Thursday, August 17, 2006

Bush's Frustration

NY Times yesterday:

President Bush made clear in a private meeting this week that he was concerned about the lack of progress in Iraq and frustrated that the new Iraqi government — and the Iraqi people — had not shown greater public support for the American mission, participants in the meeting said Tuesday.

Those who attended a Monday lunch at the Pentagon that included the president’s war cabinet and several outside experts said Mr. Bush carefully avoided expressing a clear personal view of the new prime minister of Iraq, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.
But in what participants described as a telling line of questioning, Mr. Bush did ask each of the academic experts for their assessment of the prime minister’s effectiveness.
“I sensed a frustration with the lack of progress on the bigger picture of Iraq generally — that we continue to lose a lot of lives, it continues to sap our budget,” said one person who attended the meeting. “The president wants the people in Iraq to get more on board to bring success.”

More generally, the participants said, the president expressed frustration that Iraqis had not come to appreciate the sacrifices the United States had made in Iraq, and was puzzled as to how a recent anti-American rally in support of Hezbollah in Baghdad could draw such a large crowd. “I do think he was frustrated about why 10,000 Shiites would go into the streets and demonstrate against the United States,” said another person who attended.
--------

From the Daily Kos:

...reality is coming back to bite BushCo in the butt--all the purple fingers in Iraq can't actually bring about democracy. An election conducted during a foreign occupation and absent any domestic normalization or reconciliation isn't a real election, and the violence just keeps getting worse.

Along with a sharp increase in sectarian attacks, the number of daily strikes against American and Iraqi security forces has doubled since January. The deadliest means of attack, roadside bombs, made up much of that increase. In July, of 2,625 explosive devices, 1,666 exploded and 959 were discovered before they went off. In January, 1,454 bombs exploded or were found....

"The insurgency has gotten worse by almost all measures, with insurgent attacks at historically high levels," said a senior Defense Department official who agreed to discuss the issue only on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for attribution. "The insurgency has more public support and is demonstrably more capable in numbers of people active and in its ability to direct violence than at any point in time."

A separate, classified report by the Defense Intelligence Agency, dated Aug. 3, details worsening security conditions inside the country and describes how Iraq risks sliding toward civil war, according to several officials who have read the document or who have received a briefing on its contents.

The administration continues to steadfastly deny that Iraq is sliding toward civil war, much less in the throes of one right now. Despite all evidence to the contrary, they insist that everything is going according to plan. Meanwhile, commanders on the ground have to try to marshall limited resources to respond to increasing violence around the country, like some kind of gruesome game of whack-a-mole, deploying troops first here and then there, with casualty counts continuing apace and serious injuries increasing.

Some see movement in the administration on Iraq, an indication that perhaps what can only be called the real reality is sinking in.
"Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy," said one military affairs expert who received an Iraq briefing at the White House last month and agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity.

"Everybody in the administration is being quite circumspect," the expert said, "but you can sense their own concern that this is drifting away from democracy."

But I don't buy it. Here's Bush today:
President Bush said critics of his Iraq policies are advocating a "cut and run" strategy that would draw terrorists to American soil.
"Leaving before we complete our mission would create a terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East, a country with huge oil reserves that the terrorist network would be willing to use to extract economic pain from those of us who believe in freedom," Bush said Wednesday.
"If we leave before the mission is complete, if we withdraw, the enemy will follow us home," he said.

Is Bush an idiot? I'll leave the final word to Wolcott:

Is water wet?
Is Colin Farrell stubbly? . . .

Unlike other two-term presidents, Bush hasn't grown in office, become an old familiar whose irritating traits and lapses could be accepted almost affectionately, like Reagan's dottiness. He's demonstrably diminished, dwarfed by the reality that he continues to deny and repeating himself in press conferences like a robot whose wiring is on the fritz, for whom words and phrases are nothing more than pre-programmed units of sound. He's more irritating and dangerous than ever before, because he doesn't know anything, doesn't know or care that he doesn't know anything, and yet persists in a path of destruction as if it were the road to salvation. It's finally dawned on responsible minds that Bush could take all of us down with him before he and the neocons are through.
---------

I'm sure that nobody could have anticipated the fact that Iraqi's wouldn't respond well to a pre-emptive invasion and occupation.... experimenting with unfamiliar forms of government, a death toll well above 50,000 people and so on. That's a sweet deal! I'm sure American's would respond passively if we were invaded by France tommorow. Nobody could have anticipated....

9 Comments:

At 2:54 PM EDT, Blogger k2aggie07 said...

Actually, we've started to turn over districts to the Iraqi army, completely ending our combat involvement in several provinces.

More and more of the raids that are happening with Iraq are either being planned and conducted entirely by Iraqis or are only being assisted by us, instead of the other way around.

Leaving before we complete our mission would create a terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East, a country with huge oil reserves that the terrorist network would be willing to use to extract economic pain from those of us who believe in freedom.

This is false? I think its a very true statement. Now as to whether or not this is something that the American public will be able to stomach (as in, can we persevere) we'll see. But indeed, if we leave now we're going to be in trouble.

He's more irritating and dangerous than ever before, because he doesn't know anything, doesn't know or care that he doesn't know anything, and yet persists in a path of destruction as if it were the road to salvation.

I think this quote is pretty telling. You could easily change this around to read "He's more irritating and dangerous because he doesn't agree with me, doesn't care that he doesn't agree with me, and is not taking my advice!".

Can we get off of the mantra that Bush is an idiot? I've demonstrated repeatedly that he's at least as intelligent as his counterparts on the left. He's a guy that does what he thinks is right in spite of (or without regard to) public opinion. Just because you particularly disagree, doesn't make him "know nothing".

I'd imagine that given the information he has, many people would make similar decisions.

 
At 8:25 PM EDT, Blogger Matt said...

You mean the districts where there aren't any people? Usually violence happens where people are. Or the districts where there is only one distinct ethnic group? The places that are never going to be controlled are the populated areas like baghdad.

I totally agree with that statement, the fact that iraq would become a terrorist state. It already is, and if we left it would become worse. Rarely will you ever see me arguing for an immediate withdrawal from that country. I'm just soooo frustrated because Bush's administration got us into this mess and now were stuck. There's nothing that we can do. Iraq descends into chaos and no matter how hard we try to make it better, the worse it gets.

Using that same train of thought, I can understand why some people want an immediate withdrawal. Get our sons and daughters out of harms way... especially if them being there is proving to be unhelpful. I know, I know, we're there now and there's nothing we can do about it. So stop whining right? I'm going to whine and bitch about this until the day I die. Invading Iraq was THE STUPIDEST decision any president has ever made. YOu could argue that truman's decision to drop not one, but two nuclear bombs on japan comes in at a close second. We could argue about that decision all day long, because I'm sure that you wholeheartedly support it.

I don't think Bush is an idiot based on his intelligence. I think Bush is an idiot because it doesn't seem that he is able to understand the complexity of political situations. Everything is black and white. You're either with him or against him, the world is black and white, and if you are against the United States, you're automatically EVIL, a demon from the inner circle of hell.

Bush was a C student at Yale. His whole life, he was tutored by the best. He was a cokehead and an alcoholic. He ran two oil businesses into the ground. That doesn't sound like a very smart man to me. He succeeded because of his family name. If he wasn't a Bush, he's be working at a 711 right now.

 
At 2:52 PM EDT, Blogger k2aggie07 said...

Those were the first provinces. As of today, the Iraqi army is prepared to assume complete authority in 16 of 18 provinces and controls at least 5. Your snarkiness is unjustified and also uninformed.

You don't know how this whole thing is going to turn out. You have already demonstrated (above) that you also know little about what is even going on right now -- how are you prepared to make a judgement call on the future?

I predict right now that in ten years Iraq will be a stable ally of ours, similar to West Germany and the Japan of today. I don't think Iraq is descending into chaos. I think there has been a lot of good done there, and I think a lot of good will continue to happen.

Invading Iraq was not the stupidest decision ever made. If it was, then every single member of congress who voted for it is equally culpable. Iraq has been politicized to be the stupidest decision ever, and if the left has its way it will turn into a major rout.

As far as Truman's decision goes, I don't think you've read much about it at all if you think that it wasn't a good decision. Theres a very good paper on it here, the conclusion of which reads

There are a good many more points that now extend our understanding beyond the debates of 1995. But it is clear that all three of the critics' central premises are wrong. The Japanese did not see their situation as catastrophically hopeless. They were not seeking to surrender, but pursuing a negotiated end to the war that preserved the old order in Japan, not just a figurehead emperor. Finally, thanks to radio intelligence, American leaders, far from knowing that peace was at hand, understood--as one analytical piece in the "Magic" Far East Summary stated in July 1945, after a review of both the military and diplomatic intercepts--that "until the Japanese leaders realize that an invasion can not be repelled, there is little likelihood that they will accept any peace terms satisfactory to the Allies." This cannot be improved upon as a succinct and accurate summary of the military and diplomatic realities of the summer of 1945.

We could argue it all day long, but you'd be straight wrong. Roughly 400,000 people a month were dying in victim countries (i.e. countries Japan attacked) in Asia. Thats 13,333 a day. The bombings killed an estimated 214,000 civilians of the aggressor country.

I don't think you have enough information to make those kind of judgements about Bush. I don't think you get the documents he gets, or hear the intelligence he hears, or even get the rumors he gets. You know almost nothing beyond what the media feeds you.

What is the complexity of the political situation that he's missing? Explain it here, in detail, and I'll send an email to Dr. Gates (the president of the University I work at, and former director of the CIA) and I'll ask him -- Does Bush know this?

Don't you see how ludicrous that sounds?

 
At 5:07 PM EDT, Blogger Matt said...

The Iraq war has been a massive boost to Osama bin Laden. "It validated so much of what he has said and told Muslims: that the Americans want Arab oil; that the Americans will destroy any Muslim regime that appears to be powerful; the Americans will destroy any country that appears to be a threat to the Israelis; and they're willing to invade any Muslim country if it suits their interests.

Conservatives are always accusing us libs of being "out of touch" with reality... in our own fantasy world, blah blah blah. Does me getting my information from major newspapers, liberal (and conservative) blogs and occasionally 24 hour news channels automatically make me "out of touch"? What am I missing Matt? Tell me where to go, guide me to the light!

Am I not paying attention to how GREAT it's going in Iraq or are you conveniently choosing to ignore these facts:

· The number of bomb attacks carried out or attempted by the insurgency in July - 2,625 - was the highest total yet during the war, and the daily average of attacks against US forces is running at twice the rate it was in January.

· A senior Pentagon official asserts that the Iraqi resistance "has more public support and is demonstrably more capable in numbers of people active ... than at any point in time."

· The number of US soldiers wounded in attacks has risen from 287 in January to 518 in July, although better protection has led to a small drop in the number deaths.

· Some 70% of bomb attacks are directed at US or other occupying forces, 20% at Iraqi forces and only 10% at civilians.

· The attempt to subdue Baghdad, launched in June, has failed.

· One source privy to White House thinking is quoted as saying "senior administration officials ... are considering alternatives other than democracy" for Iraq. It has been reported elsewhere that Bush believes that the Maliki government is insufficiently grateful to the US in public.

Bush is obviously getting 'different' information than I am (at least the public bush; the private bush sounds like he's getting a little nervous).

So, based on the idea that Bush recieves information that I don't, you're implying that I should automatically forgive him for any decision he has ever made.... wow, and you think I sound ludicrous? I don't even need to explain why I think that's incredibly naive of you to say that. To me, that's akin to blind faith in authority; something that, as you know, makes me cringe.

Bush does not understand the complexity of many situations. As I've said before, he was unaware in 2003 that there were three distinct ethnic groups in Iraq. I know that doesn't sound like much, but he's the friggin President of the United States!

----
http://www.slate.com/id/2096654/
(great article from 2004)
From foreign to economic to social policy, Bush's record is a lesson in the limits and perils of conviction. He's too confident to consult a map. He's too strong to heed warnings and too steady to turn the wheel when the road bends. He's too certain to admit error, even after plowing through ditches and telephone poles. He's too preoccupied with principle to understand that principle isn't enough. Watching the stars instead of the road, he has wrecked the budget and the war on terror. Now he's heading for the Constitution. It's time to pull him over and take away the keys.

Bush was right to go to war against the terrorists who struck us on 9/11. He was right to demand the overdue use of force against the scofflaw Iraqi regime. But he couldn't tell the difference between the two threats. He figured that since both Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were evil, they had to be connected. Saddam must have helped orchestrate the 9/11 attacks. He must have built weapons of mass destruction to sell to al-Qaida.

In recent months, congressional hearings and document leaks have unearthed a disturbing history. Again and again in 2001 and 2002, U.S. intelligence agencies sent signals that Bush was wrong. The FBI and CIA debunked putative links between Iraq and al-Qaida. The CIA rejected the claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Africa. In its National Intelligence Estimate, the CIA calculated that it could take Saddam up to five years to make a nuclear weapon and that he would transfer WMD to terrorists only if he were invaded. The Defense Intelligence Agency advised the administration that there was "no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing or stockpiling chemical weapons." The Air Force disputed the suggestion that Iraq had developed aerial drones capable of delivering chemical or biological toxins. Analysts questioned whether the White House was right that Saddam's aluminum tubes were designed for building nukes, or that two trucks the White House found suspicious were designed for making biological weapons.

Bush ignored every one of these warnings. They couldn't be true, because they didn't fit his theory. He couldn't stand the complexity of the facts or the ambiguity of intelligence. "Until we get rid of Saddam Hussein, we won't get rid of uncertainty," he told aides in November 2002. Four months later, on the eve of his invasion of Iraq, he declared, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." After the war, when Diane Sawyer asked Bush about the discrepancy between what he had said--"that there were weapons of mass destruction"--and what U.S. inspectors had found--"the possibility that [Saddam] could move to acquire those weapons"--Bush replied, "What's the difference?"

-----
Do my claims still sound ludicrous? I don't make this stuff up.




P.S. You call me snarky? Read this webpage. He's harsh, and I don't agree with him on everything, but he makes some good points. I don't care if dubya was the prez, or just my next door neighbor. His history, his public presentation, his speech, his below average grades and drug use, all point to a not so smart individual.

http://www.irregulartimes.com/
stupid2.html

 
At 5:20 PM EDT, Blogger Matt said...

Furthermore, where is this information that Bush has in his possession that I haven't seen? You would think that if there was some kind of bulletproof evidence that Saddam Hussein had WMD's or that he was planning to aid anti-american terrorists, or that he was actually planning an attack on the U.S., the administration and especially the administration mouthpiece, Faux News would be trumpeting these facts at the top of their lungs! I've seen bits and pieces of information on captain's website now and then that only showed me Saddam Hussein was interested in national defense... woop-dey doo, how many other governments in the world can you name that specifically concern themselves with defense?.... (that was a rhetorical question)

 
At 10:00 AM EDT, Blogger k2aggie07 said...

Again, you go off on a tirade without really reading anything I posted.

As of today, the Iraqi army is prepared to assume complete authority in 16 of 18 provinces and controls at least 5.

You said

You mean the districts where there aren't any people? Usually violence happens where people are. Or the districts where there is only one distinct ethnic group? The places that are never going to be controlled are the populated areas like baghdad.

This tells me you didn't know. Thats being uninformed. You say Bush didn't know there were three ethnic groups...I don't know how you could possibly know that, though, unless you asked him.

You getting your news from the mainstream newspapers is nothing more than collective back-patting and nodding. I've shown you how the MSM has slanted their Israel cover; you just say "SEPARATE ISRAEL FROM JEWS" even though I never said anything about anti-semitism; I said anti-Israel. I can just as clearly show you evidence of liberal bias in most domestic reports -- and it isn't really surprising, considering that the vast majority of journalists are liberal. People have bias. The problem is they present it as if it were absolute truth.

You're out of touch because you don't even revise your hypothesis. When new evidence is produced to you, you fail to check your initial assumptions and create new ones. You say Bush is stupid; I show from the WaPo he's similar to Gore and Kerry (better grades than one, worse than the other). You drop it, then later say he's stupid again. Its a neverending cycle.

I never said Iraq was the cat's meow right now. However, AQ is pushing for political power (read counterterrorismblog.com, the August 16th briefing covers this...its also on my blog). They can only get political power through popular support, which Zarqawi botched. Now they're appealing to the people. So? They drive a wedge between Shi'a and Sunni. They attack us.

They're also winning the PR war against us, thanks to a little help from TIME magazine's Haditha article which was riddled with lies and inaccuracies (intentional or not, I don't know) from top to bottom, and the media's constant glee to jump all over stories that imply Americans are dumb jerks. We're not going to win until we can control the propaganda war being waged against us -- and people like you who refuse to believe its happening are actually helping the terrorists, whether its AQ or Hezbollah!

AQ is pushing hard because they're cornered, things aren't going well for them, and if they don't do something fast they're done for. This is pretty much par for the course in military engagement (see the Battle of the Bulge, Okinawa, etc).

If only 10% of bombing attacks are targeting civilians, why are the civilian death tolls in excess of 10x that of militar personnel? I'd say your facts are a little skewed.

One source privy to White House thinking is quoted as saying "senior administration officials ... are considering alternatives other than democracy" for Iraq.

That is utter, complete rubbish. I don't even need to really go into how illogical that would be.

Bush is obviously getting 'different' information than I am (at least the public bush; the private bush sounds like he's getting a little nervous).

Thats because you're assuming Bush is two-faced like everyone else. I've met the guy. I've met his dad. He has a sincere, honest commitment to his job. I don't agree with him on everything, but I will tell you this -- he believes he is doing the right thing, regardless of public opinion. In this he is unique among politicians, and in this you can be sure that what he says in public is what he says in private.


So, based on the idea that Bush recieves information that I don't, you're implying that I should automatically forgive him for any decision he has ever made?

No. You should have the intelligence to see that you're assuming that the most powerful man in the world doesn't have one intelligent advisor on his whole staff who just might know a little more than you about whats going on in Iraq and the world, and just might be using those different initial assumptions to arrive at different conclusions than you. I'm not advocating blind faith. You're advocating blind unfaith.

Again, the media has decided there were no WMDs in Iraq. They locked the door. They said "no more, its official, they were never there". How about these various links on captainsquarters. He's taken it upon himself to have many of the documents that were declassified translated by three different translators...and has found some very interesting stuff. This guy is doing more objective sifting than the MSM, and thats sad. The reason? They don't care. They don't want to look. The story is over (says them).

 
At 11:22 AM EDT, Blogger Matt said...

What are you talking about? How did I not respond to your comment? I read it, went over your general points and posted a rebuttal.

From Raw Story:

Former Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith is claiming President George W. Bush was unaware that there were two major sects of Islam just two months before the President ordered troops to invade Iraq, RAW STORY has learned. In his new book, The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created A War Without End, Galbraith, the son of the late economist John Kenneth Galbraith, claims that American leadership knew very little about the nature of Iraqi society and the problems it would face after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

A year after his “Axis of Evil” speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq’s first representative to the United States. The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites. Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam–to which the President allegedly responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!”

You're so right Matt... About EVERYTHING. I'm not going to get into this with you. We're on completely different levels on this subject. Everytime I give YOU information that slightly contradicts the claims that you make, you discredit it... as if all the information you get is bulletproof. I'm a sensative guy, you're starting to offend me.


I became interested in politics around 4 or 5 years ago. Since then, I've seen sooooo much conservative misinformation and spinning of the facts. I'm on the exact opposite side of you on this issue. I don't believe a thing conservative reporters or pundits say, just as you refuse to believe anything the MSM says. You think the MSM is too liberal, I think it's too conservative. We will never agree on this.

Wow... you met the President of the United States! That's pretty cool. Also may be a bit of a factor in you vigorously defending him. I don't think the man is stupid. I just don't think he's up for the job. But, what do I know... I've never met the guy. (even if I had, it's pretty hard to tell if someone is two-faced or not unless you're close to him)

NOBODY knows more than I do about the middle-east! Come on Matt... this is a blog. I try to stay informed, I form an opinion about that information... I post it on my blog. You seem to be getting increasingly upset in your responses. Don't be mad, if you think I'm an uninformed idiot, that's great. I think you read extremely biased, spun and twisted information on die-hard conservative websites. That's where you formulate most of your opinions. Like I said, I just can't bring myself to trust those websites. I've seen so many examples of them wildly speculating about situations in the mideast, spinning every fact to justify the prez's decisions.

You claim that TIME is helping the terrorists in the PR war. I say they are reporting the reality of the situation there. You say that the MSM is anti-israel. I say they're reporting the reality of what's happening there the best they can. You say AQ is cornered and desperate. Dick Cheney said that a year and a half ago.

You whine about how the MSM is biased, and then only choose to listen to people who are obviously, in-your-face biased towards the MSM, liberals and dems.

I'm sorry, but I think that's extremely hypocritical.

I kept saying seperate jews from the nation of israel, because I assumed you were implying that on top of being anti-israel, they were inherently anti-semitic. My bad.

You talk as if you're the be-all-end-all. You post something, and it's SO GOOD that I am automatically suppose to agree with everything you say. If I don't, I'm uninformed and out of touch. I'm not you.

Great rebuttal once again. But you still haven't converted me.

 
At 12:44 PM EDT, Blogger Matt said...

"If only 10% of bombing attacks are targeting civilians, why are the civilian death tolls in excess of 10x that of militar personnel? I'd say your facts are a little skewed."

---- tell that to the military. they were the ones that released this information. you know better than they do though right?

 
At 1:56 PM EDT, Blogger k2aggie07 said...

I don't buy anything anyone writes without running through my internal filter first. I usually read a lot of articles. I don't think the folks that make up the MSM are bad people, or jerks, or idiots, but I do think they have bias, they let it show, and then - the kicker - they claim they don't. They say they're objective, which makes their positions extremely powerful. Anyone can discount a zealot. A swaying position presented from an objective viewpoint is extremely effective. Thats my big gripe.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that when I talk to my buddies that have been to Iraq, my Military Science profs that fought there, my friends who have been injured there, they all tell me the same things: The people love us. We're doing good work. Things are rapidly improving. We have to finish the job.

Then you turn on the 6 o'clock news and you see: Mission failure. Catastrophe. Abu Graib. Haditha massacre. 3094310831 civilians killed. Civil war looms.

And I say to myself, I say "Self. There's a discrepancy here. Why do you think that is?" I can only come up with a few options:

1.) The MSM is lying intentionally to sway public opinion away from the war/ Republican party / Bush.

2.) My family and friends are lying to protect war / Republican party / Bush / their way of life.

3.) MSM is biased against the war and unintentionally slants things "their way".

4.) Nobody really knows whats going on, people are making educated guesses at best.

My guess is that the answer is somewhere between 3 and 4, and occaisionally 1 comes into play.

However, the thing that really gets me riled up is the glee that the media finds in implying that Americans are bad, evil people that are there to rape, torture and steal. That we're there for oil. That we're not doing any good. That we're on the same level as Al Qaeda.

Articles like those shown in Time about Haditha filled with half-truths and lies, lacking journalistic integrity (he interviewed his sources via email for Pete's sake) make me mad because they smell like an agenda. Whether its just desperation for a story or bias, I don't know. I do know I don't like it.

The liberal left in this country has based its entire platform on Bush hatred for almost a decade now. I think it has lost them significant ground in political philosophy and driven a large divide in this country. I don't think in recent years there has ever been as much vitriol on either side of the aisle as there is today. I think the media as a whole is largely to blame; they've facilitated these circumstances. Lastly, I think that many people are using the media outlets to further their own means, and the MSM is all too eager to snap up the stories without stopping to investigate.


The point you missed, the key to what I was saying was this:


What is the complexity of the political situation that he's missing? Explain it here, in detail, and I'll send an email to Dr. Gates and I'll ask him -- Does Bush know this?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home