Defending Incompetence
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Foreign Policy, The War On Terrorism, War
This is one of those stories where I just shake my head in disbelief. I just don’t understand why somebody, who now knows that the troop level was not adequate, would say that he’d do the same thing given a second chance.
From the Washington Post:
President Bush today said mistakes were made in planning for the Iraq invasion, but he defended the troop level he ordered in the initial strike, saying he would have committed the same number if given a second chance.Recalling his pre-war conversations with Gen. Tommy Franks, who led the invasion and is now retired, Bush told a business group in Irvine, Calif.: “The level that he suggested was the troop level necessary to do the job, and I support it strongly.”
No. The troop level Franks suggested was NOT the troop level necessary to do the job. What is wrong with this man that he simply can’t say he’d do things differently? It’s as if he really buys that “flip-flopper” nonsense his campaign pushed in the 2004 campaign. Yep, once you make up your mind you stick to it, come hell or high casualties…
And then this…
“I also want to let you know that before you commit troops that you must do everything that you can to solve the problem diplomatically. And I can look you in the eye and tell you I feel I tried to solve the problem diplomatically to the max and would have committed troops both in Afghanistan and Iraq, knowing what I know today.”
I don’t say this often about Bush, but that statement is just an outright lie. He did not do everything possible to solve the problem diplomatically. Iraq was destroying it’s aluminum tubes and Saddam had gone through back channels to try and seek asylum elsewhere. Bush and company knew all of this.
And then…this…
“I base a lot of my foreign policy decisions on some things that I think are true. One, I believe there’s an Almighty. And, secondly, I believe one of the great gifts of the Almighty is the desire in everybody’s soul, regardless of what you look like or where you live, to be free.”
Okay, I’m done.
This entry was posted on Monday, April 24th, 2006 and is filed under Foreign Policy, The War On Terrorism, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 24th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
I’m of the opinion that we should’ve had more troops. I’m not sure why the administration insists on denying it.
Justin -
I don’t understand what you find offensive about Bush believing in a God and stating that God wants everyone to live free. I’m not religious myself, but I don’t find anything offensive about that statement. Now, if he said God said women should cover herself in a sheet and men should beat their women to keep them from acting out – then I’d be freaked.
April 24th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
Thanks for posting that. I talked about it and credited you at my blog. I wish Donkelphant supported trackbacks.
April 24th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
Is W on Drugs or Something?
First, props to Justin Gardner at Donkelphant for pointing me towards this one.
Bush Admits Mistakes in Iraq, Defends Tactics
by Bill Brubaker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 24, 2006; 4:39 PM
President Bush today said mistakes we…
April 24th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
Aha! I figured it out. I was starting to think I wasn’t sharper than a marble.
April 24th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
Monica, I respect anyone that believes in an Almighty–as do I–but given our determination to “Spread democracy,” I have to wonder if Bush really thinks God prefers capitalism to socialism or tyranny? Just a thought..
April 24th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
I don’t find it offensive. I find it a tactical blunder to keep mentioning a Christian God when we’re fighting a war against militant Islam. That’s all.
And telling people that’s how he determines his foreign policy…again…it just doesn’t seem smart at all.
April 24th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
I don’t think you read him very carefully. He may look like a chimp (as all my co-workers insist), but he does have a law degree. Just like Clinton, you have to pay attention to what he literally says.
There were enough troops “in the initial strike” to “do the job” i.e. overthrow Saddam. He’s right about that.
That was the mission accomplished. It was everything that started the minute afterward which, according to prevailing conventional wisdom, we lacked sufficient troops to contain and control.
As for “Almighty,” that doesn’t strike me as “a Christian God;” in fact, it’s a term used, even in Revolutionary times, for a generic, all-embracing, non-sectarian deity. Muslims believe that they and we worship the same deity. “Almighty” is theirs as well as ours.
April 24th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
Of course he wouldn’t change a thing, because the Chimperor is incapable of making a mistake. If something goes wrong, you can bet it is because somebody else didn’t do what they were supposed to do.
If you don’t believe me, just ask any worshipper. They’ll set you straight.
April 25th, 2006 at 12:49 am
Initial strike, schmnitial strike. Nobody is questioning the forces he needed to actually overthrow Saddam, and he knows it. “Initial strike” in the context of the war is the overthrow and the months after when things started to unravel.
As far as the meaning of Almighty…well…according to Bush, his favorite philosopher is Jesus Christ. He’s also an evangelical. There is no other god besides the Christian god for evangelicals. Sure, they’ll dialogue with those who worship other deities, but for Bush to use the word Almighty and NOT be referencing the Christian god is blasphemous. Given this, I don’t think he’s talking about Allah or Annapurna or Balrama or Bhuvaneshwari or Brahma or Buddha or Dhanwantari or Dhumavati or Durga or Ganga or Ganesha or Garuda or Hanuman or Indra or Kali or Kartikay or Krishna or Kurma or Lakshmi or Matangi or Maya or Ram or Saraswati or Shakti or Shiva or Sita or Vamana or Vishnu.
But hey, feel free to ask. ;-)
April 25th, 2006 at 7:38 am
Monica Says:
Turns out he could have gotten rid of the WMD with 0 troops.
Same with removing Sadam.
April 25th, 2006 at 8:07 am
Monica,
There is nothing wrong with a belief in god …. but it is pretty scary when the leader of the free world admittedly bases his foreign policy on his interpretation of the Almighty.
Justin,
Muslims do in fact worship the same almighty as Christians, and in fact, recognize and revere Jesus Christ (and await the second coming) but they do not recognize him as their intercedent with the almighty.
Cal,
Even if you are correct about the subtlety of Bush’s statement, it is dis-ingenuous to parse his words considering the current state of things. We are not playing chess … people are dying on his word … and if we are running our country on the basis of conversations with the Lord, we should fire the lot of them and give the reigns to Jerry Falwell.
April 25th, 2006 at 9:52 am
“And I can look you in the eye and tell you I feel I tried to solve the problem diplomatically to the max”
Ummmmm – no, I don’t think he did. The most obvious proof that is false is the way we have been dealing with Iran so far – “so far” being the key words. It’s so weird how definitions of “diplomatic” change when your troops are busy.
April 25th, 2006 at 10:04 am
GN, I know Muslims worship the same god, but the way they get there seems vastly different. And apparently that god has a much different perspective on what it means to be free than the Christian god does.
And again, what about all the other gods?
April 25th, 2006 at 11:21 am
I also object to the notion that one has to invoke religion or any type of god in order to show that they are a moral person who has good intentions. As an agnostic, I happen to try very hard to be moral, not because an “Almighty” wants me to, but because I want to, and I don’t want to just because I think it might get me a good seat in the afterlife, but just for the sake of being a good person on this planet.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Like Justin, you are confusing what Bush said with what we think about the situation. Stick to the text. Just read it. He’s simply talking about the defeat of Saddam’s military machine and the overthrow of the dictator. It’s not a subtle statement at all, unless your head is fogged up with anger over the situation.
Of course he’s speaking thus narrowly for the reason that if he broadens the context of “enough troops” to the post-war situation, he’s got to admit the error. That’s just political speech.
Even that good deist Jefferson traced “liberty” to the “Creator.” I don’t think you need to murder Bush for repeating the rhetorical trope.
I’ve got a bridge for sale in New York. Justin and Rob, please call.
April 25th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
No question that this will further inflame Muslims since Bush apparently feels that he is a vehicle being used to fulfill (his) God’s will.
Also, Cal, Bush does not have a law degree. He has an MBA, which if anything makes him even more sneaky with his language.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
True! Thanks for the correct.
April 25th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
Cal,perhaps you are correct and I am somewhat cloude with anger. My anger is particularly directed at the “God thing” and his constant reference to his higher calling driving his philosophy and actions on OUR behalf. Sorry, my friend, but that sucks. He knows what he is doing, and who he is appealing to and it isn’t the majority. That is why I say he is dis-ingenuous. IF he had a high calling why are so many other populations being ignored as they die under circumstances as bad OR worse than Saddam’s regime? It is a lie … it is about the oil … say it and garner support for that … don’t prothelize.
I watched his town hall meeting yesterday … stopped counting on the eigth “jobs that we can’t get Americn workers to do” … Pure bullsh*t.
Politics are politics and I understand that, but there comes a point when death and destruction should take precedence and a real leader speaks thruth. That is not happening with this President.
Speaking of which … if Rove is no longer performing the functions of “advisor to the President”, why should he be on the WH payroll?
April 25th, 2006 at 11:15 pm
Frankly, I think it makes sense to link “freedom” and a non-denominational “Almighty” when you’re working to spread freedom in the extremely religious Muslim Middle East, where the average citizen’s depth of religious feeling makes Jerry Falwell look like 50 Cent. Whenever I think I’ve noticed Bush doing a clever thing, it usually turns out to be just a coincidence. But with the scripted words, if not deeds, it’s often right.
April 26th, 2006 at 10:14 am
I can see the repugNUTs continuing to support their axis of (insert adjective here…..I prefer incompetence but there the originator of this particular use of the phrase used arrogance, and that fits as well) The repugnuts continue to see Bushbaby as their personal savior as far as politic are concerned and refuse to open the eyes and minds to the mistakes and even the crime he has done……and if Bushbaby has his way, evesdropping on the repugnuts opponents will come to fruition…….http://www.factcheck.org/article388.html#
Sen. Russ Feingold’s Leadership PAC suggests the White House wants to wiretap political opponents.
Be scared……be very scared.
April 26th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
qat, do you have a blog? I collect links to those sorts of things. Just a hobby. And occasionally useful to have handy when semi-reasonable liberal people insist that “nobody on the left really talks that way.”
April 27th, 2006 at 7:28 am
“Frankly, I think it makes sense to link “freedomâ€Â? and a non-denominational “Almightyâ€Â? when you’re working to spread freedom in the extremely religious Muslim Middle East”
Cal – Are we working to spread freedom (democracy?) in an extremely religious Muslim Middle East? Please support that with something that seems real? I don’t make this request from an adverserial view, I just think that “freedom” and “democracy” are homegrown. I am unaware of any country coming to the U.S. and asking for blueprints of our system. It seems more like individuals leave their respective countries to come HERE and LIVE this idea …. and it has seemed to work out more successfully than imposition (or “freeing the downtrodden’)
There is a very colonial bent to the current administration that “appears” to focus this altruistic goal on countries that have an abundance of resources we would like to have. One might say that it is a strategic plan that is important to our future (and could agree with that) but I wonder at our proclivity for giving it a different name.