Warner Buys Bush Time

Senator John Warner's call yesterday for an "orderly and carefully planned withdrawal" from Iraq is being read in Washington as yet another devastating blow to President Bush's Iraq policy. Certainly Warner's latest statement, coming just a few weeks before the much-awaited "progress report" from General David Petraeus, is not good news for the President. But it's not entirely bad, either.

Warner did not call for a timetable to end the war. He did not push for US troops to leave in a reasonable amount of time, such as a year. He only asked President Bush to begin a "symbolic" pullout of 5,000 troops by Christmas.

It's worth remembering that the US had 130,000 troops in Iraq last fall before adding 30,000 more in the "surge." So withdrawing 5,000 troops doesn't even come close to getting the US back to pre-surge levels. If Bush followed Warner's advice, he could brag about having a plan to end the war while doing nothing of the sort--like Nixon did in Vietnam. You can imagine this White House, Nixonian in so many ways, drawing up such a head fake as we speak.

By this point in time, Warner should know that President Bush is likely incapable of ending the war he started, especially if given wide latitude on how and when to do so. If Warner was serious about getting our troops out of harm's way, he'd make his symbolic withdrawal number far more concrete.

Comments (35)

1. IMO, it looks more like buying time, in advertent or not, for the Dems to shove Iraq to the sidelines while the Primaries enter into a much more serious phase!

   Posted by Happy at 08/24/2007 @ 11:36am

2. A symbolic gesture for a symbolic withdrawal from a republican no less...looks more like a self-serving political move to disociate himself from the depots.

   Posted by MATTMAN at 08/24/2007 @ 11:53am

3. this just strikes me as something to help booster republican chances in the house and senate for '08. (the presidency is lost, but these guys (not warner he's 80--time to retire) like their jobs).

   5,000 troops is 3.125% of the 160,000 (not to mention blackwater et al.) who are there now. hardly enough to be considered a withdrawal.

   nonetheless it is enough troops to film some very moving t.v. commercials. you know, the kind with recently-returned troops singing around the yuletide tree, ecstatic wifes kissing their hubbies under the mistletoe, and smiling kiddies handing brightly wrapped presents to the returning troops.

   what struck me as more important in the WaPo article is this:

   "as a new intelligence report concluded that political leaders in Baghdad are 'unable to govern effectively.'"

   "'As today's NIE makes clear, a political solution is extremely unlikely in the near term,' said Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.)."

   "But it predicted that the Iraqi government 'will become more precarious' in the next six to 12 months, with little hope of reaching accommodation among political factions."

   "'I really firmly believe the Iraqi government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Maliki, have let our troops down,' he [warner] said."

   and this one:

   "The intelligence analysts were scathing in their judgment of Maliki's government, saying that political progress has "stalled" and that a leadership void has increased the prime minister's "vulnerability" to being toppled. Broad political compromise is "unlikely to emerge unless there is a fundamental shift" in Iraq."

   this all sounds like a set up for some sort of coup d'etat. get ready for saddam light.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 08/24/2007 @ 11:54am

4. Funny how much of the criticism aimed at Maliki is because of his failure to reconcile the Sunni and Shiia factions; in other words, he's too partisan. I wonder which of our leaders will be able to school him in the ways of bipartisanship.

   Posted by MATTMAN at 08/24/2007 @ 12:06pm

5. 5000 is the baseline for the negotiations. Pelosi may start her bid at 20,000 ("the Surge" troops).

   The eventual deal will be struck and you'll probably see the 5000 "out by Christmas" with a promise of another 5000 by March, another five by 4th of July, and another five by Labor Day (or something along those lines). i.e. the Surge troops out by NEXT September.

   At that rate, even if Hillary wins in November 2008 and pushs for full pull-out by Inauguration Day, logistically speaking it will take until ATLEAST Spring-Summer 2010 to get out the rest.

   Posted by Mask at 08/24/2007 @ 12:08pm

6. saddam light. just like Musharraf in pakistan. let's have a coup so that a military strongman (who? they'll find one) can stabilize the country for a couple of years (more likely 12) until the "democratic process" can "firmly" take hold.

   the iraqis would have security (thank god--just don't get on the government's bad side, no dissent or anything, please).

   the republicans could show how much "better" saddam-lite is than saddam and that bush had truly helped the iraqis

   and the oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, oil would flow, flow, flow (seems like the seven sisters are getting antsy--hey, aren't there fewer now?--sounds like a case of sapphic lesbianism)

   Posted by frosty zoom at 08/24/2007 @ 12:08pm

7. Democracy in the Middle East...let's see. Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, and al-Jafari all won democratic elections, and none of whom are pleasing US "interests". I guess that's why it's an oxymoronic democratic selection process that soldiers are fighting and dying for.

   Posted by MATTMAN at 08/24/2007 @ 12:18pm

8. Well, they talked the country into the invasion with the WMD's/Al Qaeda in Iraq bs; when that didn't pan out the message became that the US did away with an evil tyrant and is now working to build a democracy in the ME. What does the message become after a US sponsored change of government in Iraq (ala US sponsored coups in Vietnam)? (I wonder if Maliki will get whacked inside an APC?)

   Posted by mtspence05 at 08/24/2007 @ 12:23pm

9. oxymoronic democratic selection process that soldiers are fighting and dying for.

   Posted by MATTMAN 08/24/2007 @ 12:18pm

   it not really oxymoronic. after years of bad despots, the people are desperate for a change. you give them elections and they vote for the people who have been building and running schools, hospitals--i.e. hamas, hezbollah..........

   Posted by frosty zoom at 08/24/2007 @ 12:34pm

10. it not really oxymoronic. after years of bad despots, the people are desperate for a change. you give them elections and they vote for the people who have been building and running schools, hospitals--i.e. hamas, hezbollah..........

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/24/2007 @ 12:34pm

    I mean the terms "democratic" and "selection" are a bit contradictory. Iraqis elect al-Jafari; US doesn't like him and selects another democratically elected leader.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/24/2007 @ 12:41pm

11. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/24/2007 @ 12:34pm

    Posted by MATTMAN 08/24/2007 @ 12:41pm

    Guys, I don't think even most neo-cons really expect Iraq to remain a democracy (if you grant it is one now) over the next year or two. Talk already being thrown around about the "possible need for a strong-man". Bush distancing from al-Maliki. Allawi is getting funding from the Saudis. And Juan Cole is talking of rumors of a military coup.

    All of that leads up to either a civil war (full-blown) or a general from the Security Forces seizing Parliament and imposing martial law.

    Posted by Mask at 08/24/2007 @ 1:06pm

12. Posted by MASK 08/24/2007 @ 1:06pm '

    i already said that:

    see 11:54 and 12:08

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/24/2007 @ 1:21pm

13. Posted by MASK 08/24/2007 @ 1:06pm

    From now on, when I speak of democracy I'll use quotes every time and say "democracy" so that it's understood that I'm kidding.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/24/2007 @ 1:33pm

14. I DON'T KNOW WHY THE NEOCONS WEREN'T HAPPY WITH SADDAM IN THE 1ST PLACE...

    He was definitely "their kind of guy" as far as brutal dictators that the U.S. supports go. He served as the U.S.'s proxy in the long war against Iran in the '80's. It was only because he got his signals crossed and invaded Kuwait (apparently because the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq got HER signals crossed and told him the U.S. didn't care and wouldn't do anything) that he started on the road down the crapper of history.

    I don't know about "Saddam Lite" but doubtless some kind of "strong man" will eventually emerge like Moktada al Sadr, probably some kind of religious authority (like Moktada al Sadr) who has the popular support (and the will) to really CRUSH his opponents. This will occur whether we stay or go and (I'm guessing) the tragic bloodshed (except for U.S. casualties) will probably be about the same in either case.

    It seems pretty clear to me that the reason Bush refuses to withdraw ANY troops from Iraq is due primarily to his pathological (and it IS pathological) inability to admit mistakes. Somehow, he seems to equate "withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq" with "It was a mistake to invade Iraq in the first place." If, indeed, this is what Bush is thinking, he's actually right (for once). He's just drawing the wrong conclusion (in keeping with his general inability to learn from mistakes because he can't admit them).

    Posted by w_m_bear at 08/24/2007 @ 1:42pm

15. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/24/2007 @ 1:21pm

    Posted by MATTMAN 08/24/2007 @ 1:33pm

    Sorry, should have added the phrase "You guys are right" at the beginning.

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 08/24/2007 @ 1:48pm

16. Posted by MASK 08/24/2007 @ 1:48pm

    apology accepted

    heheh :]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/24/2007 @ 1:57pm

17. Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/24/2007 @ 2:17pm

    I really enjoyed reading that post and I'm sure that it will hit home with anyone who reads it that is for ending this tragic war. I'm sorry to hear that your son was sucked into this mess. We can only hope that some day in the future the silver lining will emerge in the form of an important lesson having been learned.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/24/2007 @ 2:52pm

18. Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/24/2007 @ 2:17pm

    The spinning sound gets even louder, louder than I thought possible.....

    Posted by john maasch at 08/24/2007 @ 2:58pm

19. The spinning sound gets even louder, louder than I thought possible.....

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/24/2007 @ 2:58pm

    You're right John, it sounds like Rush Limbaugh is spinning us all dizzy. I'm glad you recognize it though, good job.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/24/2007 @ 3:04pm

20. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/24/2007 @ 3:19pm

    For those of you still a bit confused on LVLIB's philosophy of war, it is....W.W.J.N.....Who Wouldn't Jesus Nuke?

    (on how victory was snatched away during the Korean War)--

    BLOG | Posted 01/10/2007 @ 11:47am Comments for "Surge Homeward" by Katrina vanden Heuvel

    3-5 nuclear weapons against China and a threat to Russia to keep in line or they would have been next would have given the world a much better opportunity for peace than we have seen as a result of not letting MacArthur achieve the victory that we should have.------Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/10/2007 @ 4:32pm

    Posted by Mask at 08/24/2007 @ 3:34pm

21. Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/24/2007 @ 3:35pm

    One flaw Einstein...if Fox news are the ones who hammer out the propaganda and no one else...then you will not reach more than 2 million people a night..the same 2 million every night..and in that case they are preaching to the choir, so they will not gain anymore "brainwashed" to vote their way..except maybe other kindergarden monitors of the shows, like yourself, to document all the "lies", I guess...

    Idiot.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/24/2007 @ 3:43pm

22. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/24/2007 @ 3:19pm

    So according to You, one must fight before he/she can ear the right to criticize the war? Since when? Anybody taking the time to write or state their opinions about any of these issues is patriotic enough to give a shit about the future of the United States. It's the apathetic majority of people who buy the garbage spewed from the whitehouse that are unpatriotic and don't give a shit about anything but their own lives.

    You criticized Mr. Grits for calling names after you just called him several insulting labels. Congratulations! You just made a hypocrit of yourself.

    "You didn't the courage to serve so you..." (Did you the courage to serve?) "You should because it is due to brainless idiots like yourself that wouldn't have a clue if it was pasted to your forehead." (WHAT is due to brainless idiots like him?? That sentence doesn't even make any sense! In order to label someone a "brainless idiot" you should EARN that right by being able to write in coherent sentences!

    Nobody wants America's defeat! That's a vicious lie! The thing is, the left and a growing number of those on the right are smart enough to realize that this quest for "victory" is crap! The insurgency will continue as long as our forces are present. It's time to get the hell out.

    The Dems will win in 08. America was dumb enough to re-elect Bush but I'm confident that we've collectively learned from that. "Fool me once....you can't....you're not gonna fool me again!"

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/24/2007 @ 3:46pm

23. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/24/2007 @ 2:58pm | ignore this person

    The GOP and their followers have been calling EVERYONE who dares to speak out against their policies cowards, traitors, cut & runners or usuing terrorism threats at the most politically convienient time (although the VALID threats are ignored or unheeded) to stifle any dissent. Victims of the Lie Machine Include: Veterans who did not have different "priorities" during Vietnam, parents whose children were killed in Iraq, Generals with the courage of their conviction and even members of their own party that would DARE step out of line with the administration.

    The "Spin" and labeling machine has been the fingerprint of this administration. No such thing as an honest discussion or debate from these guys, only cathy phrases:"Mission Accomplished", "Smoking Gun in the form of a Mushroom Cloud", "Final throws of the insurgancy", "Activist Judges/Legislating from the Bench", "Clean Skies Innitiative", "PATRIOT Act", "Compassionate Conservatism", "Ownership Society", "Fight them over there so we won't have to fight them here", "No Child Left Behind". All they do is produce sound bites and failed policy that are based on dangerous ideology (NeoCons, Christian Right), NOT what is good for the country.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/24/2007 @ 3:19pm | ignore this person

    Liberty,

    What is more traitorous? 1. Manipulating/Strong Arming Pre-War Intelligence to fit a predetermined policy in order to convince the nation that this was a necessary preemptive war? 2. Administration officials releasing the name of a covert operative to quell a political dissenter? 3. Wanting a REAL plan to succeed in Iraq? Instead we get "When the Iraqi's stand up we will stand down". How do they plan to get us there? What is the leverage? How long will we be there? These are reasonable questions that the country has been asking, not just Dems. Instead the administration produces canned/political status reports that are passed off as "David's Report". What's more dangerous? 1. Asking reasonable, honest and public questions about the status of this endeavor? 2. Burying our heads in the sand and pretending that eventually this will turn around with no political strategy to stop the civil war?

    Posted by msights at 08/24/2007 @ 3:52pm

24. Posted by MATTMAN 08/24/2007 @ 3:46pm

    Actually, MATT, I believe LVLIB served in Vietnam (ran a PX or something in Saigon, I believe as well or something...but that counts).

    The question you should ask him is "If you can't CRITICIZE a war without serving in one....why can you SUPPORT or even COMMAND a war without serving in one....like a guy who sat home and flew training missions over Alabama or a guy who got five deferements?"

    Posted by Mask at 08/24/2007 @ 4:05pm

25. Posted by MASK 08/24/2007 @ 4:05pm

    Well good for him, I guess he did the courage to serve. He's yet to earn the right to call anyone a brainless idiot though.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/24/2007 @ 4:19pm

26. The Republican Party regularly pointed out "strategic" problems with Clinton's Balkan policies. Does this and the fact that the Republicans tried to set a timeline for Pres. Clinton to pull all troops out of Kosovo (Warner-Byrd Ammendment to the 2000 Defense Appropriations Bill), all the while the majority of GOP Presidential candidates supported the amendment and publicly criticized the President's policies, make those GOPers cowards and traitors? Bush, ironically, waited until public opinion was clearly on Clinton's side before he came out publicly against the amendment.

    Posted by msights at 08/24/2007 @ 4:23pm

27. You simply call them names and then hide.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/24/2007 @ 3:19pm

    Yes, I HATE it when people do that. Especially the ones who throw around "coward" "traitor" and "brainless idiot"!!!

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/24/2007 @ 4:38pm

28. Or "Scrarecrow!"

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/24/2007 @ 4:39pm

29. ...I never talk about my personal life in this forum. it's way too dangerous under the current political climate.....

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/24/2007 @ 5:02pm

    The funniest statement today! I'm seriously laughing at a serious PARANOID :)))))))!

    I leverage off of my personal life--enriched with decades of school-of-hard-knock experience--routinely while exercising some common sense NOT to be completely `out' there! However, if someone was to spend a couple of days studying my posts to profile me, hire a PI to follow up in Houston, I'd guess in a total of less than one week, I can be positively identified. Cost? Probably $1 to $2k...

    That said, if your feared Gov't really wanted to identify you (and many others like you at TN and other `extreme' sites), using IT technology and tracing your computers' unique IDs, would be a whole lot FASTER & CHEAPER....I'm no Techie but given the constant news of data breeches, I can't imagine it is THAT hard!

    Heck, a 17-yr old can `crack' the iPhone's and Apple shouldn't be a slouch in protecting its technology! Here, how much `protection' can you expect TN to invest in? Does TN have something proprietary that it needs to protect? Does it fear data breech (of us bloggers) will lead to large lawsuits or damage claims? Does it even handle large amounts of monetary transactions? So, how much `security' do you suppose TN has?

    Funny stuff, FRANK! Heheheheh........

    Posted by Happy at 08/24/2007 @ 6:28pm

30. it's all they have to hang around Bush's neck, what with the robust economy and stock market.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/24/2007 @ 2:17pm |

    nice post--i like the intensity

    however the line i copied isn't so right.

    the u.s. (and by extension, world) economy is a house of cards built on credit. one strong wind (from china or the mortgage mess) and the whole she-bang crumples.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/24/2007 @ 8:13pm

31. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/24/2007 @ 3:19pm

    no point in trying to argue against such utter drivel!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/24/2007 @ 8:15pm

32. America was dumb enough to re-elect Bush but I'm confident that we've collectively learned from that. "Fool me once....you can't....you're not gonna fool me again!"

    Posted by MATTMAN 08/24/2007 @ 3:46pm

    just semantics but:

    you can't RE-elect someone who wasn't elected the first time.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/24/2007 @ 8:19pm

33. Why should any conservative grant him any level of respect?

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/24/2007 @ 5:01pm

    because he's a fellow human

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/24/2007 @ 8:23pm

34. Have nice weekend everyone

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/24/2007 @ 5:16pm

    thanks

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/24/2007 @ 8:24pm

35. ...my personal life just that are none of anybody's business....

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/24/2007 @ 7:07pm

    Yet, your views and candidate you so faithfully blog for, are aimed at affecting everybody's personal life! By being very `public' on this blog as THE undisputed advocate for Hillary, I don't think it unreasonable to know more of your background which for all we know, was and is, a staff member of the DLC or for the Clinton campaigns for the past 15 yrs! Fact is, you are a much more fanatical supporter of HRC than any of us Repubs are in our support for Bush....

    Given your `love' for HRC, you are distinctly in the minority here....so, why are you so Pro-Hillary at TN? IF you are what I suspect, you would not admit it....your withholding personal bio, fits perfectly into my, and perhaps others', suspicion!

    From a mainstream Dem standpoint, especially for the Clintons, I can easily see why having someone monitoring TN and actively commenting is actually quite logical AND even vital!

    Posted by Happy at 08/24/2007 @ 8:25pm