Comments (35)

Anonymous wrote on December 20, 2006 11:06 AM:

He said it. A surge is "dangerous." It's on the record.

DHN wrote on December 20, 2006 11:20 AM:

He may be a moron, but it is properly Bush's call. If the generals don't like it, they should resign, not complain to the media while still on active duty. The generals aren't always right. Remember Lincoln and McClellan.

jack hickey wrote on December 20, 2006 11:20 AM:

These are trying times for "the Great Decider" .He is afflicted with something I wouldn't wish on anyone.He agrees with the last person he talks to.Try it out sometime.It's worse than Shoulda-Coulda- Woulda.

marcus wrote on December 20, 2006 11:21 AM:

He's a very self-centered man who was likely talking about himself. Admittedly, the 'nice try' comment belies my interpretation. He's used that exact same verbal constructs before (on Social Security and Stem Cells... other decisions when he's let the public in on the long deliberation process he's taking). No doubt this decision is politically dangerous for Premier Bush, sad that he seems more worried about that than the troops themselves.

The strange piece of this whole matter to me is how positively pre-modern Bush's cone of deliberation is. It's almost like he's waiting for the telegrams to all come in before making a move. It seems cowardly when so many troops and innocent Iraqis are dying day after day. Aren't there some points that strike him as so true and obviously lacking from the US's current posture that action needs to be taken now?

It's obvious that Bush is going to cherry pick without a grand Iraqi strategy anyway. Why else would he produce so many in-house reports?

Eric wrote on December 20, 2006 11:29 AM:

The point is NOT whether Bush, as commander in chief, has the right to make the call, as opposed to the generals. The point IS that for the last 3 years, Bush has been telling us that, when it came to military strategy, he would "listen to the generals."

In the end, however, like everything Rove tells him to do, this is about domestic political gain. Bsh will increase the amount of troops. And when a Democratic Congress tries to do something, anything,like try to get a handle on how $$$ is spent (not cutting funding, though), as asking tough questions, the GOP candidates for all offices in '08 will simply say--whether there's evidence for it or not--the "Dems hate our troops," "hate America," "love terrorists" angle.

I'm not suggesting that it will be successful. But anyone who thinks that anything Rove has Bush do is in anyway related to actual policy has not been paying atention. EVERYTHING is about domestic political gain. EVERYTHING.

Reid wrote on December 20, 2006 11:29 AM:

In response to DHN:

I agree with you to some extent; the military does serve our country better when it obeys the civilian command without public second-guessing, when officers who disagree with the civilian command resign rather than leak their sentiments to the press. But there also exists a point when the civilian command becomes so stunningly incomeptent that it's better to keep the high-ranking officers in place and let them complain. If every officer who disagreed strongly with Bush's and Rumsfeld's handling of Iraq resigned, it would probably have a severely negative impact on our armed forces. In this case, I think that's the greater evil.

agave wrote on December 20, 2006 11:34 AM:

"Admittedly, the 'nice try' comment belies my interpretation. He's used that exact same verbal constructs before..."

Snow uses it, also.
I'ts a way to disparage the question and questioner as if they have crossed some line, thus no real answer is required.
I don't really understand why it works so well.

.

Brian wrote on December 20, 2006 11:36 AM:

Is anyone else concerned that President Bush is struggling with psychological problems. He never seemed that stable to me personally; but, of late - when I can bear to watch or listen to him - he seems increasingly hazy, disoriented, repetitive, disallusioned, self-denying, etc.

I really don't think he was ever up to the job, and now they he and his partners in crime have really screwed things up he may be starting to crack and his judgment is getting even worse.

I'm becoming increasingly concerned...

Increasing troops? Where is he going to get the money? But, then again he hasn't been concerned about paying for any of the debacle - whether by putting his own children on the front-line or paying for any of the cost of the occupation during his administration.

First he says Rumsfeld is a genius that has done a great job at the Pentagon, even though every experienced General that disagreed with him 'retired'; now he is saying that we need to 'surge' in Iraq - the opposite of Rumsfeld's view - even though his entire Joint Chiefs disagree with that approach...

It's all even getting more scary. :-(

Daryl Cobranchi wrote on December 20, 2006 11:37 AM:

If every officer who disagreed strongly with Bush's and Rumsfeld's handling of Iraq resigned, it would probably have a severely negative impact on our armed forces.

If the JCS resigned en masse it might generate so much heat that even Bush couldn't stand the kitchen.

BILL SULLIVAN wrote on December 20, 2006 11:39 AM:

MR. BUSH IS UNABLE TO THINK. THUS HE CAN ONLY SPEAK OF "VICTORY" OR "WINNING" OR "SUCCESS." THINKING IS CRITICAL WHICH MEANS DIPLOMACY IS CRITICAL. ABIZAID IS SAYING IT, OTHER GENERALS ARE SAYING IT. GEORGE HAS TO BE TAKEN OUT OF THE EQUATION AS MUCH AS POSSIBE THROUGH A SURGE IN DIPLOMACY

eric wrote on December 20, 2006 11:48 AM:

He may be a moron, but it is properly Bush's call. If the generals don't like it, they should resign, not complain to the media while still on active duty. The generals aren't always right. Remember Lincoln and McClellan.

Posted by: DHN
Date: December 20, 2006 11:20 AM

The other Eric already made this point, above, and that is: The reason this is an issue is that Bush has consistently, and without fail, maintained that he would defer decisions of this type to the "commanders in the field".

Steve wrote on December 20, 2006 11:48 AM:

He's stymied and, for the first time, paralyzed. The "surge" trial balloon got tepid response from the public but public opposition from the military; if Gates helped drive the ISG report, he opposes it; and Bush has got to be losing faith in Cheney's advice. B.'s pattern when faced with such cognitive dissonance is to close his eyes and goes with his gut: more troops. Crash and burn. It will be most interesting to see Gates's position.

Disputo wrote on December 20, 2006 11:49 AM:

Snow uses it, also.
I'ts a way to disparage the question and questioner as if they have crossed some line, thus no real answer is required.
I don't really understand why it works so well.

The response to "nice try" is: "That's a legitimate question -- why are you ducking it?"

Disputo wrote on December 20, 2006 11:51 AM:

Yikes.

no ital?

what about bold?

or blockquote?

and definitely no preview....

greenchilecheeseburger wrote on December 20, 2006 11:54 AM:

He may be a moron, but it is properly Bush's call. If the generals don't like it, they should resign, not complain to the media while still on active duty. The generals aren't always right. Remember Lincoln and McClellan.
Posted by: DHN
Date: December 20, 2006 11:20 AM

So, he maybe a moron, but you believe he has better judgement than the generals?

For 3+ years he's dodged any role as "C-in-C" by saying that it's up to the generals in the field, thereby attempting to abdicate ANY responsibility for how FUBAR things are in Iraq. Now that he seems to want to take charge, prepare yourself for things getting much worse in Iraq. But then that's OK by you because the decision is "properly" Bush's to make.

I don't think Bush is competent enough to even know that he's destroying our military, our economy, and our undisputed standing as the world's only superpower. He's like a coach in the last 2 minutes of a football game down 49-0 truly believing that he can still win this thing. I wonder, what will his ultimate hail mary call be?

brendan wrote on December 20, 2006 11:54 AM:

Listenign to him on the radio, I could tell exactly what his face and body were doing.
that man is losing his shit a little more each day.
O/T: jack Hickey: are you the same Jack Hickey from Boston's legendary garage rockers The Lyres?

Propagandee wrote on December 20, 2006 12:20 PM:

Hickey wrote:

"These are trying times for "the Great Decider. He is afflicted with something I wouldn't wish on anyone. He agrees with the last person he talks to."

Or as I heard said of Tony Blair today, he's like a seat cushion, bearing the imprint of the last person who sat on him.

Bobbi wrote on December 20, 2006 12:40 PM:

Did you notice that Bush mentioned consulting/listening to everyone, EXCEPT the Iraq Study Group in his answer?!

Bush knows that Baker is all over him behind the sheets and has zero respect for his abilities now. He knows that he has failed yet one more time and his Dad is trying to save him - trying to help him help himself. However, if he acknowledges it, he must acknowledge that his has still -- and yet again -- fucked up again. BIG TIME.

He is fundamentally incapable of anything anymore.

Stephan wrote on December 20, 2006 1:08 PM:

The President, clearly, is mentally unbalanced - perhaps a dry drunk. This man, a recovering (?) dypsomaniac who squandered much of his life imbibing large quantities of alcohol, poses a grave threat to this republic and its standing as a global power. His performance earlier today was perhaps his most alarming to date. The mere suggestion that he might dismiss concerns raised by the Joint Chiefs is unsettling. The GOP is on the horns of a dilemma. They must face the empirical reality that Bush is unstable, and must devise a strategy to remove him from power without endangering their party's long-term prospects. The alternative? Allowing this man to self-destruct further - and to jeopardize all that his predecessors have built.

Anonymous wrote on December 20, 2006 1:17 PM:

Stephan:

The GOP is not capable of acting in the national interest - or its own interests. Just look at what happened with Mark Foley. They're not going to make a real move on GWB. They just can't.

OCPatriot wrote on December 20, 2006 1:17 PM:

The correct answer is, "Why did you call this conference, Mr Bush? Either give us answers to our questions or make a speech. Thank you." When will the press get some guts to do this? I despair of anything happening unless people get fed up enough with this liar, this spoiled frat boy, this somewhat insane person who hears only his own voice. Then maybe we'll throw him out, as would have happened except for the fact that he wasn't up for re-election.

Frederick wrote on December 20, 2006 1:24 PM:

Gates will fold and go along with more troops. He looked very timid in Baghdad greeting the troops. He's
a yes man plain and simple, the troops won't trust him

John wrote on December 20, 2006 1:55 PM:

"Nice try"? Seems disrespectful, but of course I suppose they should be used to that by now. But I wonder just exactly what he thought was being "tried". He must be very proud of himself for having sniffed out the trap!

Patriot wrote on December 20, 2006 2:02 PM:

Nice of him to smirk a lot while he's dodging a very important question.

Dickhead.

Judy wrote on December 20, 2006 2:28 PM:

Bush is concerned only with saving his legacy. This seems to be the real focus of his decision making at this point. He wants to continue to stay the course until he is out of office and can then pin any consequences of withdrawal on the next president. Putting more troops in now will only delay our ability to withdraw or redeploy our troops before the end of his administration. I think he will stall on this issue until he is stopped by congress.

John Haley wrote on December 21, 2006 2:44 PM:

What really struck me about the "Nice try" comment was that it seemed distubingly sincere - as if to Bush a press conference is just a game where the media's goal is to trip up the president and the president's goal is to avoid the traps. He really did think it was a "nice try," but he "won" by dodging the question without appearing too angry at the presumption of the uppity bitch who asked it. Frat-boy to his gin-soaked bones...

Yando wrote on December 21, 2006 10:09 PM:

Well,
I knew this war was crap right
after I saw the vile "Shock and Awe" war plan
clips. Remember, this was supposed to
be a bloodless, high-tech war that
the USA would dominate through Brave New
Weapons.

I didn't vote for Bush and was against the
invasion from day one. I guess I can
derive some satisfaction knowing I didn't
contribute to this trillion dollar fiasco.

credit card offers wrote on April 24, 2007 7:58 AM:

Credit cards are a great financial tool, offering many benefits:

* They can be safer and more convenient to use and carry than cash
* Credit cards offer the ability to buy goods and services now and pay for them later
* They have valuable consumer protections under the law
* Major credit cards are accepted by merchants around the world
* They may provide a source of cash or payment in an emergency
* Credit cards can guarantee hotel or travel reservations
* If you are not happy with a purchase you made using a credit card, you may have the right to withhold payment until the problem is resolved.

nikolas@gmail.com wrote on April 29, 2007 6:05 PM:

Generic Viagra. Buy Generic Viagra

jennifire@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 10:04 PM:

hello

jennifire@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 10:04 PM:

hello

blue@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 10:23 AM:

hello

gorge@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 9:34 AM:

hello

gorge@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 10:56 PM:

hello

gorge@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 10:56 PM:

hello