Nir Rosen's super-pessimistic take is a useful corrective to the happy-talk prevailing in the District. Of course, maybe Bush's surprise visit to Iraq will singlehandedly inspire the troops to acquire magical powers that conjure up forces of liberalism and compromise, thus laying the groundwork for stability.
« Labor Day Labor Bloging | Main | Yglesias Union History »
Rosen on Iraq
04 Sep 2007 08:27 am
Comments (6)
Sure, get your snark out of your system now.
But soon you will lose all ability to defy the wisdom of George W. Bush, When General Petraeus Gives His Report.
At that time, not only will General Petraeus answer all of your questions and rebuff all of your doubts; He will answer all possible questions and rebuff all possible doubts on the upcoming success of The SURGE(TM)!
El Cid's comment makes me wonder about something. Wouldn't the current attempt to preemptively undermine Petraeus be easier if at least one Democratic Senator voted against approving him for his current command? Imagine if one Senator voted against and made a brief speech to the press explaining his vote by questioning Petraeus's career history, honesty, ability, or whatever.
That Senator would be perfectly positioned today to do what Matt & friends are attempting now. He or she could say something like:
"When I voted against approving Gen. Petraeus to be the top commander in Iraq, I did so because I had concerns about his ______. Today, disconnect between his statement that ______ and the reality on the ground as reported by ______ shows my concerns were valid".
Wouldn't that be more effective than claims by the ADD generation that Petraeus's 20 year-old Ph.D. thesis is boring and more of that sort of comment?
Fred, the only question about any General is whether he is competent to carry out the President's policies. Petraeus is competent to carry out Bush's failed policies, so he was confirmed. Then suddenly Bush cultists turned around and insisted that the vote to confirm Petraeus was really a vote for the Glorious Surge. It doesn't work that way. Petraeus's job is to carry out Bush's agenda of American defeat and humiliation; that would be the job of any General confirmed for the post.
What might really be effective is to actually act like we have an open and democratic government which yes, relies partly on the views of military commanders, but which also acknowledges that the view of any one military commander is just that, that it is evidence, evidence which will be seriously weighed.
The point of sarcasm regarding the golden day when Petraeus testifies and winged ponies alight on DC is to point out that this Petraeus report has been treated not merely as a serious and credible report by a military commander, but The Thing Before Which We Can Make No Informed Decisions, And Also The Surge Is Working.
Reminds me of the Carson skits:
"His report has been kept on Funk and Wagnall's back porch since noon today! General Petraeus, in his borderline divine way, will tell you EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD YOU'VE EVER WANTED TO KNOW about Iraq! "
"You are wrong, civilian breath!"
Fred's notion is that since no Democrat has anointed Petraeus as a fuckup and a liar that therefore he is NOT a fuckup and a liar.
It is to laugh.
Hey, Fred, since plenty of Democrats have labeled Bush a fuckup and a liar, what do you think about them apples?
Make no mistake, Petraeus is a fuckup and a liar. His "surge" has failed by every measure of every independent analysis presented so far by anybody who wasn't a Bush shill (which lets out the O'Hanlon crowd).
We don't NEED his report. The facts are already known. The only thing still in question is how much BS he intends to spew and how much spin Bush is going to put on it.
It ain't even Petraeus's report. Bush and company are going to write it, and trot this shill out to parrot it before Congress.
It's a joke and should be treated as such.
Of course, the Democrats will cave in for it. That's what Democrats do.
Comments closed September 18, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Must. Stay. Negative. Six more days.
Posted by Fred | September 4, 2007 9:22 AM