Bill Kristol: Bush Furious Over The NY Times Article About A Withdrawal From Iraq

The warmongerererer---William "the Bloody," Kristol got a call from a White House official telling him that Bush was furious, just furious

kristol-fns.jpg The warmongerererer---William "the Bloody," Kristol got a call from a White House official telling him that Bush was furious, just furious with the NY Times article that says the administration is debating whether to cut the troop levels in half in 2008.

The Bush administration is developing what are described as concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate...read on

icon Download icon Download

Kristol was furious too. How dare anybody from the White House discuss this! A common tactic with RW hack pundits like William is to make bogus predictions, but say them in an even tone that makes their ideas sound almost plausible. He says that:

Petraeus and Odierno assume that if they can sustain the surge through the beginning of 2008, at that point, maybe there will be enough Iraqi forces that we can begin to draw-down.

That's not a comedy routine folks. Maybe Will didn't get the call from his WH pals about this:

Military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon and now believe that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces.

Training Iraqi troops, which had been the cornerstone of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy since 2005, has dropped in priority, officials in Baghdad and Washington said.

Kristol is a joke that's not Joe Klein--is always wrong---helps to perpetuate a dismal foreign policy---it goes on and on---and is rewarded with a plump TIME magazine column. Think Progress has more...

KRISTOL: I think the leak to the New York Times Saturday was a leak by one faction in the administration.

WALLACE: Why don’t you explain what the leak was.

KRISTOL: That the president is going to move towards a withdrawal at maybe the end of 2007.

WALLACE: That was one of the contingencies discussed.

KRISTOL: Which the New York Times said has not been discussed with General Petraeus and General Odierno, who are running the war. It’s irresponsible for people in the State Department, the Defense Department or the White House to be leaking this stuff which they have no idea whether it’s practical. The president apparently was furious about the New York Times article Saturday. One senior White House official went out of his way to call me Saturday and left me a voicemail saying that. So, since they don’t normally do that on Saturdays, I think maybe it’s even true. They certainly want the impression to be the president was furious.


↓ Story continues below ↓

Look, there’s a fight in the administration about how much they need to look as if they sort of are laying the predicate for getting out — ultimately, everyone wants to withdraw troops and plans to. Petraeus and Odierno assume that if they can sustain the surge through the beginning of 2008, at that point, maybe there will be enough Iraqi forces that we can begin to drawdown. The idea that you help yourself now by talking about drawing down, that was the mistake that the President and Secretary Rumsfeld made for the first three years. It’s the last thing they want to do now. The task for the next three months is for the president to get control over his own administration in terms of the message, let Petraeus and Odierno fight the war. Make the case for why we can’t afford to lose and why we can win and stop this internal leaking and signalling which they may — some of the people may think helps them politically, but i think it hurts.

Thanks to TP for the transcript...

About John Amato

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.