http://www.nelsonguirado.com/index.php/asymmetric/2007/01/22/fox_news_clarifying_poll_on_bush_s_surge

I am sorry folks, this is just plain old history and facts. The Shah in Iran, the American supported overthrow of Iraq by the Baathists, or the President of Pakistan.

We will ultimately end up with another authoritian regime in Iraq, this one dominated by the Shiites with close ties to Iran. This will be both acceptable in the short run because it will mean “stability” in the country, but in the long run it will grow the “axis of evil” for more neocon think tanks to write papers on.

That is why the President is scared shitless of Iran! He knows he opened a Pandora’s box and the influence of Iran grew.

In 10 years we will be looking back at this as another long line of American created fiasco.

Interstingly, the only really long term hope for stability has been done by the Presidents that the Republicans have been demonizing the most. Presidents Carter and Clinton!

Gene you need to move to Virginia and vote for Virgil Goode.

Didn’t this nutbag used to post here? I thought he was insane, and damn glad to have my suspicion be correct.

Extra points awarded. “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel”; so is the passive voice.

…he neglected to say what plan B would be, should this fail.

Of course not. According to what I’ve taken to calling the Cheney Doctrine (h/t Froomkin), and so approved by some on the right (see Captain Ed’s comment noted in main article), failure is simply not an option.

So, as I’ve noted before, what the president is doing is bringing the Cheney Doctrine to its logical(?) conclusion: we can’t leave until we “win”, and since we can’t win, we can’t leave.

http://www.enewsreference.com

Actually what really bothered me about the president’s speech were three things-one- his phraseology—”mistakes were made”—- not “I made some big mistakes” and the fact that he still won’t state what the consequences would be if the Iraqis fail to meet their end of the bargain. That is a good possibility, judging from past experience. Also, he neglected to say what plan B would be, should this fail.

So, is he still in the frame of mind that we will achieve victory because we must? At some point, we may have to face what will happen 3-4 months down the road if the surge fails or as in past attempts, actually increases the violence in Baghdad. I wish I could say that I felt that we had a good chance of succeeding with this, but I can’t. Bush has shown poor judgement in the past, how else are we to predict how his strategies will turn out in the future?

Heh, I felt like I needed painkillers…it was literally painful to watch. I was actually thinking maybe he should have taken beta blockers (not sure if they’d work for this as they do for people with stage fright), but maybe that would have helped his body language and delivery. It was so important that he get this right, although I’m not sure it was possible under the circumstances. How does one look graceful while eating crow, and simulaneously still project power and confidence?

Easy, act passionate, act as if you’re know what you’re talking about, try to inspire, try to inform, take responsibility but do it in a ‘but we can still make it happen’ kind of way, act as if you actually believe what you’re saying…

In fact,

Look at what Bush did and then…

Do the exact opposite.

The problem is that it seems that Bush only listens to Generals and other experts when they share his POV. At the beginning of the war, Gen Shinseki was sidelined for having the temerity of suggesting that 100,000 troops would be inadequate for the job we were proposing that they do. Rumsfeld was convinced that superior technology would compensate for reduced numbers. That theory worked for the initial invasion, but failed afterwards. Rather than admit it and adjust by calling for an increase in the size of the military, they went with it, giving falsely rosy pictures of our progress, month after month, year after year. Now, when just about everyone is admitting that the military is at the breaking point, they are calling for an increase in the size of the general military, and the surge in Iraq.

No one has called for a surge this size—it is smaller than what is probably needed, but it is what we have available. I guess if Bush and Rumsfeld had been right about using a small force at the start of the war, I might believe him now. But then we wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place.
I have seen no military expert who thinks the surge will work militarily unless they are working for the Pentagon. And even there, many disagree with it.

In football it is 4th down and he is on his own 5 yard line, with 20 seconds left in the game. He is about to throw the ball into heavy coverage, but is praying that it won’t be intercepted. A real Hail Mary.

I felt sorry for him for having to face the consequences of his own incompetence, but much sorrier for us and the Iraqis who will be paying for it in untold costs and horror.

If the reasons for going to war were purposely skewed and the execution of that war unforgiveably sloppy, it is our patriotic duty to admit to that, and demand that the situation be rectified. I’ll give the Bush team the benefit of the doubt and say that they thought the threat was imminent and real, that doesn’t excuse taking their eye off the ball in Afghanistan, or insisting that they are listening to the generals one minute, then contramanding their advice the next- as suits their particular purpose.

Republicans who have supported the administration and gone after those who have criticized the justification and implementation of the war as being mean spirited, strictly partisan or unpatriotic. It now turns out Bush is admitting that much of this criticism was well founded.

This is true. It’s also, I think, what I’ll remember most about the Bush years.

Michael van der Galien said:
January 11, 2007 at 12:52 am
About this, from Hugh Hewitt:

President Bush was at his best tonight: serious, detailed, and above all, resolute.

Please tell me that this is a joke.

I didn’t watch the entire speech, only excerpts this morning (time difference and all that) but… “at his best�?? Absolutely ridiculous. I’ve never seen Bush so badly. His body language was horrible: no more pain killers before a speech George!

Heh, I felt like I needed painkillers…it was literally painful to watch. I was actually thinking maybe he should have taken beta blockers (not sure if they’d work for this as they do for people with stage fright), but maybe that would have helped his body language and delivery. It was so important that he get this right, although I’m not sure it was possible under the circumstances. How does one look graceful while eating crow, and simulaneously still project power and confidence?

And I do see one ray of hope in that Petraeus was the author of the recent manual written on counterinsurgency strategy. I assume that he supports the new strategy (based on Bush’s..ahem…tendency to only appoint those who agree with him) and he may have even been part of the planning of it. That he has scrutinized the reasons for past failures in fighting insurgencies and has contemplated how to improve strategies in that regard, is a good sign IMO.

I work in science, and in science you can’t just say something is going to work, you must base it on something, usually by reffering to past examples of similar actions or expert opinions. You CANNOT just pull things out of your hat. So far as I can tell this strategy manages to be neither of the options people with experience have recomended; less or a lot more. So, besides “trust me” what is the rationale for this working? Is there one?