Frank Rich: Why the White House Keeps Hiding Behind General Petraeus

[babylonsister]

Why the White House Keeps Hiding Behind General Petraeus

By Frank Rich, The New York Times. Posted July 30, 2007.

The White House has done everything possible to create the appearance that Gen. David Petraeus has all the responsibility for the occupation of Iraq -- but it's really an attempt to shield Bush from the failure in Iraq.

There was, of course, gallows humor galore when Dick Cheney briefly grabbed the wheel of our listing ship of state during the presidential colonoscopy last weekend. Enjoy it while it lasts. A once-durable staple of 21st-century American humor is in its last throes. We have a new surrogate president now. Sic transit Cheney. Long live David Petraeus!

It was The Washington Post that first quantified General Petraeus's remarkable ascension. President Bush, who mentioned his new Iraq commander's name only six times as the surge rolled out in January, has cited him more than 150 times in public utterances since, including 53 in May alone.

As always with this White House's propaganda offensives, the message in Mr. Bush's relentless repetitions never varies. General Petraeus is the "main man." He is the man who gives "candid advice." Come September, he will be the man who will give the president and the country their orders about the war.

And so another constitutional principle can be added to the long list of those junked by this administration: the quaint notion that our uniformed officers are supposed to report to civilian leadership. In a de facto military coup, the commander in chief is now reporting to the commander in Iraq. We must "wait to see what David has to say," Mr. Bush says.

Actually, we don't have to wait. We already know what David will say. He gave it away to The Times of London last month, when he said that September "is a deadline for a report, not a deadline for a change in policy." In other words: Damn the report (and that irrelevant Congress that will read it) -- full speed ahead. There will be no change in policy. As Michael Gordon reported in The New York Times last week, General Petraeus has collaborated on a classified strategy document that will keep American troops in Iraq well into 2009 as we wait for the miracles that will somehow bring that country security and a functioning government.

more...

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/58246/

[DrDan]

1. absolutely - keep us there until Jan 2009

Hand the problem over to the Dems

Junior once again escapes blame for anything. He has lived his life like this. He knows no other way. He is the master at this gam.

[bdamomma]

9. game playing is over, every dog has its day.

[NewJeffCT]

10. I honestly think that is Bush's goal

I've heard more than a few times that he does not want to be president when the last helicopter takes the last Americans out of Baghdad from the top of our embassy there.

[hisownpetard]

2. I hear that General BetrayUs has hired a Hollywood stuntman to work

with him privately from now till September, teaching him how to
break a fall from tall heights.

[applegrove]

3. Not to mention the "surge" was a strategy on the original war plans

that Rummy and the civilian WH ignored and even defied in the first 4 years of war. This is the original battle plan. Would have worked much better if they had followed the military and not interfeared in the beginning.

[wuushew]

4. How long before Petraeus is discredited by the "Westmoreland effect"?

Apparently Petraeus has been making very optimistic and very wrong predictions for quite some time in Iraq, in fact years before the current surge started. It seems to me we need to only wait for a sufficiently newsworthy event for his current ability to support propaganda to collapse. That newsworthiness threshold seems to be 2-3 helicopters shot down in short succession, major riot in large Iraqi city, ammo dump sabotage or direct mortar strike in Green Zone. A successful assassination attempt against the Iraqi leadership would also do it.

[alfredo]

5. What about the dustup between Petraeus and Maliki? Can there be

a rift forming that will ultimately lead to Maliki's ouster?

[catmandu57]

6. Wait a minute, what happened to what's his name

The war czar, wasn't he the designated fall guy?

[Zodiak]

8. That's what I'd like to know

I am not a thread-starter, but I thought it would be a good question for DU. What happened to the "War Czar"?

[TahitiNut]

7. Who doesn't know how this cabal treats Surgin' General's reports?

Hmmm? :eyes: