The Decider Delays Decision

By TChris, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 05:16:12 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

If President Bush intends to announce a new strategy for Iraq (stay the course a little less?), he won't do so until after he recovers from the White House Christmas and New Years Eve parties.

Mr. Bush had been expected to speak to the American people about Iraq before Christmas. But a spokesman for the National Security Council said today that the talk will now take place after the New Year.

With daily news like this, there may not be much left of Iraq by the time he makes his decision.

Seventy people, most of them Shiite laborers looking for work, were killed Tuesday when a pickup truck packed with explosives was detonated in a crowded square in the city’s center this morning, Iraqi officials and witnesses said. More than 230 people were wounded.

Tony Snow cautions us not to worry that the delayed announcement of a new strategy is the result of presidential indecision. The president is The Decider, after all. He just hasn't decided what to decide.

Nor does the president want to rush his decision-making. Since acting without thinking is what got us into Iraq in the first place, perhaps the president is growing up. More likely, he just doesn't want to think about it.

< Sheehan Convicted But Not Deterred | Kucinich Announces 2008 Presidential Bid >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

The Decider Delays Decision | 11 comments (11 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

He's doing (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 06:40:24 PM EST

A 360

I fear Bush still thinks he can win (none / 0) (#1)
by Al on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 05:37:36 PM EST

According to the BBC, Bush met with Iraqi VP Tariq Al-Hashimi, a Sunni, and said afterwards

Our objective is to help the Iraqi government deal with the extremists and the killers, and support the vast majority of Iraqis who are reasonable, who want peace.

The BBC article goes on to explain:

Iraqi politicians say several groups, including the party led by Mr Hashimi, are discussing a new alliance designed to isolate the movement of the anti-American Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr.

Having encouraged the Shiites to beat the crap out of the Sunnis, Bush now is worried that the Shiites are too strong, and in cahoots with Iran, so he's making nice with the Sunni politicians. Of course this would just generate more bloodshed and chaos.

Bush now has no idea what to do. He doesn't want to withdraw from Iraq, probably hoping to leave that hot potato to his successor, but he may be realizing he's running out of time, and trying to go on the offensive again in the hope of stretching the debacle out.

Impeach the bastard. Please. While he's in office, the bloodshed will grow exponentially.

Bush is just an ordinary player (none / 0) (#2)
by aw on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 05:57:02 PM EST

among these guys. He's right on a level with Amadindehead, Saddam, the Saudi Royal Family. No other president has ever sunk so low in stature as to be equal to these guys.


: There's the joke with a bit of truth in it (none / 0) (#5)
by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 06:37:05 PM EST

There would be no point in Bush and Amanidijad trying to talk to each other.
One can't speak English and the other one is Iranian.

History (none / 0) (#3)
by squeaky on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 06:27:13 PM EST

digby sums it up nicely:

Bush is now counting on history to redeem him, and being the shallow little nitwit he is, he will probably rest easy into his dotage believing that no matter how much his presidency may have screwed up the world, ultimately everything will work out. It's a shame about all the dead bodies, but sometimes that's the price others have to pay for the priviledge of getting the American way of life.

digby

right up the wazoo (none / 0) (#4)
by jondee on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 06:35:18 PM EST

well geez......... (none / 0) (#7)
by cpinva on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 02:58:58 AM EST

this really ought to make the decision making that much easier, don't you think? round up the half dozen or so who'll be left after our holidays, move them to the "green zone", surrounded by 100k+ u.s. troops, and declare victory.

see, wasn't that easy?

Actualy, it probably has to do with oil rights (none / 0) (#8)
by scribe on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 11:11:37 AM EST

and the Iraqis' delay in writing a new law which will allow contracting with Big Oil to exploit their reserves (at very profitable rates of return). This diary over at Kos synthesizes and links to several financial/oil industry-type articles describing the pace of the Iraqis slow moves toward passing a law re contracting with Big Oil. The gist behind them is that without the law in place, Big US Oil can't get their fingers into the Iraqi fields and it's believed the real reason behind The Unit's putting off until the New Year any plans for change in Iraq is to facilitate their doing so. The Asia Times has been on this story, more than anyone else has....

: Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#9)
by aw on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 01:22:42 PM EST

For Big Oil, the new oil law is the holiest of holies: once the exploitation of Iraq's fabulous resources is in the bag, "security" is just a minor detail. Enter the ISG's much-hyped provision of US troops remaining in Iraq until an unclear date to protect not the Iraqi population, but Big Oil's supreme interests. This is really what ISG co-head James Baker means by "responsible transition".
We touched on some of this stuff recently, but they put it together and tie it up with a nice ribbon.

That idiot we must call president... (none / 0) (#10)
by Bill Arnett on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 02:01:34 PM EST

...for another two years just gave another semi-literate speech and said that he had heard, recently, many ideas that, if adopted would lead to defeat.

More stay the course, we can't turn Iraq over to enemies who would do us great harm, and that moderate governments with oil reserves would be in such turmoil that they would be unable to make good decisions without a U.S. victory.

It was, is, and remains all about the oil.

Absotootly... (none / 0) (#11)
by desertswine on Wed Dec 13, 2006 at 02:54:47 PM EST