Bush: We’re Not Winning
Pretty blunt talk from the President (I know, the critics will say too little, too late):
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 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.”
To be fair, he also said we’re not losing, but that wouldn’t make much of a headline.
A lot of substance in this article, though, including more details on the proposed expansion of the military:
Although the president offered no specifics, other U.S. officials said the administration is preparing plans to bolster the nation’s permanent active-duty military with as many as 70,000 additional troops.
A force structure expansion would accelerate the already-rising costs of war. The administration is drafting a supplemental request for more than $100 billion in additional funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, on top of the $70 billion already approved for this fiscal year, according to U.S. officials. That would be over 50 percent more than originally projected for fiscal 2007, making it by far the most costly year since the 2003 invasion.
Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has approved more than $500 billion for terrorism-related operations, including those in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. An additional $100 billion would bring overall expenditures to $600 billion, exceeding those for the Vietnam War, which, adjusted for inflation, cost $549 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.
For all the money, commanders have grown increasingly alarmed about the burden of long deployments and the military’s ability to handle a variety of threats around the world simultaneously. Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army’s chief of staff, warned Congress last week that the active-duty Army “will break” under the strain of today’s war-zone rotations. Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell, a retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on CBS News’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday that “the active Army is about broken.”
Democrats have been calling for additional troops for years. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) proposed an increase of 40,000 troops during his 2004 campaign against Bush, only to be dismissed by the administration. As recently as June, the Bush administration opposed adding more troops because restructuring “is enabling our military to get more warfighting capability from current end strength.”
We close with more detail on the money quote:
Bush, who has always said that the United States is headed for victory in Iraq, conceded yesterday what Gates, Powell and most Americans in polls have already concluded. “An interesting construct that General Pace uses is: We’re not winning, we’re not losing,” Bush said, referring to Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the Joint Chiefs chairman, who was spotted near the Oval Office before the interview. “There’s been some very positive developments. . . . [But] obviously the real problem we face is the sectarian violence that needs to be dealt with.”
Asked yesterday about his “absolutely, we’re winning” comment at an Oct. 24 news conference, the president recast it as a prediction rather than an assessment. “Yes, that was an indication of my belief we’re going to win,” he said.
[...] Believe it? To review there is a plan to have a strategy or a strategy to have a plan that will lead to a victory, a victory that follows a mission that was accomplished, before we surged against insurgents, back when only a few troops were needed to secure the country that wasn’t but now will be. We’re going to win? Absolutely. How much more of this can we stand? And how many more will have to die if more than few don’t take a stand? [...]
“Absolutely, we’re winning” means exactly that. It is not an “indication of belief” that we are going to win at some point in the future. It means that we are winning now. Of course, that was then — when an election was about to be held — and this is now.
It is similar to his answer a few days before the election that Rumsfeld was here to stay. When asked why he was fired a few days later, Bush admitted that he lied (“it’s what I had to say to get to the next question”).
Is it any wonder that he lost his credibility long ago?
Yes, and Clinton was a beacon of integrity (or have you forgotten that he got disbarred for lying in a civil court proceeding?). Oh, but it was only about sex, right?…
So you agree that Bush’s lack of integrity matches Clinton’s?
No, I’m just saying if Bush has no credibility, then neither does Clinton, and neither does…well, anyone, if the barrier is to have never lied…
I’d prefer Bush would not fall into his reflexive defensive optimism, but he’s only human, in other words…what is he supposed to say when he’s looking for a personnel move, but not every piece is in place?…
Referring to the Rumsfeld thing, that is…
I think that there is a world of difference between lying about a consensual affair and telling Americans that we are winning in Iraq when he (and the rest of us) know that we are not winning. If a President tells the American public that we are winning the war, it should be taken at face value, and not as a dodge to trick people to vote Republican.
I think that trying to keep the Lewinsky mess private is wrong but understandable. However, portraying ambiguous intelligence as unequivocal in order to gain support for an invasion of Iraq is unforgivable. Cheating husbands have lied since time immemorial, but claiming (as Cheney did) that “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction” and using it as cassus belli is unprecedented in living memory. The consequences of Clinton’s deceit is unimportant, but the consequences of the administration’s deceit has been tragic.
If you believe that Clinton should have been impeached for lying about Monica Lewinsky, then surely you must also think that Bush should also be subject to impeachment for his untruths.
As for Rumsfeld: he did not have to state something he knew to be wrong (and whose falsity would be clearly evident in a matter of days). He could have dodged the question.
See, I knew you’d go back to it was only about sex…in any event, I don’t buy your premise that Bush lied to get us into war…as you know, we’ve trod that ground exceedingly well…as for lying to a reporter? Hardly impeachable…
I don’t think it is impeachable either — but I also think Clinton should never have been impeached — you can’t run the country by government-by-impeachment.
My point is only that those who rushed to impeach Clinton should ask themselves what the consequence should be if the same standards were applied to George Bush.
Well, I’m not going to lie, I supported impeachment for Clinton – I’ll admit now that it was a tactical mistake, though I still think it’s an extremely big deal when the President of the United States lies under oath…but I also think one of the reasons Bush won’t be impeached is because the Democrats learned from the backlash that accompanied the impeachment of Clinton…
I think it is a big deal when the President lies, whether under oath or not. However, I think the subject and the context of the lie is far more important than whether it is under oath or not.
FDR, Eisenhower, LBJ, Kennedy, and Reagan were known adulterers (although with Reagan the aggrieved spouse was Jane Wyman, not Nancy). However, none of them were forced to testify about their extramarital life under oath. Moreover, the context was a civil suit paid for by his political enemies. It was a way to use the legal process to force a gotcha moment. I think it is naive to believe that had the other Presidents been forced to swear on a Bible that they would have readily admitted their misdeeds.
While I do not wish to get into an argument about whether Bush and Cheney lied, it is beyond dispute that they played fast and loose with the facts. Sending troops to battle is the most important decision a President makes, and it is an absolute moral imperative that he be candid and honest about the reasons for war and the risks that we face.
In my opinion, the half-truths which Bush and Cheney made to lead us to war are far worse than Clinton’s deceits, regardless of whether or not they were under oath.
Well, at least you came as far in my direction as to say half-truths…it’s a start!…
Oh, but one last thing, Peter – it just so happens that Paula Jones was right – I don’t care who financed her lawsuit, she was telling the truth, and he wasn’t…that’s a talking point, and you should let that part of it go, in my humble opinion…
I agree — and I’m not here to defend Clinton’s recklessness — however I think that the precedent of deposing a sitting President regarding an extramarital affair, if applied in the future, will lead to many more unhappy consequences — this is simply not something which ought to be in the public sphere to be exploited for partisan gain.