State of the Union Day

Americans were treated yesterday to BushCheney’s alternate reality in Iraq. First came General David Petraeus’ assertion that 21,500 extra troops will establish security in Baghdad that has previously eluded US efforts. A few hours later, during his State of the Union speech, George W. Bush called for Americans to give his “new” plan a chance to work. The combination of General Petraeus’ earnest, cautious optimism and the President of the United States speaking to a joint session of Congress links the political to the military: the commander-in-chief standing with his brave soldiers in fighting a determined enemy while simultaneously holding off the voices of defeat here in the US.

It’s a clever move. Americans will do anything to support the troops even if they question BushCheney’s competence in determining their mission. As long as he can tie himself to the military, he has some hope that he can lessen resistance to his latest “plan for victory in Iraq”. And he has a perfect accomplice in General Petreaus. The general’s complicity is not a matter of simple careerism. He’s not a willing yes man for a dubious plan; rather he, like so many military leaders, has a positive “can do, will do, sir” attitude that is essential for those charged with difficult tasks. If he is to lead men into battle, then he must believe in his mission. He brings credibility that BushCheney so visibly lacks.

That was so visible in the Armed Services Committee hearing where General Petraeus testified yesterday. BushCheney supporters took the opportunity to link the General to the plan for additional troops. John McCain used his questions to emphasize the importance of additional troops and highlight the impact of Congressional opposition to BushCheney’s plan on troop morale. Asked by Joe Lieberman whether those resolutions would give encouragement to the enemy by exposing divisions among the American people, he replied: "That's correct." As a result, John Warner admonished the general about appearing to wade into a political debate and warned Petraeus to not let himself be trapped into portraying members of Congress as unpatriotic for disagreeing with BushCheney.

So there you have it. A lame duck, president riding on the backs of the troops he sends into battle, seeking to salvage the train wreck he orchestrated by telling Americans, "This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we're in." That statement says it all to me. In short, BushCheney did not know what he was doing as he led this nation into Iraq. Subsequent events demonstrate that he hasn’t understood what he has been doing since the invasion. (See BarbinMD’s DailyKos diary for a good summary of the past year’s cluelessness.)

I think Jim Webb said it all when he stated in his response to the State of the Union speech, that leaders owe the men and women they put in harm’s way “...sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.”

Sound judgment. Clear thinking. Not applicable to BushCheney’s wars.