WP A1: With Iraq Speech, Bush to Pull Away From His Generals

[Pirate Smile]

With Iraq Speech, Bush to Pull Away From His Generals

By Michael Abramowitz, Robin Wright and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 10, 2007; Page A01

When President Bush goes before the American people tonight to outline his new strategy for Iraq, he will be doing something he has avoided since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003: Ordering his top military brass to take action they initially resisted and advised against.

Bush talks frequently of his disdain for micromanaging the war effort and for second-guessing his commanders. "It's important to trust the judgment of the military when they're making military plans," Bush told The Washington Post in an interview last month. "I'm a strict adherer to the command structure."

But over the past two months, as the security situation in Iraq has deteriorated and U.S. public support for the war has dropped, Bush has pushed back against his top military advisers and the commanders in Iraq: He has fashioned a plan that adds up to 20,000 troops to the 132,000 U.S. service members already on the ground. As Bush plans it, the military will soon be "surging" in Iraq two months after an election many Democrats interpreted as a mandate to begin withdrawing troops.

Pentagon insiders say members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have long opposed the increase in troops and are only grudgingly going along with the plan because they have been promised that the military escalation will be matched by renewed political and economic efforts in Iraq. Gen. John P. Abizaid, the outgoing head of Central Command, said less than two months ago that adding U.S. troops was not the answer for Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901872.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rodeodance]

19. but later is says that Joint Chiefs are now on board with JR>

[salin]

22. "grudgingly" on board - is different than outright support.

Hopefully most of the public will see and understand this difference.

[Zorra]

2. The generals all know Bu*h is totally nuts. Maybe we'll have a military

coup.

[Drum]

3. And after W kept using the "commanders on the ground" as the trump card....

He's been backpedaling against everyone's urging him to end his ill-considered war, using the assessments of military commanders as his basis for stubbornly keeping us involved in all of the bloodshed in Iraq. :wtf:

He has no honor, no sense...this should clearly show everyone that he is as big a failure at Presinting as he has been for the rest of his sorry life. When he rounds this bend he should truly become recognized as an enemy of America and opposed to freedom anywhere.

Out with the scoundrel!

[volstork]

4. Watch how quickly

he unravels when the escalation is blocked
and they thought NIXON was nuts......

[TheMadMonk]

9. Whilst it would be great to see Bush melt down totally...

...the ultimate result would be a disaster. Chenney steps into his boots.

[rodeodance]

20. the evil one!!

[Jawja]

29. Unfortunately, it will not be blocked

by Congress. Democrats will talk a good game; but ultimately, they will go along with the surge.

Just my humble opinion, of course.

[irislake]

31. I fear Democratic Politicians

will turn a blind eye to the Bush government and Big Oil theft of Iraq oil from the Iraqi people. Please do not let this issue fly under the radar. This is what it is all about. Bush is not as crazy as he seems to be. Chris Floyd is right the big push now is about the oil.

[Spearman87]

54. True, It's politically untenable to withhold the funding

for our troops. That would be as bad as denying some of them body armor.

But three months down the road, if the surge is not helping, violence is bad, and US caualties are up, the political winds will shift.....

[ClintonTyree]

48. I don't think it can be blocked....

he's already sending more troops there and they're not all going to go in at once. They'll go in a few thousand at a time and long before Congress has a chance to discuss it, let alone vote on any oversight of Bush's actions. They'll already be in country, then what will Congress do? They can't very well withhold money for their support when they're already there. The Republicans would murder us in the court of public opinion if that happens. The Democrats would look un-American for "not supporting the troops".
The neo-con planners have this all figured out. Why do you think Bush waited so long to unveil his new "plan"? So he could have the wheels in motion before he unveiled it, that's why. So the "surge" troops would already be there or be on their way before Congress could do a thing about it. Bush already HAS his surge, we just don't know it yet.

[stevebreeze]

56. of course they can block it, or at least cut it short

The funding is the key, this war needs continual new funding authorization. Simple limit what the new funds can be spent for. The GOp will not block all funding for the troops, they must pass it, even if they don't' like the caveats attached.

[ClintonTyree]

57. You don't seem to get my point.....

the "surge" will already BE THERE before Congress can do anything meaningful about it. After the troops are already in the country Congress would not dare de-fund them. The "surge" is a given, there's nothing Congress or anyone else can do to stop it. It's already a done deal and all Congress can do is have a "non-binding" vote as to whether it supports the Pretzelnits' decision or not. Perhaps somewhere down the line Congress will vote to de-fund the war completely but I can't see them doing that either with the presence of 150,000 of our troops in country. That would be political suicide let alone the fact that we'd be letting 150,000 troops just swing in the wind.

[rodeodance]

13. Jr. still has too many Hawks around him

[ShockediSay]

5. As Capt Queeg shows us his balls of steel while he takes them out

and plays with them

"The Caine Mutiny"

[DianeG5385]

6. You realize how bad this is...His advice is coming from non-military

Neocons such as the Kagans, AEI, and such others that shall remain nameless lest I be charcoaled. These guys are completely without military knowledge but BUSH sure as heck is NOT going to listen to the Iraq Study Group or the People. He doesn't even care about winning. He just wants to do it HIS WAY. It scares me how out of control he is.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

7. What if the Generals refuse?

[Jawja]

30. He can and will fire them.

There will be no military coup. Would rather not have that. The only way this bloody and criminal agenda will be stopped is when We the People DEMAND it from our representatives in Congress.

[Solly Mack]

8. How many more have to die because of this war criminal?

[Clyde39]

10. How can he have ANY congressional supporters?

I can't fathom senators and reps doing this....it feels like a betrayal!

[rodeodance]

18. if Kennedy pushes for the Vote--we will find out!

[LynnTheDem]

11. George W. bUsh; LIAR.

"It's important to trust the judgment of the military"

Except when that military judgement isn't what bush wants.

[rodeodance]

12. 'Maliki's idea was to lower the U.S. profile, not raise it.'

....There is little question that more troops for Iraq seemed far from the conventional wisdom in Washington after the beating Bush and the Republican Party took in the midterm elections Nov. 7. Indeed, when Bush met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Amman, Jordan, on Nov. 30, Maliki did not ask for more American troops as part of a new Baghdad security plan he presented to Bush, U.S. officials said.

Maliki's idea was to lower the U.S. profile, not raise it. "The message in Amman was that he wanted to take the lead and put an Iraqi face on it. He wanted to control his own forces," said a U.S. official familiar with the visit.

Another problem for the administration was the Iraq Study Group, the prestigious bipartisan panel headed by former secretary of state James A. Baker III, a Republican, and former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.). Soon after Bush returned from Jordan, the group delivered its recommendations, including proposing a high-level dialogue with Iran and Syria to help stabilize Iraq and setting a goal of early 2008 for the removal of almost all U.S. combat troops

[rodeodance]

14. front page. good for them

[rodeodance]

15. k and r.

[rodeodance]

16. 'president will explain "that we have to go up before we go down."

uuuuummmmm

...Then there was the thorny problem of finding enough troops to deploy. Those who favored a "surge," such as Kagan and McCain, were looking for a sizable force that would turn the tide in Baghdad. But the Joint Chiefs made clear they could muster 20,000 at best -- not for long, and not all at once.

The Joint Chiefs came to accept Bush's wishes, especially after new Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates traveled to Iraq last month with the Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Peter Pace, said a U.S. official familiar with the trip. Gates met with Maliki, who laid out more details about the Iraqi plan for Baghdad.

"That gave them enough to define a mission and its objectives," the official said. "They came back satisfied."

In the end, the White House favored the idea of more troops as one visible and dramatic step the administration could take. One senior White House official said this week the president concluded that more troops are not the only ingredient of a successful plan -- but they are a precondition to providing the security the Iraqi government needs for political reconciliation and other reforms.

Tonight, this source said, the president will explain "that we have to go up before we go down."

[rodeodance]

17. "The Joint Chiefs came to accept Bush's wishes,"--so, Jr has

convinced them that he is right!

[ClintonTyree]

58. Not because he's right....

but because they're "good soldiers" and will follow the dictates of a draft dodger who doesn't know the first thing about war. That's the one thing that bothers me about the military mindset. They will accept and prosecute any order, from any asshole, that has the "commander in chief" title. If they DID have the guts to speak up and tell the petty dictator he's wrong they'd get axed anyway. That's the problem with having a half-wit for President. The Joint Chiefs will still follow his ridiculous orders because of his title, "commander in chief".

[coalition_unwilling]

47. President will explain that "We have to destroy Iraq in order to

save it."

Karl Marx had it pegged: "History repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce." Except that the second time in this case is equally tragic as the first time (Vietnam).

[w4rma]

21. Bull. There are many Generals who Bush sent into early retirement because they told him his tactics

were bad.

[tom_paine]

23. Doesn't everybody know that Bushler is a pathological liar yet?

I guess these damnfool generals are going to learn what a Bushevik promise is worth when it is made to the 99.9% of us (including the generals) who are Filthy Little Nobodies to them.

[Toots]

24. because they have been promised

Are these Generals stupid people? Bush* LIES. He has zero credibility. His whole Administration has zero credibility. They are all LIARS. The Generals reluctantly go along because they have been promised......God have pity on America as it is run by fools...

[tabasco]

25. Nero Bush is much smarter than all those generals!

Of course he has appointed yes-men at the top so they will go along with whatever Caligula Junior wants.

[Deep13]

26. Why not? He's smarter than the Iraq Study Group too.

x(

[E-Z-B]

27. Didn't Lyndon Johnson micromanage the Vietnam War as well?

[Deep13]

28. Right, and look how well that went.

I remember in 1975 when the last Communists fled Vietnam in a helicopter from the roof of the Chinese embassy.

I'm sorry, I just returned from the Star Trek parallel universe where Spock has a beard and Kirk is the bad guy.

[Aviation Pro]

32. The obvious comparison between....

...the actions of Little Monkey and Hitler (in regards to directing their respective Generals) are about to begin.

[LibDemAlways]

33. The framers of the Constitution wisely created

three branches of government with a built in system of checks and balances. It's time for Congress to step up and put an end to this insanity by beginning impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney for numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. What Nixon did pales by comparison and Clinton's lynching by the repuke mob was a joke compared to what these criminals have gotten away with.

[mnhtnbb]

34. Time for Congress to step up and STOP Bush, the wannabe dictator

in order to restore democracy to America.

[Botany]

35. bush really has gone nutz

I will listen to "the generals on the ground."

Little Lord Pissy Pants has really "Jumped the Shark."

[BluePatriot]

36. What is it going to take for people to get it?

I mean, the illusion of anyone having a say in what this guy does to our country is long gone. I hope the Kennedy bill goes through to stop this.

[The Wizard]

37. What Bushigula

and the TV talking heads neglect to understand is 88% are against this insanity. Nixon had better numbers on Vietnam.
Listening to talking heads say this will be a problem for Democrats suspends reality. It's a problem for all Americans, and by extension, humanity.
Bush is like the guy trimming a tree and sitting on the wrong side of the limb he's cutting.

[jwirr]

38. When are the generals going to learn what the rest of us learned

long ago - when *ss promises something it is a lie.

[VegasWolf]

39. As if this war wasn't going badly enough. Now the Decider is going it alone. Bush the joke! nt

[Efilroft Sul]

40. I seem to recall something like this before. What was it? Oh, yes.

Die Welt, Page A01, 06/22/41: "With Barbarossa speech, Hitler to pull away from his generals."

It's all the same. Only the names have changed.

[VegasWolf]

42. I thought that you were going to say the Tet offensive in Vietnam! nt

[Occulus]

41. Madman. n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

43. Impeach. Remove. Indict. Incarcerate.

We have met the enemy and it is our so-called leaders.

[progressivebydesign]

44. He's doing it for one reason only: Politics.

Could it be that Bush is preparing the world for the brilliance of John McCain's ideas? I'm convinced that McCain is the one that the GOP is going to push down our throats. And Bush going along with McCains ridiculous ideas of troop surges, he is attempting to make him a hero of winning the war. Nothing Bush does is about anything but politics. The White House is run by republican operatives, not public servants.

I've been noticing tons of articles popping up lately about how the Iraq forces did this, and Iraqi forces achieved that.. they are trying to position things so that it SEEMS to the public that the Iraqis are taking over. All political. It's always political. They are taking the bodies and souls of our troops to use as political collateral.

[seesdifferent]

45. Bush to call for thousands more American DEATHS

another 9/11's worth of death and destruction. That is how this speech must be viewed.
http://seesdifferent.wordpress.com/2007/01/10/bush-speech-a-call-for-another-911s-worth-of-american-deaths/

[ClintonTyree]

46. So, Bush will try his hand at pushing around the little.....

plastic Army Men on the coffee table in the Oval Office. That's all this war is to him, a game. And of course, his vast experience from the Viet Nam era when he so gallantly fought the VC from an out of date training aircraft in Texas is going to come in VERY handy in the prosecution of his war. :eyes:

He's betting his pResidency and legacy on this "surge" (not that he has anything to lose, everything he's touched has turned to crap) but he doesn't care how many young Americans have to die so his name looks "Reagan-esque" in the history books. Oh, and don't forget his corporate buddies. He's going to make a ton of money of this was and so are his corporate pals and they won't forget him after he finally gets the hell out of OUR White House. Then it's off to the new "ranch" in Paraguay, living high off the hog and making every President to follow for the next 20 years straighten out his fuck-ups.

It's a great life, isn't it? :grr:

Congress HAS to stop this moron, they HAVE to!

[TheBaldyMan]

49. "his disdain for micromanaging the war effort" - what bullshit!

Dubya has done nothing but go against his generals and replace them with yes-men who were willing to do his ans Rummie's bidding. The WP should be ashamed of itself trying to call itself a newspaper.

If this is journalism, it is journalism of the laziest and shoddiest kind.

[Zech Marquis]

50. impeach the bastard!!!

He's basically said "Fuck you, I'm going to have my war!", so I'd say right back ,"Fuck you *, you'd betetr hope we don't string you up like Saddam was" :grr:

[wrate]

53. Agreed, Dems should impeach *. They will get the blame for losing the war

no matter what they do. That's why they were allowed to take power back from the the Repugs anyway, to become the scapegoats of this tragic war.

[Felix Mala]

51. Any volunteers to run a Lie-o-meter tonight? Report tomorrow...

I can't bear to hear his voice anymore so I will watch IU trounce Purdue.

[Dervill Crow]

52. Oh, no, I misread that headline.

I'm sure it's because of the years I have spent transcribing and more recently proofing and editing medical records, but I thought that said Bush was pulling away from his genitals.

:blush:

[wordpix]

55. * is not only the decider & commander, he's now the adherer, too (to the command structure)

as long as he can make the structure do his bidding, that is.

[PBass]

59. IMO here is why the Generals are going along with it...

because THEY don't know how to solve the mess either. And when you're totally lost without a map, a left turn could be as good as a right turn... who knows? Who can say?

As tempting as it is to compare Iraq to Vietnam, we are in uncharted waters here, and none of the options look good.

Secondly, nobody wants to be the "goat" and take the blame for losing. If the president says he has a plan that can win, who is going to volunteer to obstruct that plan before it even gets started? Nobody is going to blame Bremmer and Rumsfeld and Pace etc, when all is said and done... the blame goes to whoever gets stuck holding the bag when the when the whole thing falls apart.

Bush has us so far up Shit's Creek that even the Generals are stumped. They just don't want to look weak, or get pegged as losers.

BTW I see no reason NOT to impeach, if the main argument is that Cheney takes over. Post-impeachment, the government will be gridlocked so bad that NOTHING will get done until the White House changes hands. A post-impeachment President will be nothing more than a temporary placeholder, no matter who it is.

[leesa]

60. Well, military guys...you took an oath to protect the CONSTITUTION

NOT the Idiot in Chief. You swore to protect the country from enemies externally and internally. THIS is what that means.

[Doctor_J]

61. If this turns into 7 Days In May, I guess I'll have to root for Burt Lancaster

I never thought I would say that.