Sunday, October 07, 2007

Witness The Kabuki Of The Village

September was supposed to be the month of change in Iraq. Now that September has come and gone with nary a budge of President* Bush's policy of neverending occupation, it is important to look back at the strange kabuki we witnessed.

First off were unconfirmed reports of a draw down, which were shot down by Petraeus staffers.

The Republican Senator from Virginia, John Warner, stepped before the cameras prior to The Man Called Petraeus' report and wagged a threatening finger at the President*, urging him to pull out some troops, maybe 5,000 or so, to be home by Christmas.

He explained his reasoning to send a strong message to the Maliki Government of Iraq to reach compromises needed to end the sectarian strife. Another reason was to send a message to President* Bush the impatience of the American people with the Iraqi occupation.

Reporters asked him if he had discussed this with the President* before his public announcement. Warner said he had but would not discuss the details of their conversation, because he liked to protect his visits.

It is clear now that all this was a very well orchestrated plan to continue the American occupation of a country involved in a multi-faceted civil war.

And the press played along, dutifully fulfilling their roles of the courtier class.

Breathlessly they portrayed Warner as a Very Serious Moderate Republican showing signs of doubt about the President's* policy and foreshadowing an avalanche of Republican defections.

Warner was the glue, the stalwart statesman that is guided by his long and credentialed history of military events. He was constantly hailed in the press as a reasonable, concerned and Very Serious Person.

So the political tactic was made to use the rotation of troops to appear as a draw down, therefore satisfying Warner's "line in the sand". He was satisfied with the 5,000 troops out by Christmas, a line parroted by both The Man Called Petraeus in his congressional testimony and President* Bush's statement a few days later.

No need to consider any Unserious Democratic Plan that called for troop re deployments, even though this is what 70% of Americans want, which was a possibility Senator Warner floated if Bush did not consider his proposal reasonable. This eliminated any crack in the Republican wall of obstructing troop redeployment out of Iraq.

So Warner makes a threat to the Decider, the press report a potential stampede of Republican defections, rotations are dressed up as a drawdown and the reich-wing marches in lock-step to a stay-the-course policy.

I don't think the term "moderate" and Senator Warner should be used in the same day. He is a tool for the Bush Maladministration and their War In Error.

Now, I hate to say I told you so, but I am just a blogger that probably lives in his Mother's basement, and I am not an "Emmy Award Winning Member Of The Best Political Team On Television. AKA Chicken Noodle Nuze: from August 23, 2007:

Up first tonight, Senator John Warner's revolt against the president's Iraq policy, one of the most influential voices on military affairs is taking his reservations about the war to a new level. Says President Bush should tell the American people next month that he's starting a troop withdrawal from Iraq and that some troops should be home by Christmas. Now many are asking, if the president has lost John Warner, who might be next?


SEN. JOHN WARNER (R), VIRGINIA: We simply cannot, as a nation, stand and put our troops at continuous risk where there will be loss of life and limb without beginning to take some decisive action which will get everybody's attention.


BLITZER: Let's bring in our congressional correspondent Dana Bash. This is a new level for John Warner. He's been somewhat critical in the past, but today he's saying things he's never said before.

DANA BASH, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Wolf. It is different. He has bugged the president on military strategy in Iraq. He never liked the surge to begin with. This is the first time he or anyone of his stature in the military community or in the president's own Republican Party has actually said it's time to start bringing troops home. And that's why he is very well aware that what he did here today is very politically potent because it is a stark challenge to the president and also one that nervous Republicans may come back in September and embrace.

BLITZER: What about, Dana, the whole notion of his specific proposal right now. He's stopping short of simply saying that all U.S. troops have to get out of Iraq?

BASH: He's stopping short of saying that. He may sound more like a Democrat in saying troops do need to start coming home, but he's being very clear, Wolf that he does not support a deadline for troop withdrawal as most Democrats want. The bottom line is John Warner just came back from Iraq really fed up with the Iraqi government and made clear what he thinks the only way to get them into shape is to show them, not just tell them, but show them that the U.S. isn't going to be there forever by starting to bring troops home, even if it is just a symbolic number of troops that will start coming home from Iraq.

BLITZER: Still a real bombshell on Capitol Hill today. Dana, thanks very much.

The Bush administration suggests it's keeping an open mind about Senator Warner's proposal. (emphasis added)

So, the very influential Warner threatens a revolt, a stark challenge to the President* that nervous Republicans may embrace. Oh, and Bush has an open mind.

Today, Jamie McIntyre filed a report at CNN that states the reduction is actually normal troop rotation and not a reduction at all. It was set in motion in August, which pre-dated General Petraeus' report to congress, where he recommended a reduction of a Brigade by Christmas (5,700 troops) which would have happened with or without his reccomendation.

It also pre-dated Warner's "stark challenge to the President", and Senator Warner's meeting with the President, the meeting Warner would not discuss. He didn't want to blow the whole plan by talking about it I guess.

Bush accepted the recommendation of Petraeus to bring home a Brigade by Christmas (5,700 troops) which would have happened with or without his reccomendation.

This number of 5,000, with the deadline of "by Christmas" being repeated verbatim by Warner, Petraeus and Bush is just too coincidental to pass the smell test and looks suspiciously like a carney pitch job to cheat America of more blood and treasure.

Now, nearly a month later, our Emmy Award Winning Newsperts, gets around to reporting there shall be no reduction. In fact, at the end of the surge, more troops will be on the ground simply because of support personnel.

Not like this is important or anything.


Redstater said...

and you are a tool for the head in the sand Democrats.

The numbers (casualties both civilian and US military) were the lowest in Semptember since before the Golden Mosque boming last March at the same time that Al Qaeda claimed it would be the deadliest.... surge worked, lied, Petraeus correct.

Next lie?

Redstater said...

CONGRATULATIONS! It's outstanding posts like this one that got you nominated for the 2007 "Worst Blog of the Year"- Oklahoma.

Good luck, but the competition is tough... so you'll probably have to do better than this one to win.

Vote only at Red S Tater... where there are no recounts, no hanging chads, no voter intimidation, no voter suppression and no courts to run to after the poll is completed.

Oilfieldguy said...

The numbers (casualties both civilian and US military) were the lowest in Semptember since before the Golden Mosque boming last March at the same time that Al Qaeda claimed it would be the deadliest.... surge worked, lied, Petraeus correct.
Of course, the decline of casualties by our military is always a good thing, but the objective of the surge was to allow political progress, which has not happened.

If the goal is to reduce casualties, then it stands to reason this could be accomplished by bringing them home.

Just sayin'.

Redstater said...

As usual, you are 100% wrong again kitty.
Your statement that the objective of the surge was only to provide political progress is of course a lie.
1- Political progress (as you should know) can only be achieved once stability is accomplished, the surge is a military operation undertaken by the military not a political action by politicians.
2- You are ignoring the primary statistic (of course) which is civilian casualties caused primarily by Al Qaeda in a failed effort to start "civil war".
3- The US military loses over 1,000 men and women per year (average)...DURING PEACETIME... so bringing them home only changes the cause of death and their location when it happens.(but I suppose you would rather our troops get run over by a jeep in Arkansas than actually fighting against our enemy in an act of heroism)

When (or if) you combine the dramatic reduction in violence, death and destruction IN IRAQ of both Iraqi civilian AND US military (the only method to judge success or failure in the war) then you can come to no other conclusion except that Al Qaeda is losing, the US is winning and you are on the wrong side of the battle.

Just for once, try using some facts in your argument. Or are you just too lazy?

Oilfieldguy said...

Red, do not misrepresent what I write, then call me a liar. The Man Called Petraeus said this conflict cannot be won militarily. Is he a liar?

The surge was advertised to create breathing space for political reconciliation. Our military has created such a space.

As per usual, America has no political leadership in the White House, hence, no political progress. Recall Colin Powell's Pottery Barn rule: "You break it, you own it." Bush has broken an entire country.

The dodge and blame game in point number two is laughable. Anything bad that happens in Iraq these days, the Administration reflexively chant Al Qaeda, and the stenographic press corps dutifully write it down, because it is entirely to dangerous in Iraq for reporters to find out for themselves.

Your point number three is probably the single most outrageous fuck-you I have ever seen anyone deliver to our military.

The US military loses over 1,000 men and women per year (average)...DURING PEACETIME... so bringing them home only changes the cause of death and their location when it happens.

They are gonna die anyway so fuck 'em.

You, sir, are an asshole.

Redstater said...

no, it is you who are putting words in keyboard. that is NOT what I said in any way shape or fashion, YOU act like there are no military deaths except in Iraq and that those are not justified.

I stated the facts. Men die, you and I will die. These men died fighing for something they believed in- thier country while moonbats like you discount every success and count every death as a reason to subvert their mission.

You can resort to namecalling and then delete my response... that would be typical.

Oilfieldguy said...

On the contrary. Your comments will exist here for all to see and judge for themselves how trully patriotic you are.

Red S Tater said...

Thats all you on the left do... condemn the military, call them murderers conducting an illegal war and then look for anything you can twist to call those of us that actually do support the military...anti.

Didn't you see how well that worked with Rush for you guys?

My comment was not anti-military in any fashion and your claims don't make it so.
Keep lying to yourselves and see where that gets you in the long run.