Jan
10
10
Still the Preznit
Oy:
Bush talks frequently of his disdain for micromanaging the war effort and for second-guessing his commanders. “It’s important to trust the judgment of the military when they’re making military plans,” Bush told The Washington Post in an interview last month. “I’m a strict adherer to the command structure.”
Uh. Under the command structure, you’re the Commander-in-Chief, dumbass.
You get the feeling that “I’m a strict adherer to the command structure” is just Bushspeak for “I’m too lazy to read about what’s really going on.”
His Grace said,
January 10, 2007 at 14:46
I always thought it meant something like “can’t someone else do it?” I mean, if there was ever a Simpsons episode which most resembled Bush’s rule of America, it would be when Homer became Sanitation Commissioner for Springfield.
D. Sidhe said,
January 10, 2007 at 15:11
I think in this case what “I’m a strict adherer to the command structure” means is, “If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.” No internal contradictions there. He’s firmly convinced of everybody’s place in the command structure while he’s in command. When he’s just some TANGer, not so much.
Reminds me of the episode of Red Dwarf where Lister is trying to become the ship’s cook so he can outrank Rimmer.
Lister: When I pass the exams and become an officer, you’ll be on latrines. You’ll have the three o’clock watch every morning. I know you’ll obey me, because you, I mean you, respect all that officer smeg.
Rimmer: If you mean I respect my superiors no matter who they are, and I obey orders blindly and unquestioningly … yes! Yes I do!
It may be the only time I ever say anything remotely like this, but Bush is Lister. Mugging, smirking, and hissing “Sucker” behind the backs of the troops.
M.Sphinx said,
January 10, 2007 at 15:22
When Brian Griffin find Dubya hiding after Hurricane Katrina hit:
Don’t make me do stuff…
Rary Guppert said,
January 10, 2007 at 16:03
The fact is, I’m perfectly comfortable with Bush following the advice of his generals; do we really, really want him putting his own personal finger in this pie? Consider the image of Bush actually in control: I can picture him stomping around the Sit Room in a Napoleon hat, a swallowtail coat and jackboots polished to a high gloss, a riding crop under his arm.
Or maybe I’m thinking of Groucho Marx.
Anyhoo, let’s not condemn him for not doing something we don’t really want him to do anyway. He may be a Sadly, No! lurker, and we’d be giving him ideas. With W in actual battlefield control of this affair, we’d likely not only lose the war, but the French would have to come to our rescue.
Ha! Did you hear me? I was all, “The French would have to come to our rescue!”
Michael Moore is fat! Peace out!
Some Guy said,
January 10, 2007 at 16:22
Yeah, but by year 6, Lister has actually matured as a person and learned a lot about not being useless.
If anything,. Bush is Rimmer. Obsessed with “making it”; being important, respected, and feared, but having no interesting in doing the things one needs to do to achieve such status. Convinced it’s not HIS fault he’s not an admiral yet, it’s because his bunkmate is slobby. Brown noses anyone who holds station over him, and kicks everyone below him in the face, simply to prove to himself that he’s the Big Man. Convinced of his own genious, even when failing the astronavigation exam 13 times…
I could go on, but you get the idea.
Me? My vote is for Cat in ‘08.
Vee Gee said,
January 10, 2007 at 16:25
Actually, I think it’s Bushspeak for “Those incompetent generals screwed up my glorious war! They stabbed us in the back!”
random_guy said,
January 10, 2007 at 16:27
One thing’s for sure: Bush is a smeg-head.
My Pet Goat said,
January 10, 2007 at 16:39
Reading is hard! Baaaaa
Ugh said,
January 10, 2007 at 16:41
Wait, now he’s the “adherer”?!!? I thought he was the “decider”? Does he get a new superhero uniform for that (maybe in the form of masking tape)?
venusloon said,
January 10, 2007 at 16:42
What a moron. Shouldn’t it be ‘adherent’ and not adherer???
Col. Kink said,
January 10, 2007 at 16:44
Consider the image of Bush actually in control: I can picture him stomping around the Sit Room in a Napoleon hat, a swallowtail coat and jackboots polished to a high gloss, a riding crop under his arm.
Oh please, Condi sees him like that at least one night per week.
Thers said,
January 10, 2007 at 17:29
So the decider is also an adherer? Of nouns, he is a verber.
Gary Ruppert said,
January 10, 2007 at 17:31
Micromanaging the war didn’t help in WW2, Korea, or Vietnam.
Bush’s speech tonight better be a forceful charge at his domestic critics, in order to cast them in the same lot as traitors like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore, because they are in the same lot.
If you’re not gonna support what it takes to win in Iraq, then you are with the people who want us to lose in Iraq.
The War on Terror has it’s most important front in Iraq, and we cannot let terrorism win in Iraq.
Gary Ruppert said,
January 10, 2007 at 17:34
As well, the President should condemn Ted Kennedy’s stance of removing funding for our troops and leaving them trapped in Iraq.
Ugh said,
January 10, 2007 at 17:41
If you’re not gonna support what it takes to win in Iraq, then you are with the people who want us to lose in Iraq.
The President doesn’t, why should we?
HemlockEcho said,
January 10, 2007 at 17:48
Ted Kennedy didn’t get them trapped in Iraq, Gupert. He’s trying to get them out.
Some Guy said,
January 10, 2007 at 17:49
Kennedy is the reason troops are trapped in Iraq? Interesting theory.
See, how the system works, Congress says, “hey, you can do that all you want, but we’re not going to fund it.” at which point, it is the job of the President (the CiC, if you will) to take the steps nessicary to act with the funds he still has.
If they’re stuck there without funding, it’s cause the President left them there.
See, now, you’re just confused again, al Ruppert. WW2 = win. Korea = still going. Vietnam = lose. Sooo, like…. which one was a “not helping”?
Beyond which, I do not think “micromanaging” means what you think it means. To me, DC micromanaging a war is when the DoD is told to only issue soldiers in the field 3.5 rounds of ammunition for every expected kill, because our data shows that’s how many each soldeir needs.
Or insisting that all field intel be sent back to the Pentagon for analysist, instead of letting field commanders evaluate the situation on hand and taking action then and there.
So, I’m not sure how, “We should start pulling combat troops out and pressure Iraq to actually do something for themselves” really equates to “micromanaging.”
Col. Klink said,
January 10, 2007 at 18:06
As well, the President should condemn Ted Kennedy’s stance of removing funding for our troops and leaving them trapped in Iraq.
Yeah, under the Kennedy plan they won’t get tickets home so either they find camel or they book flights on East Jet. And Kennedy trapped them in Iraq?!? What a tool dude…
Col. Klink said,
January 10, 2007 at 18:11
If you’re not gonna support what it takes to win in Iraq, then you are with the people who want us to lose in Iraq.
Great point! So what the hell are you doing on-line then? Get your ass over there, pronto! Bush needs bodies - contribute. Unless of course, you’re on the side of the terrorists? They I could see why you’d want to stay home. Oh, and Cheetos. Man, it’s hard to live without those things isn’t it?
Bill said,
January 10, 2007 at 18:21
“leaving them trapped in Iraq.”
That is a 10 on the unintentionally brilliant scale. Withdraw the troops, or else we’re going to leave them there to fight!
jade said,
January 10, 2007 at 18:35
The War on Terror has it’s most important front in Iraq, and we cannot let terrorism win in Iraq.
But we’re “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here”. If terrorism loses in Iraq, it will have no alternative but to go to the USA. How does that protect the USA? Clearly it does not. Therefore, we must not escalate. But, if we don’t escalate, terrorism will win in Iraq, giving them a platform from which to launch attacks. Therefore, we must escalate. But, if we escalate, terrorists in Iraq will lose and will have to take their fight to the USA.
Hmm! This requires further thought.
Karl Rove II said,
January 10, 2007 at 18:48
“If you’re not gonna support what it takes to win in Iraq, then you are with the people who want us to lose in Iraq.”
Shorter Gary:
“If we have to kill every Iraqi to free them, then so be it.”
ifthethunderdontgetya³² said,
January 10, 2007 at 18:49
Hi Colonel, now you’ve met our resident troll. (I’m not counting the pie eaters, because pie eaters don’t count.)
BinkyBoy said,
January 10, 2007 at 18:50
Oprah & Obama 2008!!!!
The Decider said,
January 10, 2007 at 19:00
By not managing it, I can blame the generals when it all goes to shit!
prozacula said,
January 10, 2007 at 19:21
see, Gary and the rest of his vietnam-era ilk, believes that we lost in vietnam because protesting a failed war = micromanaging, which is just a hair’s width away from his other argument, protesting = treason, or the other corollary, ‘we lost in vietnam because america “lost it’s will” to be “brutal”, etc. etc.
Tired, warn bullshit arguments that keep being recycled every day.
Sporty said,
January 10, 2007 at 19:50
Sheesh! Give the poor President a break, willya?! He’s just the commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy! That leaves all sorts of stuff out… like the… ummmm… the National Guard… and the… ummm…
Coast Guard and the… ummmmm…
ryk said,
January 10, 2007 at 20:12
Bush’s speech tonight better be a forceful charge at his domestic critics, in order to cast them in the same lot as traitors like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore, because they are in the same lot.
If you’re not gonna support what it takes to win in Iraq, then you are with the people who want us to lose in Iraq.
I guess that applies to me then Gary, ’cause from where I’m standing, if we do what it takes to win in Iraq there won’t be an Iraq any more. And also, fuck you.
Gory Rupert said,
January 10, 2007 at 20:27
“I’m a strict adherer.”
Like a dingleberry. My two-year-old has better command of the English language.
Gory Rupert said,
January 10, 2007 at 20:32
Oh, and I saw it as a nom de net a couple of days ago, and it was brilliant: Goat or Panic?
owlbear1 said,
January 10, 2007 at 20:35
Any parallels?
===============
“Bush, who was 26 years old, got on a bicycle and rode in front of the car in a slow, serpentine manner, forcing his mother to crawl along. “He rode so slowly that he kept having to put his foot down to get his balance, and he kept in a weaving pattern so we couldn’t get past,” Allison recalled. “He was obviously furious with his mother about something, and she was furious at him, too.”
From Digby
===================================
at 26?
I really wish I could come up with some snark, but Fuck!!!
Joe_FedUp said,
January 10, 2007 at 20:42
…same lot as traitors like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore…
“Which brings up the question: Eat my shorts!” - Johnny Carson
So, let me get this straight: Opposing the people in power and expressing that opposition peacefully is treason, now? Maybe in the country YOU’RE from, but I’m an American, and we have a little thing called Freedom of Speech. If you don’t like it, please feel free to go back where you (or your ancestors) came from, and leave us actual patriots alone. I’m sick of traitorous idiots like you and yours trying to tell me what I can think or do.
mikey said,
January 10, 2007 at 21:13
Look, Gary and all the other idiots right down to McCain. Let me use little words here. Iraq cannot be “won”. Get it? There is no “victory”. The very concept is so flawed and so impossible that it cannot even be accurately described. If you supported the war, even if you didn’t, our military did their job. They successfully invaded a foreign nation, defeated their military and toppled their political and military command structure. Guess what? Job was done there. Soldiers and Marines are not cops. They cannot end sectarian conflict, criminal violence or civil war. Most importantly, you cannot end violence with violence. They are a fighting force built to close with, engage and destroy another fighting force. That they did. They now should come home.
Read your history, fer cryin out loud. You end insurgencies by bringing the insurgents into the political process. Ballots, not bullets, y’know? You end a civil war by negotiation. By adding a level of violence, you create more violence. Then, when you try to use more violence to “tamp down” the violence, you engender a violent response. Can you say “viscious cycle”? I knew you could.
The American role in Iraq, such as it ever was, ended in the summer of ‘03. Ever since then, our people have been dying and killing for absolutely nothing, no gain. In fact, by continuing to radicalize the population and take the blame for thousands of civilian deaths, a much more likely case is we are contributing to the threat against us.
Did you see the battle for Haifa street yesterday? A crowded residential neighborhood under full assault, heavy guns, artillery, air strikes, gunships, Ma Deuce and Mk 19s. Destroyed housed, dead Iraqi civilians, more anger and hatred. That’s what your surge is going to look like. Will we turn Baghdad into Grozny? Is that what we’ve become? As we tear through Sadr City, killing people and destroying their livelihoods, what will we be accomplishing? What will people say about America? Who will ever forgive us?
It’s over. We know it’s over. Bush is a murdering thug not to bring it to an end now. History will not treat him kindly, but there is no punishment he, and his mindless, brutal enablers and supporters (Gary? Lookin at you, boy) do not deserve…
mikey
JK47 said,
January 10, 2007 at 21:15
Bush’s speech tonight better be a forceful charge at his domestic critics, in order to cast them in the same lot as traitors like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore, because they are in the same lot.
Go ahead, nimrod, keep calling 2/3 (and rising) of the American population traitors. Let me know how that works out for you.
Snag said,
January 10, 2007 at 21:17
Bush’s speech tonight better be a forceful charge at Sadly No!, in order to cast them in the same lot as traitors like TBogg and Roy.
les said,
January 10, 2007 at 21:20
Well said, Mikey. One quibble–the chance that Maliki et al will let us into Sadr City is nil; we’ll be surgin’ the Sunnis, all over the place.
Tucker Carlson said,
January 10, 2007 at 21:35
Orange!
mikey said,
January 10, 2007 at 21:47
the chance that Maliki et al will let us into Sadr City is nil; we’ll be surgin’ the Sunnis, all over the place.
Nah. It’s gonna come down to al Hakim and SCIRI or al Sadr and Mahdi. al Sadr’s a nationalist who really doesn’t like the Iranians, and SCIRI is wholly a creation of Iran, and the Maliki government sees their best future aligned with Iran, so somebody’s gotta lose - and al Sadr has the short straw.
That said, I wouldn’t want to be a Sunni either, at this point…
mikey
Note: While irony is very sick, she cannot be dead as long as the American military is effectively functioning as an Iranian militia…
Some Guy said,
January 10, 2007 at 21:49
In slightly related news.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/static.php?f=wherecamefrom.php
When can we expect Limbaugh and company to denounce this disgusting act of anti-American blood lust from the the Marine Corps Times?
les said,
January 10, 2007 at 22:11
Mikey: “and al Sadr has the short straw.:
I dunno. I’m not arguing your point; but it seems like, for the present, Maliki needs to hold the “gov’t” with Sadr together, to legitimize savaging the Sunnis first. After all, we just want to do what the legit. gov’t of Iraq wants, right? On the other hand, I hear they’re conscripting and arming anybody who can move in Sadr City, so I’m probably full of shit. In any event, house to house in Baghdad will be a bloody f’n mess.
D. Sidhe said,
January 10, 2007 at 22:17
For whatever it’s worth, and entirely because I can’t sleep with guys tearing off my siding and nailing new stuff on, I must clarify. My faint hope in 2000 was that Dubya did, as we were promised, have smart friends, and would simply do what they said. (I know, I was naive. I suspect I thought Cheney had mellowed over the years. I spend a lot of time on heavy medications, you understand.) And God knows the man himself couldn’t organize a three person trip to the end of the block with a map and a yellow brick road. So I’m entirely okay with him taking the advice of his military–assuming that’s what he’s doing.
I doubt it is. I don’t believe he’s even capable of it. At best, he’s shown himself capable of listening to their ideas and combining the worst of them with his Public Policy By Tantrum style. I seriously think when he says he thinks the chain of command is important, he’s talking about him telling other people what to do.
And yeah, Bush is a Rimmer by nature (though not as sincerely ambitious). Which is why it was hard to say he was being Lister in this one, specific situation.
Bill said,
January 11, 2007 at 0:03
Being one of Bush’s generals is like being the parent of a stubborn three-year-old who insists on tying their shoes. They can’t do it, they keep fucking up, but any gentle guidance is met with “Let ME DO IT!” So you have to find a way to help them without them thinking you’re helping them, to let them save face. Sure the knot sucks, and they’re probably going to trip, but at least you got the laces in some semblance of order before they ran out the door. Hence, the diplomacy efforts they got Bush to promise to.
Gen. Casey is probably doing body shots off his wife and her game spa instructor on his yacht right now. I’m no longer responsible, assholes!
Patkin said,
January 11, 2007 at 8:38
It may be the only time I ever say anything remotely like this, but Bush is Lister. Mugging, smirking, and hissing “Sucker� behind the backs of the troops.
Here’s the thing. I don’t think this is true. I remember watching Dwarf as a young teen, endlessly amused by this strange foreign land where all the non-Canadian comedians came from, and watching Rimmer.
And our president has basically the same unwarrented confidence in himself as Rimmer. He has the same bull-headed stubborness that while everything is going to shit around him for reasons only set in motion by himself, things are either working out fine or someone else’s fault.
In one episode, Rimmer lands on a planet inhabited by sentient wax figures, and ends up in charge of the “good” wax dolls, who’re mostly great thinkers, pacifists and Elvis. Lined up again Hitler and assorted other bad men of history. And Rimmer, thinking he’s a genius because he played wargames, just throws the “good” wax figures to their demises.
Eventually the entire planet is depopulated, and all sentient life is extinguished, leaving the Dwarf crew to piss off back to space. And Rimmer still thinks he could’ve won.
So, I’m going to say that no, this is still Rimmer-Bush. Certain that if he just pushes more people to their deaths, the other side will lose enough to match. And then, in the end, Iraq, the US military and whoever isn’t in the executive branch will be dead, and Bush will still think he could’ve won.
Herr Doktor Bimler said,
January 11, 2007 at 10:02
It’s good to see that the verdict of history is coming out against Truman with his “Buck stops here” bullshit. What an egotist. Everything always had to be about him.
Leon Trotsky said,
January 11, 2007 at 17:14
Bush’s speech tonight better be a forceful charge at his domestic critics, in order to cast them in the same lot as traitors like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore, because they are in the same lot.
Is this lot located anywhere near the dustbin of history?
Lukeness said,
January 11, 2007 at 23:06
As the commander-in-chief, I keep commanding the commanders to command their commands to win the war. After that, it’s their problem!
Herr Doktor Bimler said,
January 12, 2007 at 1:10
“in order to cast them in the same lot as traitors like Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore, because they are in the same lot.”
Is this lot located anywhere near the dustbin of history?
It’s a satanic vacant lot. Scott from WO’C has the details:
“As the girls emerge from the truck, Patti is suddenly overcome by an unnatural passion, and exposes her boobs to Albert Finney’s doorknocker from Scrooge. Then she lies down on a barbecue and has an orgasm, while Wilfred has a heart attack.”