Bush admits Miserable Failure?
No, but cue the Gotcha-Monkeys.
By Mark Kilmer Posted in The White House — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
We remember candidates Dick Gephardt's Miserable Failure" line from the 2004 Democratic nominating campaign. That little meme was sure to re-emerge, even if only in spirit, when the Gotcha-Monkeys began to play.
WashPost White House correspondent Peter Baker trumpeted the following bit: U.S. Not Winning War in Iraq, Bush Says for 1st Time.
President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq and said he plans to expand the overall size of the "stressed" U.S. armed forces to meet the challenges of a long-term global struggle against terrorists.
As he searches for a new strategy for Iraq, Bush has now adopted the formula advanced by his top military adviser to describe the situation. "We're not winning, we're not losing," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. The assessment was a striking reversal for a president who, days before the November elections, declared, "Absolutely, we're winning."
He filed that at 10:20a, during the President's News Conference. At the News Conference itself, before the story was filed, the President was asked why he had stopped using his "confident assertion" that we were winning in Iraq.
Read More…
The President answered:
[T]he first comment ["winning"] was done in this spirit: I believe that we're going to win. I believe that - and, by the way, if I didn't think that, I wouldn't have our troops there. That's what you've got to know. We're going to succeed.
My comments yesterday ["not winning, not losing"] reflected the fact that we're not succeeding nearly as fast as I wanted, when I said it at the time, and that the conditions are tough in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad.
When he said that we are winning, he was telling us that we will win. When he said that we're not winning, not losing, he meant that victory would be difficult to achieve andwas not imminent. Perhaps it is too nuanced for the average Kerry voter.
Baker seems to be looking for a media turning point, after Matt Lauer's "civil war" declaration was analyzed and dismissed as self-serving rhetoric.
The rest of Baker's article reads like the kiddies play gotcha, attacking President Bush for adjusting his game plan, number of troops, to fit changing circumstances and responsibilities. For instance, there is the fully gotcha-charged: "Democrats have been calling for additional troops for years. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) proposed an increase of 40,000 [active Army] troops during his 2004 campaign against Bush [Washpost link], only to be dismissed by the administration." Did we need 40,000 more troops during the '04 campaign? Bush didn't think so, and Kerry's call was part of a botched Presidential campaign, and one in which Kerry also demanded the same number of troops (40,000) for Iraq:
The extra troops are needed in Iraq to ease pressure on soldiers and National Guard troops battling insurgents in the Middle Eastern country. Half of the 40,000 troops would be used as military police and for civil affairs, tasks now mainly carried out by reservists, while the other 20,000 would be combat troops, Kerry said.
Baker can be forgiven the conflation, though, as I don't think anyone knew what Kerry wanted.
You know, at one point in today's press conference, the President warned a "Peter" that he was not going to call on him to ask a question this morning after something which happened yesterday. Someone will clear that up.
How long 'til the Gotcha-Monkeys go into full-Gephardt mode? (Their Googlebomb still works, brw.)
« McClellan Originally Wanted to Attack Media, Defend Bush — Comments (5) | An unusual farewell speech from an unusual Secretary of Defense — Comments (7) »
Bush admits Miserable Failure? 11 Comments (0 topical, 11 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
When he said that we are winning, he was telling us that we will win
No, he said that we are winning AND that we will win. Here is the full answer:
Q Mr. President, the war in Iraq has lasted almost as long as World War II for the United States. And as you mentioned, October was the deadliest month for American forces this year -- in a year. Do you think we're winning, and why?
:
[Long answer that doesn't answer the question]
:
Q Are we winning?
Absolutely, we're winning. Al Qaeda is on the run. As a matter of fact, the mastermind, or the people who they think is the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks is in our custody. We've now got a procedure for this person to go on trial, to be held for his account. Most of al Qaeda that planned the attacks on September the 11th have been brought to justice.Extremists have now played their hand; the world can clearly see their ambitions. You know, when a Palestinian state began to show progress, extremists attacked Israel to stop the advance of a Palestinian state. They can't stand democracies. Extremists and radicals want to undermine fragile democracy because it's a defeat for their way of life, their ideology.
People now understand the stakes. We're winning, and we will win, unless we leave before the job is done. And the crucial battle right now is Iraq. And as I said in my statement, I understand how tough it is, really tough. It's tough for a reason; because people understand the stakes of success in Iraq. And my point to the American people is, is that we're constantly adjusting our tactics to achieve victory.
The only way I can see to saying this answer is compatible with his current "We are not winning, we are not losing" answer is if Bush was saying on 10/25 that we are winning the war on terror instead of the struggle in Iraq. But I think even that is inconsistant because Bush said just before that Iraq is the "the central front in the war against the terrorists."
"We're winning, and we will win, unless we leave before the job is done. "
We are winning, in that we are on a path to victory.
The adjustment -- not winning, not losing -- was an acknowledgment that the pace was not fast enough for some, that the "winning" was not a obvious and explicit victory.
This was not a change of the President's mind; rather, it was a different use of terms to explain the situation as he sees it.
I like it. We'll see how long it takes to turn up on Google.
My favorite quote from the Washington Post interview was from President Bush:
Anyway, you just need to know that's who I'm speaking to when I speak. And to you, of course. You're the objective filter through which my -- (Laughter.)
No, wait -- maybe this one:
Good. That's what decision-makers do, Peter, people who seize the moment and make decisions to lead give people things to write about.
Nah... let's just write about the wording.
This is from the AP referring to WAPO story, I dunno but to me it sure makes the tone a bit different. But of course the AP headline is "Bush Says U.S. Not Winning War in Iraq"
"You know, I think an interesting construct that General Pace uses is, 'We're not winning, we're not losing.' There's been some very positive developments. And you take a step back and look at progress in Iraq, you say, well, it's amazing - constitutional democracy in the heart of the Middle East, which is a remarkable development in itself," he said.
So if everyone was writing that Bush says "we're not losing war in Iraq"; that would an equally valid parsed quote right?
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
comments when he was being questioned by Levin he said "we are not winning and we are not losing" and the headline blared new DOD chief says "we are not winning in Iraq". I take all the news with a lot of suspicion and then move to the internet to check and verify.
Peace through superior fire power:)
"Bush has now adopted the formula advanced by his top military adviser to describe the situation."
I took me a second to get past, "Rumsfeld never said that!"
At the hearing, Gates said we were not winning. After a break, he clarified that we weren't losing, either.
I hate the word games. Did he say it? Didn't he? How do we get him to say it?
If you always find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be rapidly sliding down your own slippery slope to irrelevance. -CommonCents
and creating opportunities for it. But think of all the money that will be available for school uniforms and federal aid to sex education. You can't fool a liberal, they know the important things in life.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
The President is likely taking the steps towards a real victory. He is shooting straight on this, and I like that a lot.