Sometimes I can't believe what he screws up the nerve to write.
In these circumstances, it’s amazing that George Bush decided on the surge. And looking back, one thing is clear: Every personal trait that led Bush to make a hash of the first years of the war led him to make a successful decision when it came to this crucial call.
Bush is a stubborn man. Well, without that stubbornness, that unwillingness to accept defeat on his watch, he never would have bucked the opposition to the surge.
Bush is an outrageously self-confident man. Well, without that self-confidence he never would have overruled his generals.
Without that stubbornness he would never have invaded. And that self-confidence made him override his generals during, if you'll forgive my loose use of language, the planning stages of the invasion of Iraq.
In fact, when it comes to Iraq, Bush was at his worst when he was humbly deferring to the generals and at his best when he was arrogantly overruling them.
That means he's at his worst right now.
WILLIAMS: Tonight we’re also able to report new and exclusive details on the politics of the war in Iraq, specifically involving President Bush and members of his own party. For that we are joined by our Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert. What do we know?
RUSSERT: Brian, all eyes on the Republican Party. How long will they support the president’s position on the Iraq war? Yesterday may have been a defining pivotal moment. At 2:30 in the afternoon in the private quarters of the White House, the Salarium room, 11 Republican congressmen had a private meeting with the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the chief political adviser Karl Rove and the White House Press Secretary Tony Snow and others. It was headed by Mark Kirk of Illinois and Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania. It was, in the words of one of the parties, the “most unvarnished conversation they’ve ever had with the president.” Another member said he has met with three presidents and never have been so can candid. They told the president, and one said, “My district is prepared for defeat. We need candor, we need honesty, Mr. President.” The president responded, “I don’t want to pass this off to another president. I don’t want to pass this off, particularly, to a Democratic president,” underscoring he understood how serious the situation was. Brian, the Republican congressman then went on to say, “The word about the war and its progress cannot come from the White House or even you, Mr. President. There is no longer any credibility. It has to come from Gen. Petraeus.” The meeting lasted an hour and 15 minutes and was, in the words of one, “remarkable for the bluntness and no-holds-barred honesty in the message delivered by all these Republican congressmen.”
WILLIAMS: And Tim, in the seconds remaining, how did the president react, and how then did this affect the instructions for Vice President Cheney heading off to Iraq.
RUSSERT: One congressman said, “How can our sons and daughters spill their blood while the Iraqi government goes on vacation?” The president responded, “The vice president is over there to tell them, do not go on vacation.”
Tim, as always, thanks.
Bush has been talking about deferring to the generals since before the invasion, sloughing blame off onto them, firing or retiring those that disagreed, until finally no one...not even members of his own party...wanted to hear another damn thing from him.
David Brooks thinks we don't remember that. And the NY Times pays him to write this crap.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
The Bush administration must
The Bush administration must be paying David Brooks also. This is insulting.
This is the exact type psychobabble that got us into this war. Bush was bolstered into thinking that his bravado was a substitute for sound diplomacy. This administration is an infectious hive of this kind of neo-moronic-con spin that seems to have taken over the McCain camp.
The New York Times pays
The New York Times pays David Brooks, William Kristol and used to pay Judith Miller and only God knows who else to write crap. Another fine example of crap is Cohen's column in today's Washington Post. It is ludicrous and it completely ignores McCain playing fast and loose with the campaign finance laws.
I can write crap! Where do I
I can write crap! Where do I sign up for that job?
The Leader is always right
This is something I notice a lot in my research of state propaganda under totalitarian regimes: the Leader is always right. His instincts are pure, infallible, even... divinely guided.
Hence the obsession on the part of the Right with Pres. Clinton's marital infidelities, even as they cheerfully acknowledge his accusers were all en flagrante delicto. POTUS is supposed to be an intermediary between God and man, and it makes no difference if the associate priests are arrant, so long as they police the high priest. So the experts either validate what POTUS wants to do, or they're apostates and wicked.
This meme was strong during the 3rd Reich and the Control Faction regime in Japan, 1936-1945.
James, What cultural factors
James,
What cultural factors do you think accounts for this sort of behavior among observant Jews like Brooks, Kristol, Goldberg, Lieberman etc? This kind of attitude, not their political conservatism, seems greatly at odds with their religious beliefs. Do you have any insight into their attitudes based on any research you have done.
I'm going to add Barnicle to this group. You know one keeps
on coming back to ' what are the qualifications?'
Kristol is part of the intellectual cabal that gets us into this boondoggle and is rewarded..
REWARDED with a column in the NYTimes.
Good grief
You're telling me that there wasn't ONE OTHER REPUBLICAN that could have gotten that column?
Then Barnicle goes an PLAGARIZES..
Not only does he continue to be employed, but also gets a TV gig.
Go figure.
I hope my sarcasm dripped through, cause from where I sit, they only have one qualification....
think about what it is.
OT: Ron Christie is a straight up CLOWN
that.is.all.