Another Day, Another Pack of Lies
When historians look back on the long, sad history of the Iraq war, July 24, 2007 will be illustrative of the sad era in which we live: At a time when the American people were all but begging President Bush to find his way out of Iraq, he stubbornly kept changing the subject and yet again lied to them in declaring why our men and women should continue to shed their blood in the service of his fool’s mission.
First, and with the president’s tacit approval, yet another plan on how everything was going to turn out all right was trotted out for public consumption. Not only did it not answer the American peoples’ plea, it flatly stated that U.S. troops would remain in Iraq well past the presidential election and at least through 2009, confirming that it was his intention to dump the whole mess on his successor.
Secondly, the president yet again claimed that Al Qaeda in Iraq was the same crowd that flew passenger jets into the World Trade Center, Pentagon and a field in western Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001. While he was somewhat more circumspect in the language that he used, a reaction to previous outcries when he has made this bogus connection, he continued to refuse to accept the obvious: Al Qaeda in Iraq is flourishing because of him and his war, and as a consequence has become the single biggest recruiting tool for the global Islamic jihad.
Having squandered his mandate and brought the Republican Party to its knees, it is no wonder that the Decider in Chief continues to invoke promises that he cannot keep and deadlines that he cannot meet. But when historians look back on this day, it certainly would be reasonable to wonder what possessed this man to wreak such suffering on his own people.
32 Responses to “Another Day, Another Pack of Lies”
[...] House Link to Article iraq Another Day, Another Pack of Lies » Posted at The Moderate Voice » [...]
Good post Shaun and you picked a powerful photograph to go with it.
It’s all too easy to get caught up in grand strategy and forget that every single day innocent Iraqis and young Americans are paying a grave price for our invasion and occupation.
Considering the human costs, it’s not “BDS” to ask that our fabricator-in-chief face some consequences for continually and deliberately lying about the war.
Here’s what General Petreaus said at his confirmation back in January:
Then Senate went on to confirm him 98-0. So one could argue the Senate shares some responsibility for “dumping” this mess on the next President. And to add to that, the current Democratic plan, if enacted, would only take about half our troops out of Iraq next year – many tens-of-thousands would remain there presumably well into the next Presidency conducting the missions authorized in the bill.
Now, as far as AQI, I agree with you. Al Qaeda in Iraq isn’t even called that anymore – the group has morphed and changed its name (which I forget atm). Although the tactics between AQI and UBL’s group are similar, their doctrine is not. AQ is a “far-war” organization whose primary interest is attacks against the west. AQI and other salafistic Iraqi groups are “near-war” meaning they are more interested in fighting in the mid-east, overthrow established governments, etc. With the exception of Bin Ladin’s AQ and a few other associated groups, the vast majority of “terrorists” are “all politics/terrorism is local” types. This is not to say there are not ties between the groups – there are – but their strategic goals are fundamentally different.
The bottom line is the Bush is being deceptive on this issue.
Entrophy, “Then Senate went on to confirm him 98-0. So one could argue the Senate shares some responsibility for “dumping†this mess on the next President.”
The Iraqi factions don’t seem the least bit interested in reconciling politically, someting which General Petreaus *also* mentioned in his confirmation. That was the main issue with the “surge” anyway: it’s not going to happen anytime soon. Just look at Ireland! How long did it take for the Catholics and Protestants to reconcile? They didn’t have a foreign occupation to fester the wound either.
This Administration has every intention of dumping this on the next administration. In this, reality matches their wishes.
The sad thing is this administration made this mess in poor planning and in denial that the war wasn’t going “swimmingly” or that corners weren’t being turned that got us here. If the surge was tried in January 2005 maybe Iraq would be in a better position today.
The thing about the surge is that the narrative for public consumption was that September would be a go/no-go date. Why this “lemon” was ever believed is a mystery. Bush has a history of spinning his plans, so stop blaming(Entropy) the generals. Politics drives W, that is why we get spin instead of “fireside chats” and victory gardens and recycling. Petraeus sold himself just like the SCOTUS appointments. What would have the Senate vote been if Patraeus told the Senate 5 more years for the conventional time to battle an insurgency?
Rambie,
Actually the problem in Ireland was created by foreign occupation. Goes all the way back to Henry VIII’s decision to colonize Ireland with Protestant Scots.
Many in the Senate voted for Petraeus because he was the best at counterinsurgency- but that didn’t mean that they favored the surge. Even the president’s own party went on record saying they didn’t think it would work. Bush engaged opponents from his own party with a furious campaign to gain their support. Why are those who approved of the plan not held accountable- instead of criticizing those who voted to confirm Petraeus?
So, Kim, in other words Congress voted for the guy who was best at counterinsurgency but they didn’t actually want him to carry out a counterinsurgency? Oh…OK, thanks for clearing that up- makes perfect sense now.
There is plenty of blame to go around, but don’t act like Congress is more to blame than the President. It wouldn’t have mattered if Petraeus was confirmed or not, the President would still be trying to control the oil.
No, those against the surge have painted September as the go/no go date. Quote me one senior military officer or administration official that ever claimed the surge would only last until September. Let me save you the trouble – there isn’t one. The “surge” in troops was always advertised to last about a year, but the overall counter-insurgency strategy was a long-term one. General Petreaus has been clear about that all along though he is cognizant of the political reality. That is not blaming the military or the Generals.
Secondly, it was Congress that requested that General Petreaus testify in September to provide a progress report, not the other way around. Congress never told General Petreaus it expected him to have the war one or every problem solved in Iraq by September.
Between Bush’s lying about AQI – AQ and his opponents lying about the Surge it’s no wonder average people like us get confused. The political atmosphere that caused this situation is so bad, imo, that one can no longer trust anything that comes out of a partisan’s mouth without extensive research and fact-checking. It’s a sad state of affairs.
I’m not saying Congress deserves more blame, I think Bush deserves most – Congress still shares responsibility. Like I said, if the Democratic plan were enacted tomorrow, there would still be 60-80k troops in Iraq when the next President takes office. The same people who support this plan are many of the same people accusing Bush of simply intending to screw the next President by dumping it in his/her lap. If the Democratic plan were enacted, the next President will still be so screwed – don’t you see a little disingenuity here?
Entropy,
What’s this monolothic Democratic plan you’re talking about?
CS- Someone had to replace Casey- and Petraeus was the best available at the time, so I don’t blame Congress for approving the appointment.
The president was not candid when he labelled the surge “Petraeus’ plan” , however, when it was cooked up by AEI so that Bush didn’t have to have daddy’s friends bail him out with a plan that admitted he wouldnt’ get his victory, but might have avoided regional war. Bush was stung by the “surrender monkey” rhetoric, and stubbornly decided to go against Congress and all of the prevailing military advice when he initiated the surge.
The right tries to have it both ways- Congress is not supposed to micromanage the war- that should be left to the CIC who supposedly listens to the generals on the ground-yet congress gets equal blame for Chimpy’s boneheaded decisions? If you care to remember, the surge was already underway, by the time Congress got to approve it.
Cooked up by AEI with the military strategy based on Petraeus’ counterinsurgency manual, Kim.
And I was only responding to your own comment where you said that Congress approved Petraeus because of his credentials in fighting counterinsurgencies. If Congress wasn’t interested in fighting the insurgency, then why approve the appointment of a guy who was chosen for that very reason? Now that I’ve pointed this out you’re changing your reasoning and saying that they had to approve someone, but that’s not what you initially stated.
CS, this is more snarky than I usually expect from you. Anyway, I consider the approval of Petraeus to be the pragmatic thing to do. Even if you don’t think a counterinsurgency plan will work but know that you don’t have a choice that one is going to happen since the President directed it to, you may as well bring in the guy that’s the best at it.
Yes… at least argue that Congress is complicit on the basis of the appropriations and war authorization bills.
Well, my main point is that if you’re going (I don’t mean you personally but the general position of the right) to argue that Congress should not micromanage the war, then you can’t assign equal blame to them when a strategy fails.
I agree Anna- also there is usually deference paid to the CIC’s choice unless there’s an overriding reason to block the confirmation. And it was pretty obvious that the 4 years under Rumsfeld and Casey were an abject failure.
Anna- true that I’m not usually that snarky but I found Kim’s juxtaposition of the two comments too ironic to pass up.
I agree with Kim’s point in comment #16, the blame between Executive branch and Congress shouldn’t be equal- but neither should Congress be excused from all blame (not saying she’s doing that, but as she points out some on the right, I’m also pointing out some on the left). And as another corollary, if things do begin to improve due to the surge, then Congress can’t claim credit when they were dragged kicking and screaming into funding the surge.
Entropy, it’s true noone said the surge would only last until September, but they did say that we would have an idea of how well the surge was working in September. Unless something radical happens in the next two months, it would be hard to paint the surge as a success given the rosy set of outcomes proposed. If the tactics aren’t working, you change them.
I think Bush’s legacy will really be about the downside of spin. When you constantly try to put things in the best light possible, people actually believe you. That’s great in the short term, but then in the long term, that creates a greater disparity between expectation and outcome, making people that much more mad.
Take for example the whole idea of Bush “dumping” the problem on to the next president. Anyone who has read about counter-insurgency knows that it is a long process, something like 9 years, therefore any reasonable fact based assessment of the Iraq war would have us maintaining a significant level of troops until about 2012, through a full term of the next president. However, the blame for this overblown rhetoric used by some on the left I think can be placed pretty firmly at the feet of the administration by constantly implying or (earlier on) stating out right that the end of the war lay just over the horizon. Had they taken the time and effort to spread accurate assessments of the cost and duration of the war either before, or at the very least very soon after the insurgency began, the “dumping” meme would have a lot less political punch today.
Way too kind. Bush moved way past spin as soon as he started selling the war in Iraq. The proper term is lying not spin.
I can only hope that Bush’s legacy will be a much greater skepticism toward the claims of our government.
Well, most of those against the surge have been calling it a failure since January, so I doubt much will change their minds when Sept rolls around, no matter how much “progress” has been made. The September report is likely to be a mixed bag with progress in some areas and none in others, which will give each side ammunition to use against the other. However, the anti-surge side is basically saying (and has been saying for months now) that if the war isn’t “won” by September then the surge is a patent failure. I think that’s dishonest. A more honest position would be the argument that the time required for the surge to work, even if progress is being made, is not worth the ultimate cost in blood and treasure – but no one is making that argument, instead calling it a failure before it even began.
That is partially true. The administration has consistently failed to manage expectations, keep the American people informed, etc. The President never provided the leadership necessary to settle all the disputes within the administration on what the post-war environment should be. Contrary to Rovian conspiracy theories, a major problem was that factions within the administration agreed on going to war, but didn’t agree about the reasons and how to go about it. Going in, for example, the DoD under Rummy was planning a quick invasion followed by State installing a government of exiles (probably led by Chalabi) and then pulling out. The declassified top secret war-planning documents show that the DoD planned to have only 5k troops in Iraq by 2006 and it assumed that all the political stuff would be taken care of by the State Department. The military, in essence, planned to get in and get out, which partially explains why it was so unprepared for a long-term occupation.
Competing with Rummy’s view were idealogues like Wolfowitz who was a true believer in the whole ME democracy meme. There were other competing interests as well. When it became obvious the DoD’s get-in-get-out strategy would not work because Iraq was, shockingly, not the heterogeneous “nation” the administration believed it was, chaos and confusion ensued giving the insurgency time to get its foot in the door. Elements of the CPA under Bremer had all these same factions who were all working on their own agendas. The lack of an overall coherent strategy that everyone would sing to is a major element to the disaster we have today.
Anyway, I agree Bush deserves most of the blame for this fiasco, but opponents did not hit on this “dump Iraq on the next President” meme until just recently when it was obvious by 2004 (at least to those of us schooled in such matters) that pacifying Iraq would be a long, multi-year effort.
Chris,
It’s the same plan the Democrats have been attaching to various bills for several months now – the one that calls for withdrawal of all forces from Iraq by April 2008 except for those engaged in training, counter-terrorism, force protection, and a couple of other missions. Military experts have stated that the force required to meet the missions in the Democratic plan would require somewhere between 50k-80k troops – some estimates have even gone as high as 100k. Of course, the Democrats don’t talk about such numbers because their base would get very angry as Pelosi et al have been selling it as a “get out of Iraq” plan. It’s not at all a “get out of Iraq plan” and, actually, the end result would look a lot like Casey’s plan in 2005-2006 which got us the civil war and the Samarra bombing.
Entropy,
Gotchya. My gut feeling is that the particular plan you’re talking about is designed to maintain control over the oil fields without even trying to help the Iraqis at all. Training and counter-terrorism is just a smoke-screen.
But there are plans by other Dems like Richardson, Kucinich and Gravel that would get all of our troops the hell out of there. And if the Dems actually decided to publically discuss all these plans at once, then I think we’d see the public getting behind a true withdrawal rather than just a force reduction.
There is no good way out of this mess. Either route is laden with a sickening waste in lives and resources so really it doesn’t matter if we stay there for 9 more years or we pull out and create a slaughter that kills just as many in 6 months.
Just thinking about the idiot that got us in this oh-so-avoidable quagmire on his whim sets my blood to boiling. And the weekly slaps in the face we get whenever Bush gets up there to propose ANOTHER solution based on the same thinking that got us her,e as if the last 4 years didn’t happen, isn’t helping.
Well, it will be interesting to see what will happen in September, since Petraeus has already said that that will be too soon to see real progress. Unless we are willing to commit to an endless occupation while the Iraqi government fumbles around, the arbitrary deadlines are as silly as arbitrary timelines. We may be able to make military progress, but it is meaningless without political gains.
The real question is how long we can continue down this road, spending 12 billion a month and losing heavier casualties, without public support.
Actually, no. I think the public would be thrilled to have half or more troops home and the rest on their way home. The GOP surely isn’t offering that.
Chris
There are no plans that have even the slightest hope of being adopted that call for the removal of all troops. That just wont happen no matter who wins what. That is a reality.
I know everyone is tired of Bush linking Iraq to 9/11, but what he said does not rise to a lie. Al Qaeda did cause 9/11 and there are groups identifying themselves as Al Qaeda now in Iraq. He links the two but does not directly say those in Iraq committed 9/11 as I feel Shaun claims.
Of course it is true that Al Qaeda was not significant in Iraq before we invaded.
It would be helpful if those who are representing what Petraeus has said would review what he actually said, rather than what left wing bloggers say that he said.
Think Progress had this breathless analysis, as though they had Petraeus in a gotcha moment:
Is it not obvious that Petraeus is the one who is being consistent? He has said all along that he thinks there will be some criteria by Sept to evaluate whether or not the surge strategy has helped; he has never, of course, stated in any way shape or form that the surge mission would be completed by then. Yet now, when asked if it would be completed and he replies (completely consistent with his former statements), no, it will not, and TP acts as though this is preposterous.
Like I said, Congress set September as the arbitrary date for a progress report, not Petreaus and It’s no accident September was the month they picked.
They have only identified themselves with bin ladin’s AQ to cash in on that group’s popularity (and they’ve since changed their name). The goals of AQI are quite different – being local and regional as opposed to global and focused on the West. AQI has little interest in attacking North America – they, like most of the salafist groups in Iraq – are instead interested in toppling our weak but rich friends the Kuwaiti’s, Saudi’s, etc.
Entropy- If you read the first quote from Petraeus in CS comment #28, you see that he said that September would give him enough time to see if the surge was working. So, even if Congress arbitrarily picked this date, Petraeus and the administration went along with it. Also, during the confirmation he gave the distinct impression that altho counterinsurgencies take an average of 9 years, he did not believe that US forces had to be present that long.
The real problem is that the Iraqi forces are worthless, the Shiite-led government has chosen not to work towards reconciliation and power-sharing, and the only progress that is being made on any front is being made militarily by us. Even that level of progress can’t be maintained forever, because our forces are too small. How many more tours can American soldiers be expected to do in Iraq? Recruiting is another problem, because the existing troops are being so badly used.
Rather than fighting over what “he said vs they said” on the true conditions of Iraq, we should examine the more important issue is – what do the Iraqis want?
The answer is obvious to me – what they want is NOT what the US/Bush wants. Maliki wants an absolute Shite dominated Iraq with few if any minority rights. That is been obvious since he became PM. Sadr wants a Shite theocracy. Hakim wants a mini Shite only mini state in southern Iraq. The Sunnis want to run Iraq again. The Kurds just want to be left alone to their own country. These are the major players and notice none of them want a multi-ethnic democracy like Bush wants. Regardless of what Iraqi faction ultimately comes out on top, none of the scenerios match our desires.
None of these players are going to give up their dream of “their” Iraq. We can beat Maliki over the head for years and he is not going to change and neither are the objectives of the respective political parties. Our military is beating it’s head aginst the wall trying to establish an Iraq that the Iraqis DON”T WANT! How long will it take for the political people (Republicans and too many Democrats) in this country to figure that out? I think the American people have already figured out that the Iraqis don’t want what we’re offering.
I think that most of your assessments of Iraqi politicians and political parties are true (except I’m not as convinced that Maliki wants to deny Sunni rights- I think he’s just not a strong enough leader to force others to accept the terms of reconciliation with the Sunnis). But that doesn’t mean that the average Iraqi doesn’t want a stable, united Iraq. And any polling data we get isn’t very useful either; people obviously have lived under coercive fears for decades and they aren’t too keen on giving out opinions that might not match with those of the militia that is ruling their neighborhood.