Bush Fib- no. 4

In his September 13, 2007 speech on Iraq, President Bush said "now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home."

There have been various efforts, by CNN and others, to determine as accurately as possible the number of soldiers whom the President will be ordering withdrawn from Iraq. In any case, it appears to be no more than the number of soldiers constituting the escalation- er, the "surge"- 30,000. Although her prescription for ending the war, I believe, is off-base, Trudy Rubin in today's Philadelphia Inquirer correctly states:

What Bush failed to tell you is where things really stand in Iraq and what must be done to avoid future disasters. The president didn't mention that the force reductions he announced are not "a return on success," as he claims. They are happening because the military has run out of troops.

Ever since the surge began, top military commanders made clear that the 30,000 extra soldiers were dangerously overstretching the Army and Marines. When I was in Baghdad in June, every senior officer I spoke to said those troops would have to start leaving by March or April of 2008. Otherwise, the military could not maintain its already onerous rotation schedule.

There is heavy and open debate among top military brass about maintaining even post-surge levels. So the president insults the public by pretending the cuts are due to military success.

And commenting on MSNBC, retired General Jack Jacobs- hardly a dove- stated that the decision to cut troop level already had been made because the U.S.A. "can't sustain this level of military deployment."

Thus, the decision to remove soldiers has been, notwithstanding the President's remark, not made "because of the measure of success we're seeing in Iraq." And that's assuming we believe that Mr. Bush would determine that the best time to remove soldiers is when those soldiers are demonstrating success, a strange tactical policy.

Bush Cowering

I'm not always negative. Chris Matthews can be infuriating, disingenuous and, to some guests, obsequious, but often insightful, and on Tuesday night he was at his best. As host, with Keith Olbermann, of MSNBC's coverage of President Bush's speech on Iraq, Matthews pounded on the relationship of Mr. Bush to General Petraeus. He noted "this President has tried to make him (Petraeus) the chief salesman for the policy" and "it's not the job of a military man to sell the policy. It's the job of the commander-in-chief." When guest Mike Huckabee made the usual, dishonest comment about politicians inserting their beliefs for those of the "guys getting shot at," Matthews shot back, noting the President is a "politican" and asserting "they should be calling the shots in Iraq, not asking the military to set the policy. They should be setting the policy and defending it. It's their policy." And Matthews, who before the speech reminded us that the Administration's best argument is "the critics were right- we're stuck," ended the evening by maintaining that the American people will find it "very frustrating" if they believe "the only reason we're in Iraq is we're afraid to leave."

We have a President lacking the courage to present his policy as his policy, instead cowering behind a General whose statement reportedly was reviewed by Mr. Bush's astute political strategist, Ed Gillespie. And we have a President who, having made it clear that he wants to leave this war to his successor, seems willing to sacrifice American lives for the sake of his legacy.

Quote(s) Of The Week:

both from MSNBC's coverage following President Bush's Iraq speech tonight-

by Keith Olbermann, to Patrick Buchanan, regarding Mr. Bush's plan for a U.S. presence in Iraq well beyond January, 2009:

"Did we all know that this was not a date, but a wedding, five years ago?"


by Rachel Maddow of Air America:

"There's almost nothing really weirder than hearing George Bush, of all people, warn ominously about people who want to topple Iraq's government."

Exploiting September 11

He just couldn't stop himself. Like a junkie who (as the theory goes) cannot curb his addiction, the President seems unable to curb his behavior. Yet again he exploits the memory of September 11. In this case, approximately 75% into his speech on Iraq tonight, Mr. Bush stated "and as we saw on September the 11th, 2001, those dangers can reach our cities and kill our people." Trying to link the terrorist attacks and the secular regime of Saddam Hussein (which distrusted and disliked al-Qaeda) would make an honorable man a little uncomfortable, but for Mr. Bush it is now second nature.

Bush fib- no. 3

Amidst all the distorted and misleading remarks made by President Bush in his speech on Iraq tonight, there is one statement which is clearly, unambiguously, inaccurate. I find it difficult to believe the President would be unaware his comment is false, though if we later find that he has fired the individual who placed this inaccuracy in his speech, I will retract my assertion that it is a falsehood. Approximately 80% through his statement, Mr. Bush said "we thank the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq and the many others who are helping that young democracy."

According to globalsecurity.org, however, as of February, 2007 "there were 21 non-U.S. military forces committing armed forces to the coalition in Iraq." This is not an inconsequential error, and probably not unintentional.

GOP Distorts MoveOn Ad

The following was posted yesterday, Tuesday, September 11, 2007 on the Huckabee for President website:


The disgraceful act of the leftist organization, moveon.org, has marked a new low watermark in American discourse. To accuse a patriotic, honorable, and highly decorated soldier like General David Petraeus of treason by intimating that he had betrayed his duty, his honor, and his country is appalling.

The full page ad in the New York Times run by this organization is an attack on our entire military – and George Soros should spend an equal amount of his vast wealth for another full page ad apologizing to General Petraeus and to every American who has served or who is serving in the military.

The very people who Soros savaged with his vile, despicable, and cowardly attack are the ones who have earned Mr. Soros and people of his ilk the right to display their pathetic hatred of this nation's military in a public forum.

While an apology to General Petraeus would be in order, one can’t expect it from the caliber of people who are devoid of dignity.

I call on every candidate for President, whether Democrat or Republican, to join in a condemnation of this outrageous insult to our military. The fact that such an abuse of free speech is legal doesn’t make it right or responsible. Surely everyone who wishes to be Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces can agree that the attack on the character of a General currently directing our troops in battle deserves condemnation. I hope that Democratic and Republican candidates alike will take a stand and denounce this dishonorable act."

So much wrong with this statement and so little time to point it out.... but I'll start by noting that the ad in question is "no attack on our entire military" nor is it "an outrageous insult to our military." The former Arkansas governor deserves credit for referring to the "Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces" rather than, as the current President does, the "Commander in Chief". (This may reflect more than a semantic difference, Mr. Bush's nomenclature unsurprising in a man who believes that he is not to be questioned by anyone or anything, least of all the two other branches of the federal government.)

More disturbing, though, is that Huckabee- and the other Republicans who have leapt onto the ad without questioning its veracity- have embraced a double standard. Yesterday, on September 11, Rudy Giuliani saw fit to take center stage at the 9/11 commemoration in lower Manhattan. But appearing were other notables- including the right-wing author Ann Coulter, who in "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" wrote of widows who formed a group after their husbands were killed in the terrorist attacks "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." She called them "self-obsessessed women" (who) "believed the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony." CBS News reported that she dubbed them "The Witches of East Brunswick.", referring to the town in New Jersey in which two of them then lived.

Given that Rudy Giuliani's campaign theme is "I was there at 9/11, Elect Me," it would be especially appropriate for a rival for the nomination, such as Huckabee, to question Giuliani's involvement with Coulter. We await such statements by Mr. Huckabee, Mitch McConnell, and others so exorcised by MoveOn.org's ad.

Rudy Giuliani, Failure Of 9/11

When Time Magazine named Rudy Giuliani its "Man of the Year" for 2001, it gushed "a hero to many, an icon of steadfastness in the midst of chaos, for his surprisingly subtle touch, for his many real tears and for reluctantly taking center stage." On May 17, 2007, the former mayor was portrayed by The New York Times as having "created a narrative around his candidacy that presents him as a powerful symbol of national security by stressing his leadership of New York City after the attacks."

More accurately: failure to provide workable radios for firefighters, contributing to approximately 200 losing their lives; placement of the city's command center at the only site in the U.S.A. which had been attacked by Islamic terrorists (and one which they had vowed to return to)- an idea criticized by his Director of Emergency Management; according to the International Association of Fire Fighters, calling off the rescue mission once $200 million in gold bullion was recovered; and appearing at the site of the attacks without a respirator-mask and proclaiming "no significant problems" with the air at the World Trade Center (As Rolling Stone points out, "since the cleanup ended, police and firefighters have reported a host of serious illnesses -- respiratory ailments like sarcoidosis; leukemia and lymphoma and other cancers; and immune-system problems.")

The "hero of 9/11?" That sounds a lot like the worn-out and tired, but applicable, cliche: a man kills his parents and begs the jury for foregiveness because he is an orphan. Except that the defendant in this case is neither humble nor contrite, and has had the mainstream media pushing his message for six years.