President Bush probably needs to appear strong and resolute in order to convince Congress to support — or at least not to block — his troop surge plan in Iraq. But his "60 Minutes" interview Sunday conveyed another quality: obstinacy, that Bush doesn’t care what anyone else thinks. "I’ve made my decision. And we’re going forward," Bush said.
Vice President Dick Cheney was also unyielding. "You cannot run a war by committee," Cheney told "Fox News Sunday." But can you appear to blow off the concerns of Congress, military leaders, Iraqi officials and the 70 percent of Americans who oppose the surge and still expect success?
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
61 Comments
The unspoken foe in the Iraq and middle east situation is waiting in the wings for the Iraq and middle east situation to play out. Let the U.S. waste its resources. And let the Iraqies and Iranians waste their infrastrucure and resources. It doesn’t matter.
Because, waiting patiently nearby, for the oil remaining underground ……
One word, China, already has oil geologists and drilling companies hard at work in Africa, only a hop, skip and jump from the middle east. JWink
And are we so surprised by Bush’s obstinance? This man has been obstinate from day one. Of course Bush loyalists would say that he was strong in his conviction. I just call it as it is – stubborn.
The fool is the one that refuses to learn from their mistakes.
I agree with JWink – I think we need to be more concerned about China than the Middle East. While Bush is busy playing war president in Iraq and Iran – China is ready, willing and capable of taking over at any point in the game. And since we are now in debt to China to finance this Iraq war, that does not leave us much negotiating power with China – does it?
But for the meantime, Halliburton people are making out like bandits and that is all Cheney is concerned about.
Isn’t the definition of a fool, a person who does the same thing over and over and expects a different outcome?
Steve – I think the word is insanity.
Bush, like Tallyrand said of the Bourbon Kings, learns nothing, and forgets nothing.
He’s done. Time to impeach.
We have to understand that a big game is being played.
China’s modernization is going to require vast amounts of petro-energy. As conventional oil reserves drop, and the alternatives, such as sand/shale oil, wind and solar, are much more expensive in dollars/BTU or dollars/joule of energy, the profit-margin potential for owners of conventional oil reserves will skyrocket, as the end-users’ price of energy will be vastly higher than conventional-oil production costs.
The full profit picture is somewhat illusory, because it depends on using American taxpayers’ dollars to capture “The Prize”. (Bloggers here should read Daniel Yergen’s Pulitzer Prize-winning book, whose title I am borrowing.) And if capturing “The Prize” results in some American capitalists’ making shiploads of money selling high-profit energy to China, and China’s taking American manufacturing jobs, too bad for you little industrial-worker taxpayers who are funding the offshoring of your own jobs, but that’s life. Unless you want to stop it.
President Cheney and his sidekick Georgie wouldn’t care if Iraq descended into civil war, and eventually the Iraqis settled things on their own–EXCEPT THAT THEY WOULD GET THE LION’S SHARE OF PROFITS. They’d be happy to deal with Exxon Mobil, BP Amoco, and Chevron, to develop and pump their oil fields, but these companies would have to settle for moderate free-market profits, rather than American militarily- imposed awesomely high profits. Not to mention aiding American corporations to get a better handle on China’s industrial growth, and make money transferring American jobs overseas where labor costs are much lower. In other words, if you control the energy, you can create coat-tail trade agreements that benefit other American corporations. That’s capitalism.
so the Iraq War really was about the control of the oil after all Heartlander?
It seems to me that for a person to not admit a mistake, or when presented with new contrary information, not to change their mind, says much about their self-esteem, or lack thereof.
Case in point- Himself.
Imagine the potential alternate energy technologies that might be developed with a half-trillion dollar investment.
In fifty years or so, people are going to be astounded that people wasted petroleum as fuel. Oil is the key to plastics technologies, to all sorts of chemical processes. And we set fire to it?!
MonkeyHawk,
I’ve wondered about that exact point for quite awhile with regard to plastics. As a culture, much less as a species, we seem to have a hard time seeing beyond the end of our noses.
I read the U.S. is not the leader in solar, or wind power technology development. Says a lot about our priorities.
Pentagon planners this week warned President George W. Bush that his “troop surge” plan could double U.S. casualties in Iraq in the coming year and result in 10,000 or more American deaths by the end of 2008. (with more than 100,000 wounded and/or maimed for life.) In a classified assessment memo, military experts predicted violence against U.S. troops will increase “at a sustained pace” and concluded that increasing the use of soldiers for house to house searches in Baghdad will “dramatically alter” the “ratio of casualties to actions” in that civil-war torn city, says a military source familiar with the memo.
In an appearance before the Senate Armed Services committee Thursday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice refused to provide an estimate of U.S. casualties, saying such estimates are not possible but the Pentagon assessment had been delivered to the White House on Tuesday, two days before her testimony.
Military planners, as a matter of course, prepare casualty estimates as part of any action.
Senators from both sides of the aisle told Rice they did not believe her testimony, saying too many Bush administration officials have lied to Congress too many times.
News stories continually make the point that BushCo is going out around the country and to allies to “sell” the escalation.
Excuse me? If his mind is made up, what’s the point trying to sell the idea? To me it just highlights how stubborn he is. He might as well go out and flip us all the bird.
Lincoln had the same question asked of him. Lincoln was absolutely sure about what he wanted and for a long time it wasn’t happening. Eventually it worked out. Was he resolute or obstinate?
Fleetwood, are you TRYING to compare George W Bush to Lincoln?
Really?
No. But, you do avoid my point nicely.
It was a much different situation, Fleet. For one, Lincoln was addressing an issue in the United States. Secondly, Lincoln was not fighting an insurgency in the middle of a FOREIGN cival war.
Lastly, the American Civil War lasted about four years. The South was routed for most of the last year of the war. Victory for the North was apparent and clear cut. The Army of the South surrendered.
Bush was had us bogged down in Iraq for three years and ten months, WITH NO FUCKING VICTORY IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.
THERE WILL BE NO SURRENDER.
Other than that, you are a genius, Fleet.
Now, answer the question.
And what would the question be?
I noticed that again Fleetwood dodges the real argument and throws out some ridiculous comparison between George W. Bush and, this time, Lincoln.
The Bushbots know their leader is stubborn (or like the Bushies like to say – stick to his guns) but they also know that Bush’s plan has not worked in the past 3+ years so why would it work now?
So, rather than to argue the valid points of a logical argument, Fleetwood throws out the one thing that he knows he can retaliate to and that is ‘we just don’t like Bush’. And then he can sit back and relish in the false notion that he and his fellow Bushies have somehow defended their great leader.
How sad and pathetic.
Fleetwood, you cannot be nearly as stupid as you pretend to be.
Perhaps he is not pretending? How else do you explain the rabid defense of Bush and his policies?
The point is that wars don’t always go like you would like them to go. The point was “was Lincoln obstinate or resolute”.The mission that Lincoln had and the one we have now are honorable. Just like then, the hatred for Lincoln was such that some hoped Lincoln would fail. I hope the new plan works.
The trouble is, it is not a new plan. It is more of the same and too little, too late. So all the hoping in the world won’t change the fact that George W. Bush refuses to listen to anyone – even his own people. Is that a good leader?
What is particularly disturbing to me about your comparison of Bush and Lincoln is that Lincoln knew he had to somehow get this country back together as a whole country. What has George W. Bush done besides be as polarizing as possible and to divide the country?
That right there is the major difference between Lincoln and Bush.
cs,
You may be right.What kind of person would use “wars don’t always go like you would like them to go”, to justify NOT using the best possible strategy to end that botched war?
That’s what they said in 1862 and 1863.
cs, right re your 4:23 PM post.
fleetwood – I also hope it works. But I ALSO PREDICT OTHERWISE. gIVEN THAT i WAS CORRECT WHEN i PREDICTED THIS MESS AND YOU/bUSH WERE WRONG, i THINK MY PREDICTION IS MORE LIKELY TO BE CORRETC.
yOU AND THE REST OF THE bUSHbOTS ARE JUST LOOKING FOR SCAPEGOATS TO BLAMe when it flops. (oops – caps problem)
Resolve and obstinancy CAN be a great asset.
Except when you are 110% wrong about absolutely everything. Then it becomes a dangerous handicap.
Let’s see bush’s real resolve. Send the bush twins to the mideast. That or get his mess cleaned up before my kid is old enough to go.
Aint no obstinate stupidity in MY family.
HOW IS THIS EVEN A QUESTION????
“As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq . Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home.”
http://www.appealforredress.org/
Concerning the question of obstinance.I am willing to bet that long ago GWB learned that his last name could make people weak to him. So, through ignorance of reality, and arrogance of upbringing, GWB was able to get people to act just by acting obstinate, this playing his last name as a power play.As for Cheney….that sumbitch is just plain scary and he belongs in a Romanian prison.
No one (not even his father) can convince Dubya to change his mind. Maybe you can’t run a war by commitee (although you could), you can’t run a country by yourself.
Micheal Kinsley wrote a column a few weeks back about the Bush twins vis-a-vis the time honored tradition of sons and daughters of Washington dignitaries pursuing activities that support the cause of America, whether it be serving in the military, volunteering, helping with social services for returning veterans, etc. Kinsley found it quite telling that the Bush twins are not motivated for such a direction, must have something to do with their upbringing. I am guessing that Daddy never lectured the household on the Constitution as much as he told them old baseball stories. I wonder if any of them have asked if it is true that Grandpa Prescott fornicated the skull of Geronimo.
How can one compare, with a straight face, Lincoln’s war leadership abilities with the Legendary ‘Bush Gut’?
Bush gut…is a euphamism for full of shit.
Have the twins done volunteer work or not? The answer appears to be yes. According to Wikipedia (not always reliable, but it seems unlikely to be wrong here) Barbara has done volunteer work in Africa and Jenna is CURRENTLY working with UNICEF in Panama. The latter fact is actually admitted by Kinsley, yet he chooses to put no stock in it, instead mocking it because Jenna is apparently not working directly with children. So, whatever drunkenness incidents and wardrobe malfunctions may be in their past, they are NOT currently “jet-set party Bratz.” Can’t Rod be bothered to do five minutes of research before he slings accusations around? And it seems odd that it is somehow being regarded as Barbara’s fault that her purse was stolen; talk about “blaming the victim.” The twins have the right to take a vacation (something the military have no time or permission to do, of course, but Rod doesn’t want them to go into the military; he wants them to go into the Red Cross or Peace Corps. Apparently these organizations are somehow different from UNICEF.)And let’s look at the three women praised by Kinsley:Amy Carter: Notorious flake who dropped out of college (but did, to her credit, later return and get both a B.F.A. and a master’s from other institutions). Only known community service was trendy lefist protesting.
Chelsea Clinton: Seems decent enough and has no known history of underage drinking but also has no history of working for UNICEF, let alone the Red Cross or Peace Corps. Where was she when her father was bombing Bosnia? Spent her post-college life earning a “six-figure salary” from a consulting firm and now works for a hedge fund manager. (Source: Wikipedia)
Karenna Gore: Currently runs a non-profit group, but has never done abroad in a dangerous place, which seems to be Rod’s requirement. Once gave a frank interview to Time about her history of teenage partying and drinking, but unlike the Bush twins was clever enough not to be caught when she was still underage.
So, Jenna and Barbara strike me as neither better nor worse than the average big-time politician’s daughter.
I am so ashamed that I wasted my vote on the 2 reptiles bush & cheney. These people were power hungry war mongering profiteers from the start who do not care about anyone except the rich, wealthy & elite. The bush family, the cheney family and the religious right wing are all evil extremists who have driven our country into extreme debt and destroyed our nation’s military. They have corrupted this nation from the inside out making us more open to attack by our enemies. I’ll never make the mistake of voting republican ever again. Thanks for all the corrupt memories GOP. I’m now a democrat.
Kevin – reptiles fill an important niche in the ecosystem. The same cannot be said for Bush/Cheney.
I just continue to be amazed that anyone can see a mission in this mess. We attacked a country who had nothing to do with the attack on our country and have now made strong a country that will not hesitate to nuke us. We’ve never finished the mission in Afganistan and Osama is still out there. Of course GW tries to marginalize him but he still hates us and is still a threat. We have alienated all our allies except for Britian who intends to put out half of their troops in Iraq within the next few months. We may think we can go it alone but the time will come when we cannot. And bless GW my son’s tour of duty in Iraq has been extended. Fleetwood, your right, I do hate him but I’m not blind. He will pay for thumbing his nose at the American people or at least his party will!!
The best explanation I can think of is that the incompetent aren’t aware and do not have the ability to know they’re incompetent:
“People who do things badly … are usually supremely confident of their abilities — more confident, in fact, than people who do things well.”
“Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it,” wrote Kruger, now an assistant professor at the University of Illinois.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/18/MN73840.DTL
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
I will go with resolute.
Next Stupid blog topic please?
The point is that wars don’t always go like you would like them to go.fleettwood | January 15, 2007 at 04:26 PM
Fleetwood”
I have been hard on you, called you Fleetfoot, Fleetfool, Fleetfk, and other names. That is me being bad.
What I really mean is that you are a dodger.
One who post provocative without leaving any trace of logic, reason, or point. You have considerable skills; you just do not have a real foundation to your rhetoric.
You are the perfect provocateur. What would be appreciated is some foundation to your posts.
I apologize for my name-calling; I now know the shallowness of your thinking.
Sometimes woody’s only point is on the top of his head.
Even Republicans seeing the light:
“”Even 50,000 troops wouldn’t turn it around,” Chuck Hagel, the Nebraska senator and leading Republican dissent in Congress, said yesterday, urging the White House to “get out of the bog of tactical thinking”. To send more troops “into that grinder – a tribal, sectarian civil war – is not going to fix the problem”.”
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/01/15/bush-faces-mutiny-over-extra-troops-for-iraq/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.independent.co.uk%2Fworld%2Famericas%2Farticle2154792.ece&frame=true
Sounds like Kia has a lovefest going with the Bush twins.
Nathan simply retaliates with his usually resounding and abiding loyalty for Bush – so what else is new?
I believe the question was about George W. Bush and his desire to escalate the Iraq War with or without the approval of anyone.
A wise leader would look for input from various sources of knowledge and Bush has fired most of those people that dared to tell him that he was wrong. So, is this trait to be admired as resolute – I don’t think so.
Is he being obstinate? Well, what part of the last 6 years have you not been paying attention to? GWB has always been obstinate and let’s not forget those quaint country-boy sayings that he stumbles through when asked a difficult question that he does not want to answer (or can not answer because he has no clue as to what to say).
I fear George W. Bush has become like the Jim Carrey in The Mask movie – ’somebody stop me’.
I believe the President is most resolute in his obstinancy; or wait, is that obstinate in his resolve? Oh, never mind….
I will openly admit that I want defeat in Iraq. Not because I am anti American or anti military but because I don’t want to see Bush win anything. In fact I hope the economy goes south too. When he leaves office I hope it in disgrace and that the Republican curse upon the land is finally over for a very long time. Losing Iraq and suffering a recession would be well worth that to me. I pray to God we get whupped in Iraq.
Refreshing for an anti-American to admit it.
Kev is obviously being trolled…
Not to demean the number of deaths and casulties, but we also need to be aware of the estimated 15-20% of people returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with moderate to severe mental health issues.
It is appearing this will be far more prevalent than past conflicts, whether due to better diagnosis or awareness.
These people deserve our best efforts for however long is required- up to including treatment for life if necessary!
They were injured in the line of duty doing our society’s dirty work, and deserve no less.
We need to closely monitor this issue to ensure proper handling is accomplished by the VA , et al.
I fully agree gster. That is what I remember from so many of the “walking wounded” back in the 70s. Their scars could not be seen but they were deep and painful.
Hmmmmmmm- You’re right. MY 2 brothers and I went to VN, and my youngest brother is still messed up. He’s a physically big 3rd degree black belt with a vocanic temper- I expect to read abut him in the headlines some day!
That’s a hell of a thing to look forward to!
These new returness will have it far worse, I fear!
I fear for that. There seem to be an awful lot of ‘closed-head’ injuries due to concussion. I wonder what that legacy will be.
My step-brother came back a bit scrambled too. Not a pretty sight. And more than I could count at UCLA ‘back then’
So when the returning troops with mental and health issues do come home, will George W. Bush be there ready to fund all the necessary therapies and health care? Or will he continue to watch out for the Halliburton profits to soar into the multi-millions?
Any president that did not see to it that our troops had the basic armor to protect themselves while in battle, I do not trust to take care of the returning troops with mental and health issues.
I’m concerned about cutting the VA budget- if I recall correctly, the Bush Admin tried that last year.
We cannot let that happen for obvious reasons.
But I thought the Bush Administration was supporting the troops? Why would they even consider cutting the VA budget? And, yes, they did try that last year.
Oh yeah, this is another case of they did not lie to us and expecting the American people to buy into the line of garbage – yet again.
A thought gster – which I will toss to you since you are a veteran. The Bush supporters claim that I cannot ’support the troops’ unless I support the war. Perhaps we should question why they can do the reverse – support the war while not supporting the troops? Your thoughts?
I don’t want a Bush or any Republican in the White House for the next 30 years if I can help it. Hopefully this will be the last one for a long time.
Hm- In reply to your question:
I supported Desert Storm- it was done for the right reasons. This current operation I never supported because the premises were built on a foundation of sand , at best!
The notion you have to support the Iraq war to be able to support the troops is stupid beyond belief!
People espousing that gem are irrational beynd help. There is no connection between the former and the latter statements, and certainly do not support the “conclusion”.
A clear majority of the American people don’t support the Iraqi War, and that means they don’t support our troops?
Good luck selling that BS.
G
It is tough being a Republican in 2006. Somehow you have to believe concurrently that:• Jesus loves you, but shares your deep hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.• Republicans are somehow tough on terrorism and American security when their track record clearly shows that they are absolutely not tough on terrorism, or protecting our borders and our citizens.• It is OK to advocate illegal unconstitutional wars from afar as long as it is someone else or someone elses children who die in vain for that self serving republican cause.• Republicans are paragons of virtue and morality when they are just the opposite.• Republicans are a party that is of, for and by the people when republicans are only good at producing presidents who always make laws that favor large corporations, the rich and the elite of the nation at the expense of the middle and lower classes.• Republicans are conservative while being in favor raiding our nation’s treasure, squandering our nations resources and lives while driving our nation into debt that will last for decades all for self serving unconstitutional republican gain.• Republicans are for less government when they let their daddies bush and cheney create the largest most expensive, most wasteful government in history.• Republicans are for less taxes while their daddy bush decreases taxes for the rich and elite while hiding the fact that they increased taxes on the middle and lower classes to offset their wasteful corrupt spending practices.• Republicans are good stewards with everything when they have actually raided our national treasury and diverted to towards the rich minority in this country while wasting our nation’s surplus and creating the largest national debt in history.• It was wrong for Clinton to screw outside of marriage but OK for Bush to screw the entire USA and other countries as well.• It is OK to say “God Bless America” in church and on bumper stickers while the blood of innocent people on your hands flows like water from a faucet on a daily basis.• John Kerry flip flopped on Bush’s illeagal unconstitutional personal war against Iraq and at the same time, turn a blind eye to the fact that Bush flip flopped on every single thing he promised American during the 2000 presidential campaign.• A woman can’t be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all humankind without regulation.• The United States should get out of the United Nations, but our highest national priority is enforcing U. N. resolutions against Iraq and Iran.• “Standing Tall for America” means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.• Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you’re a conservative radio host. Then it’s an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.• The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans’ benefits and combat pay.• A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying about WMD existence to enlist support for an unprovoked, undeclared war and occupation in which thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands civilians die, is, somehow, solid “defense” policy in a “War against Terrorism”.• Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins, unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.• If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won’t have sex.• A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, but then demand their cooperation and money.• Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.• HMOs and insurance companies make profits and have the interest of the public at heart.• Global warming and tobacco’s link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.• Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him and Rumsfeld reassured him he was our buddy. A bad guy when Bush’s daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him. But, then a bad guy again when Bush junior needed a prop for his re-election campaign as the “war president”.• Iran was a good country when Ford and Rumsfeld and Cheney, along with General Electric, gave them our nuclear technology in the 1970’s. Good guys when Cheney did business with them in the 1990’s. But, then bad guys when Bush junior needed a prop for his re-election campaign as the “war president”.• Iraq was a good country when Reagan and Rumsfeld gave them our chemical warfare technology in the 1980’s. Bad guys when our we authorized their overflights to gas their own population, and then good guys, again, when Cheney did business with them. But, then bad guys when Bush junior needed a prop for his re-election campaign as the “war president”.• It is okay that the Bush family’s “Carlisle Group” has made millions doing business with the Bin Laden family.• Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which should include “banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet”.• The public has a right to know about Hillary’s cattle trades, but George Bush’s illegal insider Harken Oil stock trade should be sealed in his Daddy’s library, and is none of our business.• What Bill Clinton or John Kerry did in the 1960s was of vital national interest but Bush & Cheney’s drug and alcohol felony arrests in the ’80s are irrelevant.• Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a “spirit of international harmony”.• Affirmative Action is wrong, but it is OK for your Daddy and his friends (here and in Saudi Arabia) to get you to graduate from Yale without studying much; to dodge the draft in the Texas Air National Guard; to bail out your company Harken Oil and the Texas Rangers; to get the Governorship of Texas and then to have the Supreme Court appoint you President of the USA.• You are a conservative, but it is OK to spend like there is no tomorrow and run up deficits that your grandchildren will have to pay, while at the same refunding as much tax money as possible to rich people who do not need it.