David Warren's take on the ISG report:

I was rewriting history, while walking along some cold lakeshore the other day. My thought was: if Churchill had only come to power in 1937, Chamberlain would have been installed to replace him in 1940.

Had Churchill been in power, and refused to sign Munich, he would have been blamed for the outbreak of war.

I can just hear the prattle in an English pub, circa 1950. "He pushed Hitler to it! Had it not been for Churchill, Hitler would have been satisfied with the Sudetenland, and England would never have had to surrender. Everything was Churchill's fault!"

Today, everything is Bush's fault.

Read the whole thing.

Most rational people who think we need to get out of Iraq don't believe our troubles will be over if we do. That's a riduculous argument the author puts forward that tries to put words in the mouths of those who disagree with the undefined "mission" in Iraq. This is a mission which has had a sequence of varying justifications from this administration over the last three years, groping for the shoe that fits the carnage in Iraq best. Right now the mission is to babysit a civil war for which the catalyst was our invasion. Tell me how that makes sense.

This is a mission which has had a sequence of varying justifications from this administration over the last three years, groping for the shoe that fits the carnage in Iraq best.

The mission always had multiple justifications. Those who have trouble "remembering" them are suffering from selective amnesia.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/10/AR2006121000993.html

A Town Running Hot and Cold
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 11, 2006; C01

Washington is awash in leaks these days, giving us a rare glimpse of what really goes on behind the carefully manicured landscape of official statements.

Goodness gracious, when even Donald Rumsfeld is saying privately that the Iraq war strategy "is not working well enough or fast enough" -- and someone furnishes his memo to the New York Times -- it is clear that the administration's once-legendary discipline has broken down.

What is also clear is that the private doubts of top officials are closer to the media's dark portrait of the war than to the "absolutely, we're winning" rhetoric of President Bush. That is especially noteworthy in light of all the criticism that administration officials have heaped on correspondents in Iraq for focusing too heavily on violence and ignoring signs of progress.

The reigning assumption of reporters -- that they're not always getting the full story from government officials -- seemed vindicated by twin leaks to the Times, involving the Rumsfeld memo and a classified assessment by national security adviser Stephen Hadley that was critical of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The disclosures also underscored how a single Deep Throat, by slipping someone a piece of paper, can transform coverage of even the most important events. From the Pentagon Papers to the outing of Valerie Plame, this has been a well-trafficked route.

A similar phenomenon was at work with the Baker-Hamilton commission, where multiple sources dribbled out most of the panel's main recommendations on Iraq well before the findings were made public last Wednesday. In fact, the group headed by former secretary of state James Baker was such a sieve that by the time the members formally unveiled their report, it seemed like old news. An entire debate took place before any member of the group had made an on-the-record utterance.

The Hadley memo -- devastatingly leaked as Bush was about to meet with Maliki in Jordan -- said that "the reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action.'' A senior administration official told reporters that the memo was merely about "building better capabilities with the Maliki government."

Bush and Vice President Cheney have excoriated news organizations, especially the Times, for publishing national security secrets, but not this time. "I guess it's easier to rally the faithful with a cry of 'national security' than with a complaint that 'this is really embarrassing,' " Times Editor Bill Keller told the New York Observer.

But White House counselor Dan Bartlett says officials are indeed upset: "I haven't seen a more egregious leak in my time in government, timed to influence a very important meeting with a head of state."

David Greenberg, a professor of journalism and history at Rutgers University, says that "you see this kind of breakdown in an administration's unitary facade when there's a lot more internal dissension. As a rule, leaking occurs when people in an administration feel there's some kind of advantage to be gained in mobilizing public pressure, and journalistic pressure, against someone else on the inside."

The Rumsfeld memo, dated the day before the midterm elections, laid out a series of options on Iraq, including "withdraw U.S. forces from vulnerable positions" and move them to an "assistance" role, based in Kuwait and some parts of Iraq.

When asked by NBC's David Gregory why the president wasn't "saying publicly what top members of this administration who were running the war were saying privately," press secretary Tony Snow said Bush had made clear that "things are not getting well enough fast enough."

Snow also accused Gregory of being "partisan" last week after a question in which the correspondent merely summarized the recommendations of the Baker group and quoted co-chairman Lee Hamilton. Snow was arguing that the report was not a rejection of the president's Iraq policy, as it was depicted by nearly all news organizations.

At the very least, the Rumsfeld memo -- which some think was leaked by allies of the soon-to-be-former Pentagon chief to burnish his image -- clashes with his dogged public defense of the war policy and repeated accusations that reporters are getting things wrong.

"While you expect internal memos to be more wide-ranging and candid, I don't think there's as big a disconnect as is being suggested," Bartlett says. "I don't think it is the role of the secretary of defense to throw out a whole range of options for the public to chew on." Journalists have "selectively quoted the president," he says, setting up a false contrast by ignoring some of Bush's more sobering comments about Iraq.

One tidbit from the Rumsfeld memo shows the importance of the PR war: He says the administration should "go minimalist" by announcing any new policy on a "trial basis" so it can readjust if necessary -- "and therefore not 'lose.' "

While many leakers do their thing for policy reasons, they may also act out of pettiness, revenge or the ego trip of manipulating the media. Since the Times offered no clues about the sources' motivation, we can only speculate. But leaks, at least those that don't truly jeopardize national security, can be an important safety valve in a system where public pronouncements are carefully calibrated to reveal almost nothing. And journalists, of course, lap them up.

If this gusher of leaks shows that the Bush team is staunchly defending policies about which it harbors severe doubts, that has probably been true of every administration. But when the issue is a long, drawn-out, bloody war in which Americans are dying every week, the contrast between public and private comments seems more dramatic.

if churchill, if X, If Y.

Well, it's not like it happened that way.

It's not all Bush's fault, he had a wide variety of helpers from various quarters.

The problem is, we can't/shouldn't pull out now we're in, which has always been the difficulty. Instead we're dumped into a terrible tactical position of our own making with very few options on improving things.

Not that anybody predicted that we'd end up stuck in the middle of a sectarian nightmare backed by Iran and others... oh... sorry...

Mike says: ...the Bush team is staunchly defending policies about which it harbors severe doubts, that has probably been true of every administration. But when the issue is a long, drawn-out, bloody war in which Americans are dying every week, the contrast between public and private comments seems more dramatic.

Here comes an analogy...Let's put this in terms of an NFL team. For instance the Dallas Cowboys. Their defense has a glaring hole in it. Throw the ball deep and you can burn them. The coach (Bush) knows this, but continues to use a ball control offense, even when playing from behind. This makes it difficult to win if you fall behind in the beginning. However, changing strategies to a pass-wacky offense just to catch up may put you in more danger of falling further behind.

So there are doubts that the strategy in Iraq is working. Did you truly think our leaders had NO doubt? Did you truly believe that? If you did, you're stupid. There are always doubts. When your plan is not going well, do you broadcast it to everyone? No, you study the available data and attempt a sensible fix action. Just because there are doubts about how its going, we don't need to pull all the troops out and attempt a completely different course of action. As above, if we go pass-wacky to catch up, the result will be another huge pile of rubble on our shores. The next iple of rubble may be irradiated too. The coach of our team has faltered a little bit, but we're still in the lead and our defense is holding. When the other teams punts, we'll run it down their throats and put the game out of reach.

That was a singularly bad example, considering what happened Sunday night. The defense--in all respects--looked about as effective as Pelosi's plans for missile defense.

Pelosi has a plan? Hey...another Democrat w/ a plan! Wonder if they'll tell us this time....

Big D says: That was a singularly bad example, considering what happened Sunday night. The defense--in all respects--looked about as effective as Pelosi's plans for missile defense.

Its a perfect example, BECAUSE of Sunday night. The coach knows his defense is getting hammered by an arguably better team. But he did not stick to the game plan and tried to have his QB air it out to catch up. The Saints defense did the rest. Had he stuck with the game plan, the results may have been different, but that's not the point.

We have the better team in Iraq. To drastically change our game plan now is tantamount to handing victory to the other team. Find what's not working and fix it efficiently. A drastic change allows the other team to believe they've won, and the momentum shifts to them.

In reality if Churchill had come to power in 1937 the war in Europe in all likelihood would have been completely avoided. You see there was a group of German Generals who decided that Hitler was going to far, that his brinkmanship was going to force the allies to go to war against him before Germany was ready for war. They were sure that France and Britain would never go along with Hitlers plans on the Rhineland, the Sudetenland and then the complete takeover of Czechoslovakia, so they made plans to overthrow him. And then came Munich and the allies caved. The German Generals were stunned, Hitler was right and he got what he wanted. So the Generals shelved their plans to force Hitler from power because his success in dealing with the allies made him all the more popular with the German people.

Churchill would never have been so accommodating with Hitler, therefore Hitler would have been thwarted and his own Generals would have taken care of him before he had a chance to kill millions.

Cecil

Simberg only wants to make up hypotheticals that fit his
nasty little world view.

Pointing out other hypotheticals just makes him crazy.

And what made you an anonymous moron? Bad parenting?