Bush's Bin Laden Craving

Robert Dreyfus writes in The Nation about what he found most astonishing in Woodward's book: "I'm talking about the dangerously sycophantic advisers surrounding Bush, the ones who stroked the ego of a know-nothing president as The Decider doubled-down on his failed war in Iraq. And I'm talking about the machinations of a rogue general named Jack Keane and his rump staff of strategists at the American Enterprise Institute who worked with Steve Hadley, the national security adviser, to promote the January, 2007, escalation called 'the surge.' . . .

"During 2006, Woodward makes clear, the overwhelming consensus, both among the public and in Washington was to end the war, to start the drawdown of U.S. forces. That was the belief of General George Casey, the U.S. commander in Iraq, General John Abizaid, the CentCom commander, and nearly all of the uniformed military. It was the view of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, the State Department, and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. In 487 pages, Woodward details how all of them were steamrolled. Consider this: had they not been rolled over, today, two years later, the war would largely be over.

"The picture of Bush that emerges is not a flattering one. He is portrayed as a man convinced of his utter righteousness. 'Not one doubt,' says Bush. And: 'We're killin' 'em. We're killin' 'em all.' Yet at the same time, Bush is blissfully detached, relying on Hadley for everything. His decision to order the surge, taken in November-December, 2006, was a tough one, Bush told Woodward. 'Now, this is a period of time where I've got, I don't how many, holiday receptions.'"

Bush's Big Speech

Dana Milbank writes in The Washington Post that "the White House assembled a few hundred military officers -- people required to rise and salute when the president speaks -- at Fort McNair in Southwest Washington yesterday to hear the president give the latest version of a Mission Accomplished speech. . . .

"It was a return to the Bush bravado of old. . . . Bush was again talking about Iraqi forces capable of 'winning the fight' and troops coming home from Iraq 'in victory.'

"The president was crowing -- but was anybody listening? . . .

"There was a time, not long ago, when such a major presidential speech (a reduction of 8,000 troops in Iraq and the promise of more) would draw 15 television cameras; yesterday there appeared to be only four, including Japan's NHK. The hosts set aside 24 seats for reporters, but there appeared to be only three reporters in the press section."

Deb Riechmann writes for the Associated Press: "President Bush boasts that he's bringing 8,000 troops home from Iraq by February. What he doesn't say is he'll leave office with more troops there than before last year's big military buildup and few options for shoring up the force in increasingly violent Afghanistan.

"The bottom line of Bush's troop announcement on Tuesday is that the U.S. military footprint in Iraq largely will stay intact for the rest of the year when he'll pass command of the wars to his successor. Bush is sending more troops to Afghanistan, but Democrats say it's not enough."

Nancy A. Youssef and Jonathan S. Landay write for McClatchy Newspapers: "President Bush's announcement Tuesday that he'll maintain troop levels in Iraq through the end of his presidency suggests that despite his claim that the buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq has succeeded, the security gains could be temporary, defense officials and experts said."

Jim Mannion writes for AFP: "The modest shift in US forces to Afghanistan announced Tuesday by President George W. Bush falls short of his commanders' requests despite signs the seven year-old US-NATO project there is at risk."

Dan Eggen writes in The Washington Post that Bush's announcement "underscored the reemergence of Afghanistan in the debates over U.S. national security. . . .