This Story is Archived
War Critics See New Resistance by Bush »
Posted by: Beau7890 1 year, 7 months agoImmediately after the beating his party took in November, President Bush indicated that he had received the message that voters wanted change, and that he would serve some up fast. But in the last two weeks, the critics and even some allies say, they have seen a reversal.
Read Full Story at nytimes.com »
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 147
-
Beau7890
Dec. 26, 2006, 5:27 a.m.From the article:
Mr. Bush has shrugged off suggestions by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that he enlist the help of Iran and Syria in the effort to stabilize Iraq. Countering suggestions that he begin thinking of bringing troops home, he has engaged in deliberations over whether to send more. And he has adjusted the voters' message away from Iraq, saying on Wednesday, "I thought the election said they want to see more bipartisan cooperation."
In a way, this is the president being the president he has always been - while he still can.
-
-
-
esmLIVE
Dec. 26, 2006, 9:34 p.m.Well I don't know about the second part (the vote was on how the republican failed there own base on multiple issues including Iraq and how obviously he messed it up) but the first part about dealing with Iran and Syria has to be some sort of crazy talk.
Iran and Syria WANTS it to be messed up in Iraq and make sure tht it is and its working o their advantage. Why would they deal and in the end what would we have to give so that we could deal? Nuke weapons to Iran? Think about it.
-
-
Spadecaller
Dec. 26, 2006, 9 a.m.Bush believes he is the Great Decider; the only difference now is that he is a monority of two.
-
JustCallMeV
Dec. 26, 2006, 1:47 p.m.You cannot beat a monkey for being a monkey! He has been doing this the entire time in office. Should we expect anything different? Should we be really surprized?
-
-
Amazing1
Dec. 26, 2006, 10:34 a.m.This person currently occupying the White House is not qualified to act as President. He is contemplating send more troops when the election shows that people are tired and angry about this Iraq debacle. It is not a war, it is an occupation. I don't know of anything or anyone that can influence this man to actually use his noodle and look at reality.
Remember, this is a man who prides himself on being able to fart at will. Gawd!!!
-
ameliog
Dec. 26, 2006, 12:04 p.m.Watch what they do and not what they say. You'll know them by the fruit they bear.
-
bill2936
Dec. 26, 2006, 12:54 p.m.Interesting, they fail to mention that many of the Democrats are now backing sending MORE troops to Iraq. Even the ones that ran on the platform of bring home the troops.
-
ETproductions
Dec. 26, 2006, 1:21 p.m.That's a very valid point. Many in the Democratic Party have yet to learn how to deal with the New Republican Order. They think they are handing Bust the rope to hang himself in letting him continue the folly of a troop surge. In fact, the surge idea is meant to do two things.
1 - Take any discussion of withdrawal off the table. It's already pretty much succeeded at doing that.
2 - Keep us in Iraq for two more years. Given Iraq's unpopularity, we may presume the Democrats will then take the White House, and begin a withdrawal. That hands the rope back to the Repugs, who will hang the Dems for losing the war.
The idea of a "Surge" came before the definition of what the additional troops are even meant to do. No one in their right mind comes up with a strategy first, then figures out later why it is they want to do that. Clearly, the surge concept has nothing to do with winning. It has only to do with reshaping the political debate.
-
spikecwc
Dec. 26, 2006, 4:33 p.m.I predicted that. The anti war voters will get hosed, and not even get the benefit of a reacharound.
-
-
joeblowe
Dec. 26, 2006, 1:54 p.m.I suspect that GWB is selecting one of the alternatives posited by the bi-part comittee (which, as we know is ADVISORY only in nature)which would tend to make for a mark in the WIN column, instead of a big red check in the LOST column. The actual war was won easily. What we have now is an insurgency. There IS a legitimate government in place in Iraq which we are trying to support. A read of the new COIN manual (yeah, I know, 250 pages or so - takes a big chunk out of your day...) makes the clear point that an insurgency such as we are seeing in Iraq is a VERY difficult thing to fight and beat. We can clearly see this in the news. I would have to agree that simply pulling out our support at this time would probably be disasterous. It may be that a big troop increase would actually help. If it does nothing else, it will ease the load on the troops already there - who we expect will be there a couple more years at least regardless of any committee recommendations.
-
vor
Dec. 26, 2006, 3:07 p.m.With the "legitimate" government currently in place we cannot leave and declare any sort of victory. You have confidence in Maliki? You do know that his political base is drawn from support from the "Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq" and a Shia alliance put together by Al-Sadr. The SCIRI is tied directly to Tehran. Sadr has a more nationalist idea. Both see violence as a legitimate tool. Both are rigid and nonconforming based on religious belief.
That is what we are dealing with. The only question left is whether there is an individual capable of uniting all Iraqi's? The obvious answer says NO. There is no one these sects will all listen too. No Jefferson, Washington, Madison. Certainly not Al-Maliki.
As for the troop surge, those committing sectarian violence will simply fade into the population only to rise again as soon as troop levels are reduced or area's turned over to Iraqi Army troops. That is the nature of an insurgency.
-
RedstateLib
Dec. 26, 2006, 3:54 p.m.The surge that you believe may provide relief to the troops means that their deployments will be extended. For those who have rotated home it means that they will return to Iraq sooner than planned and most likely stay their longer as well. Generals have already said that is the only way they can achieve an increase in the forces over there at this time. Doesn't sound like it will ease the load of those soldiers to me.
-
-
-
paidtolaugh
Dec. 26, 2006, 2:19 p.m.To continue to do the same thing and expect different results is insanity.
-
not2needy
Dec. 26, 2006, 2:52 p.m.It takes an extraordinary idiot not to learn from his mistakes, so i guess that means Bush is an idiot, surprise!
He insists that he CAN put a square peg in a round hole, and he will beat it to death trying.
What a moron!
-
vor
Dec. 26, 2006, 3:18 p.m.The thrust of this article should be Cheney's influence on Bush. It is obvious Bush was told to reject any suggestion other than full speed ahead. The American people don't like this war, see the mess we have created of our world image, and the majority want it to wind down.
Cheney will hear of no such thing. They only have a year and a half to get his pet project done. And that isn't just Iraq but Iran as well. We are talking about an unending war, occupations of areas where we will run into the same issues we currently have in Iraq and worse. Any intrusion into Iran will see a direct confrontation with China. Iran is currently one of China's key suppliers and they would not take it will if we cut off that supply.
And remember that Rummy wasn't fired. He was sent to the showers with a glorious sendoff of effusive praise. In this administration he doesn't have to carry a title to continue providing input.
-
joeblowe
Dec. 26, 2006, 3:39 p.m.I can't foresee any circumstances where the US would interrupt oil supply to China. In the event of a sudden regime change in Iran, I would certainly hope that Washington would have made prior arrangements with the Chinese and the Saudis (or Iraquis or Canadians or someone...) to provide oil to China until the Iranian situation resolved itself.
-
-
-
spikecwc
Dec. 26, 2006, 4:40 p.m.At this point, no excuse is necessary. The fact that Iran has said they will destroy Israel is reason enough to act.
-
-
Gungnir
Dec. 26, 2006, 11:46 p.m.So Iran has said it would like to destroy one of our strongest strategical and moral allies in the middle east off the map and protecting them makes HIM a traitor?
People like you don't matter. No one listens to you or cares about anything you say. You are a black-hearted racist and probably live in a one bedroom apartment alone.
Please get a life, a clue, some friends, a real perspective and laid.
-
bubba2
Dec. 26, 2006, 5:33 p.m.You want to invade or blow up a country just for 'saying' something, making some so-called 'veiled threat'?
Then when are we going to blow up North Korea?
We won't, because North Korea doesn't have any OIL or anything else to make the neo-cons rich.
I think YOU need to go enlist so that you can volunteer to lead the assault on Iran, since you are so gung ho to blow them up.
-
-
-
-
not2needy
Dec. 26, 2006, 4:34 p.m.Bush isn't going to be satisfied until he gets us nuked. He is mad about losing control of Congress in Nov and now he is intent on total destruction of the US.
He is a madman, needs to be impeached before he does any more damage, i just don't understand this at all.
-
Justice4All
Dec. 26, 2006, 4:34 p.m.Bush's decisions are purely political. He can ask for troops while knowing that none are available. Then when the situition gets even worse he can blame it on not getting the troops he asked for.
He may be an idiot, but he has some intelligent advisiors, backed by well funded special interests.
-
lfergie812
Dec. 26, 2006, 8:02 p.m.That has been their strategy from the day 9/11 happened. They always point the finger at everyone else for every stupid mistake they've made while in office and the sad part is that the ignorant right wing actually believe them.
-
-
Searchbeam
Dec. 26, 2006, 4:43 p.m.Once you become an idiot you always try to protect your identity! After all, you must have some rather unique attributes to become an idiot. Not everyone can become one!
It is like being free of the gravity of logic, and tether of common sense. It is a freedom like nothing else! Nothing matters when you reach that state of Nirvana!
You are in your own orbit where Sun never shines and the clouds of wisdom dare not penetrate. It does not matter whether you can speak fluently or not! As long as you can FXXX at will, you can drown any other sound that might try to distract you into real world! As long as you have a never ending supply of beans, your main tool of expression will always be ready to make that clarion sound and the secret weapon can launch that chemical attack that will drive everybody away, leaving you in the bliss of release!
Such, my friends is the power of idiocy!
And you can always ignore the chorus of:
Impeachment Now, Vigilance Forever!
Peace and Blessings!
-
Amazing1
Dec. 26, 2006, 5:05 p.m.The man takes pride in the fact that he can fart at will. If that isn't something to be proud of, I don't know what is.
Thank you searchbeam. I had never realized the power of idiocy in such a light.
-
-
-
JoseMadre
Dec. 26, 2006, 4:53 p.m.Bush needs to be saved from the neo-cons. He knows almost nothing about foreign affairs and has thus been duped the Wolfowitz gang.
-
SS454
Dec. 26, 2006, 5:03 p.m.Welcome to the Bush Reality. No one Tell the BIG GWB anything
He and He alon is the Pesinator,the Policynator,The Moronator
And any other half ass non spelling word he can make up.
-
ind06
Dec. 26, 2006, 5:58 p.m.If I can wade through this one-man tide of anti-Israeli bias for a moment...
It seems as if the President will do what he wants to do. I have a few fundamentalist acquaintances and noticed long ago their capacity to convince themselves of whatever they wanted to believe.
Bush has had two months to convince himself that Americans want the war to continue. The fundys I know would've taken about two days to reach the same conclusion were they in his shoes.
I fail to see what Israel has to do with our current president's remarkable capacity for self-delusion.
-
Beau7890
Dec. 26, 2006, 6:14 p.m.And that, though I appreciate digression most of the time, was what I thought the point of the article to be. He even stated shortly after the elections, that he was "open to suggestions."
But he never was before...
-
-
spkguy
Dec. 26, 2006, 7:13 p.m."I've seen very few tea leaves in the mix that would give you any sense of hope or confidence that he is getting it so far," said Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who supports the study group's advice that the administration seek help from Iran and Syria in Iraq. "The bottom line is this president can't afford not to change course. The time is up."
In other words he has not heard the voice of the voter!
And even if he did, he just does not get it!
Who was it that said," Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer."
Could be that him knowing that he is at about 29% approval rating he just does not care what the American people think. He has spent all of his political capital and then some!
-
michaelshircliff
Dec. 26, 2006, 7:18 p.m.Bush seems to always consider three things..
He lowered taxes...good.
He didn't lower spending...bad..
He brought the debt to its highest level ever...Ugly.
In Iraq...he got Saddam out...good.
In Iraq...he can't get us out...bad.
In Iraq...he wants to raise troop levels to their highest ever..Ugly.
-
MajJohn
Dec. 26, 2006, 7:27 p.m.Ever since the war began, I've heard the "exit strategy" drumbeat. This followed up by, "what's the plan?". Our leaving depends on the situation on the ground and simply put that is the plan. Can you imagine laying out a strategy so the enemy can counter it? The latest mantra, bring in two more combat battalions. We want to know what you're going to do with them. Just whisper it in my ear, and I won't tell the terrorists. It must be wonderful to be an armchair general.
-
-
RedstateLib
Dec. 26, 2006, 8:20 p.m.Define a military victory in Iraq. Tell us how you Identify it. How are you going to obtain it. Not details of individual missions operated in the field. How are we to identify and achieve victory. Will it be overwhelming force to go in and wipe out the Sunni resistance, or are we going to take on the Shia militias and disarm them through overwhelming force. Who are the troops going to take on and when can we say we won. If you are going to put your troops in the middle of an insurgency you have to chose a side in that insurgency and fight to win, you cannot just sit your troops in the middle and ask everyone to try and get along then spend your resources breaking up the fights between the warring factions.
-
-
mamasan
Dec. 26, 2006, 7:54 p.m.I m dreaming of a white christmas just like th eone we use to have where the blue bells glisten and the white people listen to sleigh bell ringing in the darrk.
-
-
royal-m
Dec. 26, 2006, 8 p.m.I never believed this idiocy had anything to do with national security, but if they had gotten into gear and put this nations whole heart into this fight against terrorism right away. If this admin had started mobilizing for war on 912 of 01, and done honestly and completely and well even I, who was still under 40 at the time and 30 pounds lighter would have gone.
The first 119 comments are shown. Show all 147 comments »
Submitted By:
Beau7890
I used to have a quote here from Andre Breton, author of several surrealist works.
I now think that if you're here on Propeller ...
Also submitted:
