Economist: “Bush alone”

Posted in at 17:03 by RjZ

This pretty much covers it:

In deciding to redouble the war effort, Mr Bush now finds himself almost alone. General John Abizaid, the head of Central Command that oversees American strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan, all but rejected the idea of a “surge” of forces two months ago. He told a Senate hearing that raising troop levels by 20,000 would have only a “temporary effect” on security. But it would delay the day Iraqi forces could take control and, if prolonged, would place an unbearable strain on American ground forces that are already overstretched.

Meanwhile I am bothered by the term “surge” when, of course, what we mean is an escalation. What die-hard Bush fans are saying? The New Republic calls his speech and example of how “Bush’s certitude–which the press hailed as resolve after September 11 but which it now labels obstinacy–remains his signature….”

Rush Limbaugh rambles on, saying almost nothing, but eventually implying that “the liberals” wouldn’t allow us to “destroy these societies” so Bush’s hands are tied. Rush doesn’t seem very impressed with Bush saying he made mistakes though.

Other bloggers are simply focusing on democratic congress disagreeing with President Bush. There seems little debate on the merits of his new plan, or even a discussion of what that plan is at all. Instead the evil liberals disagree and that, apparently, is sufficient to make them wrong.

I guess there’s no news here at all. No plan either. Bush would like to spend more money and lives and maybe someday we’ll be better off in Iraq and the middle east. Say what you wish about the quickly forgotten Iraq Study Group’s recommendations, but at least there was a plan there!

1 Comment »

  1. tim r said,

    January 11, 2007 at 17:34

    I thought Stewart had the best quip on the Iraq Study Group–”it’s nice that they formed a study group, but the final started four years ago”.

Leave a Comment