.
Here’s Bush in September 2006, in a closed-door session with conservative journalists, as reported by Rich Lowry in the National Review. Lowry, who was even then calling for more U.S. troops in Iraq, asked Bush to respond to that argument.
“Bush: The answer to that question is, if General Casey feels like he needs more troops, we’ll send them …
“I’m constantly asking General Casey that question. I’ve got direct contact with him through secure video.’
“Q: What if he’s wrong?
“Bush: Then I picked the wrong general.
“Q: You wouldn’t override his decision in any instance?
“Bush: Well, how — I mean — I query him thoroughly. I’m certainly not a military expert, nor am I in Baghdad. I talk to Zal [Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador] all the time. In other words, we get — and I ask for data. So I know how to ask questions. I think I’m pretty good about filtering out which is real and which is not.”
ON TROOP LEVELS
Tuesday September 12, 2006 – We asked the President repeatedly about the issue of troop levels in Iraq. He noted that a Stryker brigade has been sent to Baghdad from Mosul and there are 147,000 troops in theater. He went on to say that anyone who is 60 years old–like himself–is a product of the Vietnam era, and “it was a mistake then to make tactical decisions out of the Oval Office.” He said he had “confidence and faith” in the military leaders, including Gen. Casey, who are on the ground and not asking for more troops.
Asked what if Gen. Casey is wrong, Bush said, “Then, I picked the wrong general.” Bush emphasized that he’s not a military expert and he’s not in Baghdad, but “I know how to ask the right questions [of the generals].” Again, he said of Casey, “If he’s wrong, I’m wrong.” He said that U.S. generals are saying “we need more troops and we need them to be Iraqis.” He continued: “Gen. Casey is a very capable man, who’s got a depth of understanding of politics [in Iraq] and his role as a military commander.”
Asked if generals might be inhibited in asking for more troops because it might be such a politically unwelcome request, Bush used a dismissive expletive for the notion. He expressed his conviction that his generals know he has what it takes–briefly showing his fluidity in Spanish–to get them the troops they need even if the politics isn’t favorable. To increase Gen. Casey’s comfort level with him, Bush said he had invited Casey and his wife to spend time with him informally.
By yesterday (Dec. 20, 2006), however, Bush indicated that he will not necessarily let military leaders decide, ducking a question about whether he would overrule them. “The opinion of my commanders is very important,” he said. “They are bright, capable, smart people whose opinion matters to me a lot.” He added: “I agree with them that there’s got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished with the addition of more troops before I agree on that strategy.”
A senior aide said later that Bush would not let the military decide the matter. “He’s never left the decision to commanders,” said the aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so Bush’s comments would be the only ones on the record. “He is the commander in chief. But he has said he will listen to those commanders when making these decisions. That hasn’t changed.”
.
After Yale, Bush successfully dodged the draft by volunteering for a six-year hitch in the Texas Air National Guard.George W. Bush as decider in Tx:
Then people started asking themselves whether George’s experience in Texas was really sufficient to prepare him for the Oval Office. As governor, Dubya had envisioned the role of the chief executive as being the guy with the final say. Bush didn’t propose policies. He didn’t research anything. His staff would bring a policy issue to his attention, narrowed down to two competing options. Then they would deliver a five-minute oral argument for each sides and tell the governor which alternative they supported. And then he would make the either-or decision, right on the spot. This is how he ran things.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."George won’t listen to his Generals, history repeats. We’ll soon know Barney’s input.
But seriously, what is painfully clear is we’re in the phase of Bush’s ousting all opponents to the neo-cons’ “surge” option in preparation to Save a legacy and pass on the mess for others to clean up.
Some coward.
I’m afraid I don’t get the Barney connection.
smarter than his master and the new WH spokesman on Iraq:
his most recent missive can be found on the WH lawn.
Thanks. You get confused about things when you have young kids…
Oh Dada, Thanks. I’m challenged with embedding images.
We do need a new spokesperson at the WH given that
Snow said Americans are Out of Touch with Reality in Iraq
“This prompted a reporter to ask White House Press Secretary Tony Snow if Bush was “fundamentally out of touch with what the reality is on the ground in Iraq?” Snow responded that “we may be out of touch with reality because we sit around and we look at fractional pictures on the screen.”
Fractional pictures? AT least there’s a change the press corps are asking questions
.
WILLIAMSTOWN, MASS. (AP) – His horse is wild-eyed and muscular, a gallant force galloping toward a mountain top as soldiers in the background push a cannon alongside a rocky ledge.
It’s a collection of both stunning artwork and political propaganda. Take, for instance, “Bonaparte Crossing the Alps.” Despite its overwhelming majesty and the details David painted into the general and his stallion, the painter had a few things off.
Bonaparte led the armies of the Consulateover the Alps to defeat the Austrians at
the Battle of Marengo. (Jacques-Louis David)
For one, the portrait doesn’t really look like Napoleon, and the general actually traversed the Alps on the back of a mule, not a fiery steed.
“He wasn’t trying to capture historical accuracy as much as he was concentrating on painting Napoleon as a conquering hero,” said Michael Cassin, the Clark’s curator of education.
White House pressed on 'mission accomplished' sign"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."