Wishin' and hopin' and waitin'
By Logan Murphy Wednesday Sep 05, 2007 9:16pm
On tonight's Countdown, Keith Olbermann lays out a timeline of the Bush administration's shell game leading up to the surge and how every time they were asked about details, the press and the American people were continually told to wait. Ret. Army Colonel and former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson, sits in with Keith and blasts Bush for his lack of planning for post-war Iraq and the revelation that Bush, regardless of what party the next president belongs to, he envisions a long-term presence in Iraq. In the end, Wilkerson rightfully shows his disgust with Democrats as they cower in fear of right-wing talking points and show no sign of true leadership in ending the nightmare. This is a long clip, but we're always trying to bring you as much content as possible and it's definitely worth it.
Download | play 
Download | play
On September 15th, the administration is due to report on the progress achieved in Iraq by the president's surge strategy.
Until then, we are told, "just wait."
If you expect that day to bring clarity on when the troops will come home, you either haven't been paying attention, or you're a member of Congress or both.
Don't feel too bad.
This is not the first time the administration has given Democrats, and the public, reason to hope for withdrawal.
When he was asked almost a year ago whether he was considering a surge, the president said, "just wait."
Full transcripts below the fold
Good Evening from New York.
When Mr. Bush announced the surge, he told those who wished to debate it on its merits... just wait for the official assessment.
Four days from now, General David Petraeus goes before Congress to give that assessment.
Then--only then, are we supposed to make judgments about, and debate the future of, America's military presence in Iraq.
Today, we learned that by then, it will be too late.
In our fifth story tonight, the President has already made up his mind.
We are staying. Maybe with slightly fewer troops, maybe not. He will discuss it in a speech next week; his chief of staff Josh Bolten giving "USA Today" a preview and echoing the words of his boss in the new book,'Dead Certain,' saying Mr. Bush wants to make it possible, "for his successor--whichever party that successor is from--to have a sustained presence in the Middle East."
He wants a sustained presence.
America's purpose in going to Iraq--now officially just to be in Iraq.
Explaining why he never debated leaving Iraq, only what to do in Iraq.
And even that debate, we learned today, woefully inadequate, when it came to one of Mr. Bush's most costly errors in Iraq...
Former administrator Paul Bremer continuing to rebut Mr. Bush's claim he never intended to disband the Army, writing in an op-ed today,
Quoting him, "The first I heard of doubts about the decision was in the fall of 2003 after the insurgency had picked up speed."
Mr. Bremer and the entire administration apparently unaware of mainstream media reports in spring of 2003-- before they disbanded the Army--that Saddam's soldiers warned that if they were let go they would attack American soldiers.
Whether it be about disbanding the Army, or about the surge, we have seen this congenital aversion to debate before.
It goes back, according to Sydney Blumenthal writing today at Salon.Com, to just under five years ago -- on the 18th of September, 2002 -- when, according to two former CIA officers, their boss George Tenet personally briefed Mr. Bush that Saddam Hussein's Foreign Minister had secretly confirmed Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Bush told Tenet his information was worthless.
Thus, now... when it comes to leaving Iraq, the shell game is an old and practiced one.
The nation debating withdrawal, while the administration only seemed to -- as Mr. Bolten confirmed today.
This pattern played out just last year. Then, as now, we awaited a report.
Then, as now, the prospect of a drawdown was dangled.
Then, as now, those who would debate Iraq were told "just wait."
Here is White House confirmation of the confidence scam it has run on the country -- in its own words.
On September 15th, the administration is due to report on the progress achieved in Iraq by the president's surge strategy.
Until then, we are told, "just wait."
If you expect that day to bring clarity on when the troops will come home, you either haven't been paying attention, or you're a member of Congress or both.
Don't feel too bad.
This is not the first time the administration has given Democrats, and the public, reason to hope for withdrawal.
When he was asked almost a year ago whether he was considering a surge, the president said, "just wait."
REPORTER: There's a report that you may want to send 30,000 additional troops to Iraq. Is that something--
BUSH: Look I'm going to listen to our commanders, Steve. Ours is a condition-based strategy. And Pete Pace is conducting a thorough study -- he's the chairman of the joint chiefs. John Abizaid has got some ideas, and the Baker-Hamilton Commission is looking. I want to hear from Democrats on Capitol Hill what their views may be. I want to hear from my fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill. And then I'll make up my mind."
Even well-connected journalists saw signals Mr. Bush might consider bringing the troops home.
BROKAW: I think there are signs he will listen now.
When Baker-Hamilton envisioned a combination drawdown-redeployment, Mr. Bush seemed open to it.
REPORTER: Is it possible to get them out of Iraq by early 2008, is that...
BUSH: One of the things the report did mention, and I think you've said it in your comment, if conditions so allow."
The media seized on that possibility, even after rumors surfaced about a surge.
"Do we stay, do we leave Iraq?"
"Is the president going to discuss how we get out of Iraq?"
REPORTER: "Will there be benchmarks on how the US gets out of there?"
Again we were told...
SNOW: "just wait. Wait until you see the whole package and then the debate will begin."
But only debate about what to do there.
Any debate about leaving was moot.
REPORTER: Wouldn't it be more useful at this point for the president to say, 'well, here's where I'm going, what do you all think about that?' If it's--
SNOW: No, because when that happens, there will be some of that, as well -- when he's decided upon the way forward--
REPORTER: But then it will already have been decided.(Laughter)
SNOW: No, wait a minute. You just told me -- what the hell do you want me to do here? (Laughter)
One week later, confirmation: debate about leaving was pointless.
REPORTER: The brigades that you've spoken of, you've got the money?
SNOW: Yes.
REPORTER: So it's moot. Any discussion right now of cutting off the money--
SNOW: I believe that's the case"
But then, just as with Baker-Hamilton, we were told to withold judgment... "just wait."
"We will probably have a better view a couple of months from now."
SNOW: "Wait until September."
ODIERNO:"In order to do a good assessment, I need until at least November."
As with Baker-Hamilton, Democrats looking ahead to the Petraeus report spoke as if the issue will be whether the troops can come home.
"If they're doing well, then we can start bring our troops out slowly."
The White House encouraged that thinking.
"It is conceivable that there will be troops moving out."
But in the same breath, he started downplaying hope for big change in September.
BUSH: "July is important, August is important, September is important."
And even if Petraeus were to recommend a drawdown, the history speaks loudly about what happens to that recommendation from the military.
REPORTER: "What happened to the statement that he had made for years that the people who decided troop levels in Iraq were the generals on the ground?"
SNOW: "Well, he's talked to them, too. And as you probably know, generals are not of one mind. Generals are independent individuals, as well, and there are a number of opinions within the ranks of the military."
Mr. Bush, meanwhile, has consistently had one guiding, abiding opinion.
"I reject those ideas-- ideas such as leaving before the job is done."
The problem: the debate rarely addresses his definition of that job -- as if no one hears, or wants to hear, when he admits just how far-reaching, just how ambitious his goals are.
BUSH: "Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security and is an ally in the war on terror."
An ally, as defined by Mr. Bush.
And how long could that take?
Without serious debate over his goals in Iraq... "Just wait."
"Typically, I think, historically, counterinsurgency operations have gone at least nine or ten years."
Login or Register to post comments.
HUH???? OH....segundo...
it is time to impeach
watch this
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fCutvXccFlA
Nixon had a plan "to end the (Vietnam) war, too. The plan was.... we win, and then we can all come home. Nixon was elected, and fooled around for some five years.... until he resigned. Then Ford brought the troops home. Why do Americans have to learn the same lesson every twenty years?
Now you don't see it, now you don't.
[refers to deleted post.]
ISP.....ignore stupid people........especially this nitwit
republicans (at least those in the administration) have no conscience ... but unfortunately democrats (at least the majority of those in the house & senate) have no spine ... sad. time to move to new zealand.
Yeah and then out of the desert comes an anouncement of a imminent tape from Bin Laden. OH WOW what a timely KoinkYdink
Mark @ 5:
I hope you're being snarky. My hauband has been over there the better part of three years and he's pissed. When these guys come home in huge numbers, chickenhawks like you had better keep low profiles. Michael is a bit...testy.
See there are no comments on Mark's blog.
Perhaps it is because his posts make no sense.
Yeah, but let's get our eyes on the right ball--Iran. That's what's happening now. As Dave Lindorff points out:
"The shocking thing is that even though all the signs of a Bush attack on Iran are there, including the build-up of an unprecedented Naval armada, armed to the teeth, in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, nobody in Congress or the American media is talking about this looming crime and imminent disaster. Most Americans are blissfully unaware, even though people in the military are watching it all unfold in horror."
i paraphrase someone wiser:
what webs we weave when first we practice to decieve
Most americans couldn't agree more with the fact that the spineless, a$$kissing democrats are not any better than the corrupt republicans they are cowering down to. The Democrats have profoundly disappointed the people who trusted them and put them into a majority in 06. It's OVER for the Democrats if they don't begin impeachment proceedings immediately....not to mention NOT bending over again to Bush and cutting his purse strings in Iraq.
Everybody on this site need to understand that you can scream as loud as you can, you can help elect as many democrat's as possible, you can march, protest, rally as much as you want, bush is not going to end this war, nor are the spineless democrat's,a.k.a. dixiecrat's, this war will go on , american's will die, women and children will die no matter what we do or say, and that's a reality. So i say why fight?
Immediate impeachment proceedings would be the ONLY option left to the Democrats if they want to save face with the american people.
The Bush administration has been using the "Success is just around the corner if you just give a little more time" tactic for four years now. The media never catches on. The Baker/Hamilton was supposed to be the ultimate report, now it's the Petraeus report, but the day after the Petraeus report another report will be announced about six months hence that will be the next definitive report. The media will respond with glee because they'll have yet another meaningless report to anticipate with bated breath for the next six months. The Bush administration is just buying time in large chunks from report to report.
1.) Sept. 15 is a Saturday.That`s a pre-verbal given that nothing of consequence will happen.
2.) The report is written by the White House.What does that tell you?
3.) There is now no leadership on this or any other important issue coming out of Washington.Get organizing to get rid of the do nothings.
4.) When you file your tax return next year remember to put the money you owe in escrow until these damn fools start to listen.If enough of us do this they won`t have the money to continue.Also,increase your deductions ASAP,so that you owe them money.Then... Do it.THE WAR WILL END SHORTLY AFTER THAT.
The dems already caved.
Lower your expectations on them, they are spineless.
It seems that almost no one (left, right, radical, or sock puppet) understands that the most likely outcome of the invasion in Iraq is a decades long war. One person who did understand it, and signalled his understanding so often it was comic that no one ever heard it, was Donald Rumsfeld. He got positively weak in the knees at the mere thought of a Long Global War on Anything we feel like fighting. Keith is once again to be praised for airing this perspective on national media. Most people don't believe it because they think it is a 'conspiracy theory'. They fail to understand that the dynamic of vilifying enemies to get votes, and having a long term sustained enemy to justify long term sustained funding of the military is neither a new idea nor something that we can just quit. We are hooked. The self perpetuating dynamics of using military force to fight straw men (with the consequent killing of real men, and the consequent creation of real enemies) doesn't need anyone planning to get it going, it only needs basic human emotional makeups, and an asleep citizenry willing to let the scum rise to the top.
One primary purpose of the Long Global War (WWIII) is to keep power in the hands of the current system (Repugs and Demoncrats alike). We aren't leaving Iraq, we are probably going to invade Iran (the current fear level is way too low to sustain the hysteria) and then... the long global war is underway.
Wait, I found one with a spine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePHJ5fWUgFQ
Yes, the Tim Ryan quote from the floor is a classic but we need to get more recent stuff of Tim which is still pretty good passed around.
His stuff from July is not bad (though it should be edited )
getalife @ 19:
I found another one,but you have to wait till the end to see him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-oMlBSiX3g&mode=related&search=
Just wait, our fist isn't far enough up your ass!
The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December of 1979. Their strategic plan was to remake the Middle East by establishing a sustained presence (first in Afghanistan), and insure their future oil supplies. Their military couldn’t sustain the presence though. They got their asses handed to them, ran out of money, broke their military – and left in 1988. The later economic plight resulted in internal chaos from which the Soviets NEVER RECOVERED. Bye-bye USSR, bye-bye red menace.
But Damn-it! They ain’t us. And we ain’t the British Empire either (they failed too). We is Amerkins! Can’t happen to us…
Bush says just wait. Let the Generals on the ground decide. Of course he’s already fired every General on the ground that didn’t tow the line. The Patraeus report was already written six months ago – without Patraeus. Daddy’s Baker group tried to give Bush a way out last year – they were ignored. This has now become a sustained conflict – for the sake of just being there. It is fruitless, foolish and fowl. It's also not sustainable.
And it’s 1979 – all over again. We’re messing up worse than the Soviets did. We’ve caused chaos in Iraq, ran out of money, broke our military…and are now targeting Iran. The Soviets just messed up in Afghanistan, we’re going for broke. At this point I cannot think of a single good outcome. Not one. Will the Dems save us in 2009? Sure they will, just like Gorbachev saved the USSR in 1988 after their SEVEN YEAR Middle East nightmare.
I wouldn’t want to extend the parallels too far, but any way you look at it, it’s not pretty.
I was most taken by the last sentence of the interview -
Wilkerson: I believe that Bremer was "diengenuous" in his OpEd today. Disengenuous? Does that mean he LIED? Can anyone say he LIED anymore?
willie mink @ 10:
As a military retiree (Vietnam veteran) I'm sure the machine is geared up and waiting...maybe it's the September 11th date...maybe to coincide with Bin Laden's timely release (for his buddy Bush) of a new videotape...another clue was the nukes transferred to Barksdale AFB (officially scapegoated: an ordnance officer)...a 'mistake.' Don't worry, folks, they're not the 'big bangs', they're a measly 150kt, just about 8 times the power of the Hiroshima bomb. Tactical. (a few years back they would have been classified as 'strategic'. They weren't armed during the flight from Minot AFB, North Dakota, to Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, I don't know what the fuss is all about. Nah, they were being staged for the imminent attack on Iran. Since Bush changed the strategy of using nukes from 'MAD' to 'possible,' we can assume with a heavy heart that they will be used. I think the Bush strategy of duping Congress into believing he would work with them, to just wait, worked so well that we will be in a worse war soon. It's too late for impeachment; that won't remove the 'football' soon enough.
Who even cares about this stupid report. It's probably been meddled with by too many of the wrong people in the wrong positions.
I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S.S "Mission Accomplished" is refueled anytime soon.
getalife @ 19:
I found another!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxshMiedhYM
(originally came across this posting at C&L, of course)
Keith's always great against the reason-impaired
Wildspirit @ 25:
I fear you are so right in you assessment. I have an 18-year-old son, Fresh-in-College-I so fear for his life.
"the Just-Waiter
"the Rejecter"
"the Respecter"
"the Player"
"the Allier"
"the Pass-it-on-er"
"the Strategerer"
Again, its called Operation Run Out The Clock - Draper made it crystal clear that Bush doesn't give a shit anymore and just wants to barbecue down in Texas. And "fill his coffers" from the speaking circuit.
If I were a Bush staffer and lived in some nice gated community in some suburb of Dallas or Houston with pristine schools I'd wanna get away from this Iraq mess too and play catch with the dog - I'm sure some nice gullible Democrat will clean up the mess I made. How bout some lemonade there?
veritas @ 12:
OK, so how do you propose they do that without GENBC/ABC/WaPo and FOX utterly *burying* them? That's before you get to Rush and his lackeys.
It's a fact that the higher up the political tree you go, the less room you have to maneouvre. Those corporations are making an absolute fortune from this conflict and don't intend to give it up any time soon. This wouldn't be a problem but for the fact that they control almost *all* the information that the US public sees and hears. They are genuinely afraid that pulling the plug now will ensure a Republican president and majority for the next decade, and who knows what that'll do to your country?
Bush is a cheerleader. He was in college. Go Yale, go!! He was during Vietnam. "Think I'll sit on the sidelines as part of the Texas National Guard" (He didn't even show for that). And he is now. "Go team, Go!!!" while he prepares to "replenish the Coffers, he, he he" when he leaves office. Hard to imagine a bigger f--k up on any level (except for his wife and kids).
I feel very badly for the troops who are over there fighting in a no-win situation and unspeakably sad for those who have sacrificed life, limb and peace of mind for Bush's Quagmire. As for those who will in the future die and suffer horrific injury fighting Bush's Quagmire I feel even worse. The spineless Democrats in Congress who refuse to impeach Bush, Pelosi and the rest of that crew, can share in the blame for these losses. They are just waiting to replenish their coffers in 2008. A sad and disgusting scene. Shameful.
(deleted whinings about defeatist liberals, not being real Americans, etc.)
War is not a video game, where you can keep restarting the level until you get it right.
War is not a comic book, where you can be a hero and win the day simply by force of will (don't forget your power ring).
War has evolved beyond the industrial model (he who has the most toys wins) and we are now fighting amongst the people.
We need to be honest about our mission, what we need to achieve it, and how we intend to do so.
We need to be honest about our progress, not cherry-pick statistics or build up fake marketplaces.
And we certainly need people whose cognition extends beyond stale insults and name-calling, then imagine that they are loyal and steadfast patriots.
Was it really necessary to delete Mark@5? I'm glad someone quoted it, the rantings of trolls can have enormous entertainment value, on top of reminding us just how divorced from reality a good portion of the American Public is. And not just the 20 some percent dead enders. To use the terms "surrender" and "victory" when discussing Iraq is so completely mundane. Just like Bush talking about "finishing the job", whatever that job might be. It's akin to meaningless psychobabble.
I would like to know who these folks think the liberals are surrendering to and who they think we are going to be victorious over. Al Queda? I can punch a mess of holes in that argument, as everyone else has. The insurgency? WTF is that and are they even shooting at our boys or are they just getting in the way? The Easter Bunny? Come one 'wingers, let's hear some justification for your war mongering...I thought so, the only thing they have to go on is Rambo Rhetoric.
I find it very quite sad that the only politician who seems willing to admit the Iraq War is a mistake and that it's time to leave immediately is Ron Paul.
[...] outside the NYT firewall here. And if you missed last night’s Countdown, be sure to listen to the audio at Crooks and Liars of Keith’s commentary on the “surge,” plus his interview of Larry Wilkerson. [...]
Dharma Pup @ 6:
I agree. Now I think I know how the pro-life republicans felt when they realized they'd been had. All I know is that unlike President Bush, who blindly pursued a mandate he didn't really have, the Democrats have ignored the mandate they really did have. It's been 10 months since we obtained a majority in Congress, and what do we have to show for it? There are MORE troops in Iraq than there were in November '06, our Constitutional rights have been FURTHER undermined since November '06, we appear to be basically on the verge of more war, not less, and on those seemingly rare occasions when the Democrats don't bend over and let the Republicans do what they will, they get outmanouvered procedurally.
My disgust for Bush and his ilk is sadly matched byr my disappointment and disgust with the Democrats.
Not something you want to hear at the start of your day.
At the end of the interview, that guy used the word "tar baby", just as Tony Snow did earlier this year. What's the deal with that?
The only connotation with that statement that comes to my mind is that it is a racial slur used for years against blacks by whites. What are these guys crystallized in the 1950s and didn't get the memo, or is it intentional?
Keith should apologize for that guy using it on his otherwise progressive show.
Login or Register to post comments.