similarly ungrateful Lebanese, whining about Beirut getting bombed into ruins. When will these people appreciate how hard it has been for us to destroy their lives and that we are only doing it for their own good?

    Let them eat cake!

    Look at the very personal sacrifice that Dear Leader has had to make right now. He had to cut his vacation short this year because of those inconsiderate Iraqis. That brush isn’t going to clear itself. That bike isn’t going to ride itself. This is a man who has personally suffered for this crusade, er, cause, no, war of adapting, and those who do not appreciate his efforts simply do not understand the extent to which he has been personally inconvenienced by these recalcitrant Iraqis. Shame on them and all their comrades in the press, Democrat Party, and moonbat blogosphere. Viva la Booosh!

  • “The president wants the people in Iraq to get more on board to bring success.”

    I’m sure King George III also couldn’t figure out why those ungrateful American colonists keep supporting that awful radical George Washington, when they could have so easily sworn new allegiance to the king and the British Army would have left their farms and homes alone.

    The problem here is that the Iraqi people’s definition of “success” and Boy George’s definition are 180 degrees out from each other.

    The Deciderer is B’rer Fox and B’rer Bear combined, and Iraq is his tarbaby.

  • “.. When invasion leads to civil war, that means we’ve lost. Its time to go home. ..” — Jon Karak #2 (and others).

    But what was there ever to win ?

    I mean, really, sorry, I just don’t get any of this. We squeal to high heaven when a couple of hijacked planes hit our buildings and 3000 people die. Okay, bad enough. But then we claim we can’t understand why Iraqi people don’t “..show[n] greater public support for the American mission..” which has placed 132,000 of its soldiers on Iraqi soil and killed 150,000+ of its citizens. I mean, GET A GRIP.

  • Charitably, I might say “Wise after the event”. Except that the ‘event’ is a crime, and ‘wise’ is an oxymoron.

  • I think many of you have picked the right fight here.

    Indeed “blaming the Iraqis” really is a core indicator of the Republican mind.

    A huge difference between Progressives and Conservatives is the willingness of the former to see the world from the perspective of a Cuban, an Iraqi, a Haitian, a Palestinian, a Venezuelan, a Columbian, an Israeli, a District of Columbian….

    Knee-jerk conservatives lack the empathy and imagination to pull that off. That’s why they are so quick to call their dissenting countrymen traitors. You either see the world from their point of view or you are against their point of view.

    So B’s comments demonstrate perfectly the narrow gauge mind that defines Conservatism.

    He is completely incapable of imagining what it must be like to have Christian tanks rumbling through the streets of Islam’s capital city.

    For the Progressive mind that is a BIG DUH…
    We can sense the anger… feel the seethe.

    Those of you who argue that keen intelligence is not a requirement for being president will be hard pressed to support an argument that empathy is not an utterly essential ingredient.

    Because, without empathy you really are no better off than a sociopath…

    Which brings me back to B…
    The guy is seriously mentally ill.
    He demonstrates it with such righteous aplomb…

  • Sorry I threw these in without reading the preceding comments. Oh, glorious reductio!

    And let them eat yellow cake.

  • I say we have a referendum on Bush and his stupid war.

    “Up or down vote”, as they always like to demand.

    I think he would lose his job in a landslide.

  • Tony Snow was out before the press this morning trying to walk back the “the President is frustrated” narrative. I was not able to listen that closely, but I think the upshot was that Snow had “polled” (at least some of the) meeting attendees, and (though he was careful not to pressure them) they agreed that “frustrated” was not an accurate descriptor for the President’s attitude. Tony wanted to “knock down” that perception ASAP. And yet, who but the most ardent believers in Bush’s Less Than Excellent Iraq Adventure do not find it fully plausible – expected – that W would be ticked off that his “liberated” millions were not sufficiently grateful? Where is the tidal wave of boy babies named for him? What does a savior / hero / father-guarantor of Middle East democracy have to do?

    Bush’s lifetime is filled with stories of his f-up’s being smoothed over, rescued or fixed by someone in the vast network of his family connections. I’m sure it must be shocking to him that he has finally created a spill so vast that there is no “quicker picker upper” in the network that is equal to the task. I loved Beep52’s “Principal for a day” analogy. I’ve always thought of him as the sand box commander but that ignores the need for adult enablers and supervisors. This man is clearly out his depth, and unfortunately so are the “bright people” with which he surrounded himself.

  • “Bush’s lifetime is filled with stories of his f-up’s being smoothed over, rescued or fixed by someone in the vast network of his family connections.” – TuiMel

    Damn! That is such a good point. Was Boy George II expecting his friends in the House of Saud to ‘solve’ this ‘Muslim’ problem for him like they ‘solved’ his failed oil businesses?

    Did they forget to mention that they (Sunni Wahabists) were blood enemies of the majority of people (Shia) in Iraq?

    Does that explain everything about Boy George II’s failed war? He was expecting his friends to bail him out again, and didn’t realize that this time that the problem would be too big even for his oil-daddies in Riyahd.

    Thanks TuiMel. I’ll have to remember that.

  • When TuiMel mentioned “Where is the tidal wave of boy babies named for him?” it reminded me of the comment by a Bush accolyte made that the Iraqis would be building parks in Bush’s honor after the invasion. Anybody heard what happened to those?

  • I don’t doubt that Bush sat through the 90-minute meeting yesterday, and probably played close attention, — CB

    Doubtless a Freudian slip but nevertheless sooooo true.

    I doubt Bush paid any attention to what was being said. Sit still and listen for 90 minutes?!?!? I bet his mind was on brush clearing. Or maybe on that “best moment of his presidency”, when he caught that big trout. If the ungrateful bunch of ragheads won’t recognize his superiority, then he won’t think about them and then they’ll be sorry.

  • What’s really sad is that the “vast network of family connections” TuiMel refers to did try and save Poor Dumbya. Brent Scowcroft made his opposition to this war clear back when it could have changed things (unlike, say, George Will or Tommy Flatworldman). Many of Daddy’s friends opposed this war, or at least its timing and planning.

    Alas, the NeoCons had gotten to Dumbya with the kool-aid. “But remember, these blasphemers were all part of why your Daddy lost his re-election!” (I’d suggest this was a deal with the devil, but I’m not sure Dumbya had a lot of soul to sell to begin with). The rest is painful, expensive, deadly history.

    • Comments are closed.