"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde		 Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Thursday, September 13, 2007

And by not requiring a timeline for withdrawal, the Democrats played right into Bush's hands
Posted by Jill | 6:21 AM
This is what happens when you don't do the right thing because it's right. This is what happens when you refuse to believer that you are dealing with the most dishonest leaders in the history of this country, and no, I am not forgetting Nixon.

By caving in and not requiring a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, the Democrats have allowed the intransigent Bush Administration to paint itself as the face of compromise:

When top Democratic leaders visited him at the White House this week, President Bush told them he wanted to “find common ground” on Iraq. But when the president said he planned to “start doing some redeployment,” the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, cut him off.

“No you’re not, Mr. President,” Ms. Pelosi interjected. “You’re just going back to the presurge level.”

The testy exchange, recounted by three people who attended the session or were briefed on it, provides a peek into how Mr. Bush will try to sell Americans on his Iraq strategy when he addresses the nation at 9 p.m. Thursday. With lawmakers openly skeptical of his troop buildup, Mr. Bush will cast his plan for a gradual, limited withdrawal as a way to bring a divided America together — even as he resists demands from those who want him to move much faster.

The prime-time address will be the eighth by Mr. Bush on Iraq since the invasion in March 2003, the latest iteration of his efforts to sketch what he calls “the way forward.” It will be the first time he has described a plan for troop reductions, a radical departure for a president who has repeatedly defied his critics’ calls to bring the troops home.

Yet as the president outlines his plan, his critics say he is trying to have it both ways. He is, they say, taking credit for a drawdown that has been envisioned since he first announced the current buildup on Jan. 10 — a withdrawal that had to be carried out unless he was willing to take the politically unpalatable step of extending soldiers’ tours further.

The White House declined on Wednesday to preview Mr. Bush’s speech, but one senior administration official, speaking anonymously to avoid upstaging the president, said the reductions would be heavily conditioned on the situation in Iraq and would fall far short of the rapid withdrawal Democrats want.

Under the plan, at least 130,000 American troops would remain in Iraq next July, down from more than 160,000, decreasing to about the same level as before the buildup began, with any decisions on further withdrawals likely to be postponed until at least next March. The planned drawdowns between now and July 2008 are expected to be of the 30,000 that many assumed the president would suggest after this week’s testimony by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq. But, the senior official said, Mr. Bush’s ultimate goal would be a sustainable force of around 10 combat brigades, down from 20 now, at the end of his presidency, though a large number of support troops would also still be required.

“We want bipartisanship,” said this official, “but not to the point where it sacrifices success.”


One wonders if the entire reason for this "surge" was less to try to get control of an uncontrollable situation and more to allow George Bush some wiggle room in announcing a troop withdrawal, thereby giving him the opportunity to appear to be bipartisan and willing to withdraw some troops without actually reducing the American presence in Iraq.

When Democrats want to roll back tax cuts and return federal tax rates to what they were before a cut, or when they want to stop the next part of a phased cut, Republicans paint that as a tax increase. So it's logical that the Republican way would also to be to increase troop levels in Iraq, then decrease them and call it a reduction in force.

And of course Americans will buy it. They'll buy it because for all that too many Americans don't have a clue about the Constitution or what it means, they are highly tied to our system of government and to the notion that the U.S. government is intrinsically good -- a notion tested strongly by the actions of this Administration. That this surge and planned redeployment is essentially a wash won't occur to them because there's been so little for them to cling to of late.

But those who will be fooled are only fooling themselves. For the reality is that like everything else in his miserable failure of a life, George W. Bush has once again dug a dry hole, run a company into the ground, and traded Sammy Sosa. His policy and his goal, just as it always has been, is to get the hell outta Dodge and leave the mess he created for someone else to clean up:

The talk in Washington on Monday was all about troop reductions, yet it also brought into sharp focus President Bush's plans to end his term with a strong U.S. military presence in Iraq, and to leave tough decisions about ending the unpopular war to his successor.

The plans outlined by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, would retain a large force in the country -- perhaps more than 100,000 troops -- when the time comes for Bush to move out of the White House in January 2009.

Labels: , ,

0 comments
Bookmark and Share
Monday, May 07, 2007

So where are the adults already
Posted by Jill | 6:16 AM
Remember when the Bush team came into office and with their stiff grey suits and power ties assured Americans that the pizza-and-khaki days were over and now the adults were in charge?

Obviously in Bushland, adulthood as meaning just wearing a big man suit is just another drag costume, and as far as it goes.

The architect of the so-called "surge" is getting outta Dodge while the getting's still good and people aren't yet asking questions:

Deputy national security adviser J.D. Crouch II, who helped spearhead the recent policy review that led President Bush to send more U.S. troops to Iraq, announced yesterday that he will step down early next month, becoming the latest key aide to depart the White House at a critical juncture.

Crouch, the No. 2 official at the National Security Council, has been a pivotal figure on a series of difficult issues, including Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran and the detention policy for terrorism suspects. And it was his interagency group meeting at the White House complex for many weeks last winter that resulted in the ongoing troop buildup in Iraq, which has become the defining decision of the year for Bush.

In an interview, Crouch said he is leaving to devote more time to his family after six years in the administration. He expressed confidence that Bush's policy of trying to build democracy in Iraq and spread it around the world will ultimately pay off. "I worry about it," he said. "I think it's important to question your assumptions, always ask yourself if you're on the right track. But as I look at the agenda that the president has set out, I think it's the right agenda, and history will vindicate that."

Crouch becomes the second top official involved in crafting the new Iraq strategy to leave before it is clear if the new approach will work.


The next time Americans are tempted to vote for the guy who has the most tough-talk, they might want to keep this in mind.

Labels: , ,

0 comments
Bookmark and Share