Tag Archives: Bush

We can’t leave, but we can’t stay

I usually find reasons to take heart from former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan’s latest column, but not today. The headline "The Two Vacuums" and the subhead "Neither Iraqis nor Democrats seem ready to do what’s required of them" seemed reasonable so I printed it out to read. Only when I read it did I realize that the headline writer, for whatever reason, was trying to avoid her main point, which is that Bush is coming unglued, hasn’t a clue what to do, and his new strategy isn’t new at all. It certainly seems new to me, with its hints of finally cleaning up Mookie and his sectarian-warring militia in Sadr City, and the insurgent/militia sanctuaries in Syria and Iran, even if that means war with those terrorist-supporting countries (see bit about carrier battle groups in the Gulf, and providing Patriot anti-missile systems to regional allies), and a clear and hold strategy for Baghdad’s most violent neighborhoods, which I don’t recall seeing before. Maybe I am the one who sees substance that isn’t there, but his detractors (the usual ones and the shocking new ones like Noonan) seem to be saying: "We can’t leave, but we can’t stay. Sorry if Iraq falls apart and the genocide begins, but we are an impatient people more interested in presidential style than substance, and we are losing what patience we had with this man and his war." As if it really was only his war, and getting rid of him would make all things better. The mind reels. Mine, anyhow.

UPDATE  For all that, the stock market continues to soar. Somebody’s not pessimistic. But Donald Sensing is, deeply.

The view from Baghdad

Fighting continues in the city, between insurgents, militia and the government, but so far Bush’s "new plan" seems not to have truly begun and Iraqis, meanwhile, are arguing among themselves whether it will do any good, according to Mohammed at Iraq the Model:

"…there are different opinions even among members of a single bloc but I also see that a majority supports the new strategy while opposition is coming from extremists who realize that they will be the next target for the government and allied forces."

W’s last stand

In Bush’s coming speech Wednesday we’ll learn whether he finally has the will to do what he should already have done, i.e. taken the war to Iran, Syria and, if they don’t stop sending money and volunteers to Iraq’s Sunni insurgency, Saudi Arabia. Or not. He’s made so little effort in the past four years to explain himself and his strategy, popping up every three months or so to make another speech, then disappearing again for another three months, that serious change doesn’t seem to be in him. Apparently he’s just going to shuffle the commanders around and send a token 10,000 more troops to Iraq for "a push," which will be inconsequential in the long run. It will just give the bad guys more American targets to shoot at and bomb, while Iraq’s neighbors keep undermining Iraq and us. Debka sees hope for more than a token effort. But Debka always sees more, whether it materializes or not. For one thing, Debka has the Stennis carrier strike group already headed for the Persian Gulf when the Navy says it won’t leave until late this month. So far, we haven’t even had the sense to arrest or kill Mookie Sadr and put his Shiite militia out of business. Bush might as well bring the troops home, or shuffle some to Afghanistan, where Iran and Pakistan can go on undermining the effort there. Not that I think the Dems have anything more to offer than retreat. Wretchard says what we really need is the will to win. The bitterly divided populace plainly doesn’t have it. It’s becoming apparent that even the leadership doesn’t. Not even 9/11 could produce it, and it remains to be seen if even a second 9/11 would do it. Though we may get the chance to find out.

Stubborness or integrity?

"It appears Bush’s characteristic Texas stubbornness is the only thing standing between victory and the U.S. defeat that has all but been proclaimed by Washington’s foreign policy establishment and its friends in the mainstream media like ’60 Minutes’ reporter Lara Logan. She insisted in her weekend interview with Gen. John Abizaid that ‘managing the defeat’ is America’s only option."

It isn’t Texas "stubborness," but Texas integrity. The old guard and the news media have been against the war–not just the Iraq campaign–from the very beginning. Now it’s supposedly Daddy Bush’s former consigliere James Baker who’s going to turn the stubborn son around and get him to suck up to the dictators like Daddy did. So far Son is refusing, and that’s good. The boy is keeping his word. Not letting the naysayers lead him away by the nose from the course that young men and women have enlisted to follow–and some have died for. And so he’d better, because if he ends his term as just another Washington lickspittle, he should not come back to Texas.

Via Instapundit 

We’re not Spaniards yet

President Bush, in this report from the usually unfriendly BBC, indicates he will be keeping his word on Iraq rather than calling in Iran and Syria to save his bacon.

"Mr Bush, answering questions after talks with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, made it clear there would be no complete about-turn in US foreign policy…Iran must be isolated internationally if it continued with its uranium enrichment programme, Mr Bush said. He also showed little enthusiasm to engage with Syria, stressing that the US had already made it clear to Damascus that it should stop interfering in Lebanon and stop harbouring extremists."

Meanwhile, Austin Bay says the Baker-Hamilton Group is more about political cover for the Dems than any dramatic changes in policy.

"Then the military will continue to do what it’s been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and the new Iraqi government will continue to learn by doing — and in the ordeal of war that will mean learn by bleeding, suffering, and sweating."

Bush unfiltered

There’s no better time than after an election to see exactly what the president said, as opposed to the way the media uses his remarks to flesh out their narratives. Here’s one quote I have already seen truncated to the point of being almost unintelligible. Perhaps on purpose.

"I know there’s a lot of speculation on what the election means for the battle we’re waging in Iraq. I recognize that many Americans voted last night to register their displeasure with the lack of progress being made there. Yet I also believe most Americans and leaders here in Washington from both political parties understand we cannot accept defeat."

Bush unfiltered

You may not like what he says, but you have a better chance of hearing it in his words if you read the transcript.

"I’m sure people who watch your TV screens think the entire country is embroiled in sectarian conflict and that there’s constant killing everywhere in Iraq. Well, if you listened to General Casey yesterday, 90 percent of the action takes place in five of the 18 provinces. And around Baghdad, it’s limited to a 30-mile area. And the reason I bring that up is that while it seems to our American citizens that nothing normal is taking place — and I can understand why, it’s a brutal environment there, particularly that which is on our TV screens — that there is farmers farming, there are small businesses growing, there’s a currency that’s relatively stable, there’s an entrepreneurial class, there’s commerce."