Bush on "60 Minutes"

There are no valid reasons for troop increases anymore than there was a reason for invading Iraq in the first place.

No one in that administration has anything resembling "deep thoughts", unless your point of reference is Jack Handy

 

I don't see it as that. I think the inflexibility is NOTICED because he disagrees with me (or Meat, or whoever we're talking about), but it's the inflexibility itself that makes me angry. I'm not suggesting he change his entire philosophy on life, but at no point has it ever seemed that he is willing to truly listen to things with which he doesn't agree. There's a difference between listening and kowtowing, but he doesn't seem to think so.

 

Leonard can speak for me...

BY LEONARD PITTS JR.

So finally we have a glimpse of President Bush's new plan for Iraq. And who can be surprised that the new plan is basically to do what he did under the old plan, except more.

Twenty thousand more, to be exact. That's the amount by which Bush wants to bump American troop strength. The reinforcements, he explained in his televised speech Wednesday night, largely would be used to secure Baghdad. Baghdad is, of course, one of the less secure cities on Earth, center of an insurgency that has killed thousands of Iraqis and Americans.

The decision to increase troop strength is remarkable coming, as it does, from a president who consistently has defended existing troop levels as adequate to get the job done. But then, he's also a president who consistently has said he could not think of any mistakes he made in prosecuting the so-called War on Terror. Yet, there he was, belatedly admitting that he has pursued a flawed strategy based on false assumptions. ''Where mistakes have been made,'' he said, ''the responsibility rests with me.'' Contrary to a prediction his critics often have made, this admission of error and acceptance of responsibility did not cause Bush's lips to fall off.

MORE TROOPS

I have no earthly idea whether an influx of 20,000 troops will be sufficient to cure what ails Iraq and its capital city. Your humble correspondent is not an expert on military force levels. Nor, for that matter, are the majority of other pundits who will opine on this question in days to come. I'd love to be able to say whether sending more troops will pacify Baghdad long enough to get the electricity turned back on. And, for that matter, whether turning on the electricity will, at this late date, make a difference.

But the fact is: I don't know. Tell you what I do know, however.

I know that we've been misled to an awful intersection of history where there are no good options, only options in varying shades of bad. I know how tempting it is to say we ought to wash our hands of this mess and bring our men and women home. I know that it still strikes me as wrong, for reasons both moral and pragmatic, to come in, blow up these people's country, then walk away and leave them in the rubble.

Most of all, though, I know this: I do not trust my leaders. And politics is not the only, or even the primary, reason. No, at the end of the day, this is a question of character.

From the beginning, the architects of this war have shown a frightening nonchalance toward truth, a troubling willingness to treat fact as optional. Where reality has collided with political expedience, political expedience has invariably won. Where it has been inconvenient, it has been ignored.

STARTED WITH 9/11

It happened when the administration linked Iraq to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks even though one had nothing to do with the other. It happened when the White House used discredited intelligence to make the case for war. It happened when the president dismissed gloomy intelligence reports that did not jibe with his preferred view. It happened when he insisted we ''stay the course'' even after it became apparent to everyone with eyes that the course led straight off a cliff.

So now, here comes Bush with sober mien and chastened air asking for one more chance to get it right. And if you sense in this corner a reluctance to comply, well, it has less to do with the merits of his proposed strategy than with the fact that it is his proposed strategy. Bush is a man who has heretofore shown only arrogance in the face of monumental and fatal misjudgments. Now he comes before the country asking us, in effect, to trust him.

And for the life of me, I can't think of a single reason I should.

 

I thought 60 Minutes overplayed the whole, this is Camp David, cameras don't come here. This is the President getting on Marine 1, cameras aren't normally here.
Correct me if I am wrong and someone will, but didn't West Wing use Camp David as a set for a couple of episodes?
All that being said, I thought Bush did reasonably well, but at the gym me and one of the girls on the ellip. trainer broke out in laughter when he talked about being flexible.

 

Mert's right. It's his total inablility to process new information.

Thesis. Antithesis. Synthesis. Basic intellectual concepts.

Being a stubborn fool isn't a positive character trait or the sign of a leader.

 

And as someone who voted for him twice and is not ashamed to admit it, I think he now has to distance himself from some of that dream team, like he did with Rumsfeld. Some people led him down the wrong path. There comes a time when you have to stand on your own. If he never does, then so be it.

 

I understand, but you wouldn't (or most who make this accusation at least) acknowledge that he was really listening unless he conceded that he was wrong and you are right. Held to the same standard, you (again, generic) are equally guilty of inflexibility which is code for thinking the wrong thing and not realizing how right I've been all along.

 

Trust me, I have never expected Shrub to concede to a single thing the Dems/liberals think. It has nothing to do with concession. It's about thought, about consideration, introspection, and analysis. These all seem to be things that, when opposition comes into play, GWB has absolutely no desire to involve himself with. I do not use "inflexibility" as code. I use it in the spirit of the word. At no point has he ever shown any sign of being willing to truly listen to anyone but those who agree with him.

 

I would be curous as to your eveidence here. What about Ted Kennedy? Flexible? Obama? Kerry?

 

What about any of them? Why is it such a staple of the Righty Playbook to start calling out Democrats when you guys can't (or at least don't want to) actually make a counter argument?

 

Isn't that pretty much out of the playbook for all politicians?

I've never met one who wasn't a lying, two-faced, pansy-ass POS.

 

maybe true, but how does that make it OK? Why is it that the majority of conservatives still seem to have no problem using the "they do it too" defense? Christ, conserviatives (especially the overwhelming majority on this board) think they're better than us poor, misguided liberals. So why not prove it?