Context, Please

Michael Abramowitz reports for The Washington Post:

White House officials are suggesting that the general's views will carry great weight with Bush. "He is following through on his commitment to be guided by the people on the ground who know the most about what's going on," White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten said.

I might have thought it relevant at this point to note that Bush's deference to military expertise is a bit opportunistic. When, for example, the joint chiefs and Bush's previous set of commanders in Iraq didn't want a surge, he ditched them in favor of some different commanders.

Comments

That's why you crazy fringe leftists and Stalin posters miss the brilliance of Our Leader.

They are only the True Words of The Troops when they agree with Bush Jr's views. Otherwise they are just words spoken at weak moments by officers who probably just need to be pushed into retirement right now.

Bush Jr. has the smartest intellect of U.S. Americans to see this, but you don't.

Posted by El Cid | September 9, 2007 10:36 AM

The sharing of lies is now common practice in the American press. Bush obviously disregarded the advice of earlier ground commanders in Iraq, then installed Petraeus, someone who was hand-picked to make excuses for staying in Iraq.

The fact that nobody in the mainstream press calls Bush on this simple evidence of deceit is confirmation of the normalization of dishonesty in modern American culture. Every time the press uncritically repeats Bush's assertion of listening to his generals in Iraq, it knowingly reinforces a lie.

Our current public discourse about Iraq is the metaphorical equivalent of the nausea that precedes vomiting. We feel dizzy and disoriented, with a sense that something is seriously wrong. The acute sickness will come with our disastrous withdrawal from Iraq and the poisonous rancor generated by defeat.

Posted by HH | September 9, 2007 11:05 AM

So in short Bush will take full heed of the General's report that was put together by the Bush Whitehouse for the General to deliver.

Posted by Rob | September 9, 2007 11:25 AM

Yessir, Dubya certainly listened to General Shinseki when deciding on the force levels required for a successful outcome in Iraq.

Posted by SLC | September 9, 2007 12:12 PM

...he ditched them in favor of some different commanders.

He looked into their eyes, saw their souls, they were bad.

Posted by abb1 | September 9, 2007 12:19 PM

Bush has low credability for speaking truth on Iraq. A fact that shines like a mint coin.

Petraeus HAD good credability on fighting insurgency until his previous position where he was in charge on training Iraq's Army to fight insurgency and largely failed - while losing a massive number of US military weapons without any accountability.

So Bush promotes him and claims to listen to Petraeus - except that Bush's previous failure to listen to the generals undermines the claim. Last week, Bush flies to a US base in Iraq to meet with Petraeus and upon leaving says to the Aussies that we are kicking ass in Iraq.

Did Bush instruct Petraeus on our success or instead did Petraeus reveal the data that no one can obtain from DoD (or Petraeus) that caused and Petraeus's and Bush's sustained optimism? Or are both lying, since other data seems to indicate no progress has been made on the political goals which was the object of the military surge in Baghdad?

Yes, Mr. Bush and Gen. Petraeus, their IS a similarity with Vietnam. Both the President and military commanders lied about the US effort in Vietnam and today both the President and the military commanders are lying about the US effort in Iraq.

Lies are not a good basis for political or military policies, but we appear to be addicted to lying. Bush deserves a new title: Liar-in-Chief. He needs to be removed from his position as Commander-in-Chief.

Posted by JimPortlandOR | September 9, 2007 12:25 PM

When, for example, the joint chiefs and Bush's previous set of commanders in Iraq didn't want a surge, he ditched them in favor of some different commanders.

What is Matthew talkng about? This is just a flat out lie.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff were not "dumped" at all. They also changed their determination of the efficacy of the surge after the Bush Administration revised the plan to meet their concerns (chiefly in defining the mission).

Sometimes I wonder which reality the Reality Based Community is living in. It certainly ain't THIS reality.

Posted by Al | September 9, 2007 1:36 PM

Hi, trolly Al.

There we have Al the maniac troll trolling and lying as only maniac trolls can lie. Spit and move on.

Posted by Jennifer | September 9, 2007 2:06 PM

Well, WaPo has a cover. They just reported that "White House officials are suggesting". So they can claim that WAPO did not claim this.

It's true. "White House officials are suggesting".

Where WaPo LIES by omission is in failing to quote somebody on the other side pointing out that "White House officials" are liars and the facts are thus-and-so.

The end result is the same, of course. The WaPo lied.

What's news about this?

It's the JOB of the MSM to support the Establishment. That means lying.

Always has been. Always will be.

The only reason we get ANY "news" out of the MSM is that editors can't fire EVERY reporter who occasionally by accident reports some facts that don't agree with the Establishment position.

And of course since all human behavior is on a bell curve, you also get some media that does TRY to report facts, as opposed to White House press releases. Mostly you get that from media that isn't considered the "MSM" like WaPo and the NYT and CNN.

Hell, you even get it from Fox - once in a blue moon - like Carl Cameron's reports about the Israeli spy rings operating in the US. I'll bet that sent Rupert Murdoch into orbit...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 9, 2007 4:57 PM

"media that isn't considered the "MSM" like WaPo and the NYT and CNN."

That was badly phrased. To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that WaPO, NYT and CNN aren't MSM. I was saying they are.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 9, 2007 4:58 PM