The new U.S. commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, is signalling a new approach to the conflict in Iraq by drafting a team of intellectual subject-matter experts to lead his efforts at “winning” the war. According to the Washington Post, Petraeus has solicited the help of a select group of military commanders with Ph.D’s in subjects like Islamic Anthropology, Economics, and War History.

As the U.S.-designed campaign to bring security to Baghdad unfolds, Petraeus’s chief economic adviser, Col. Michael J. Meese, will coordinate security and reconstruction efforts, trying to ensure that “build” follows the “clear” and “hold” phases of action. Meese also holds a PhD from Princeton, where he studied how the Army historically handled budget cuts. He is the son of former attorney general Edwin Meese III, who was a member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, whose December critique helped push the Bush administration to shift its approach in Baghdad.

Petraeus, who along with the group’s members declined to be interviewed for this article, has chosen as his chief adviser on counterinsurgency operations an outspoken officer in the Australian Army. Lt. Col. David Kilcullen holds a PhD in anthropology, for which he studied Islamic extremism in Indonesia.

While the solicitation of more brain power in fighting the war is not new to U.S. millitary strategies, it is something that we have not witnessed in this war. I applaued the General for taking a new approach in coaxing some type of settlement to the conflict, but it all begs some probing questions with one common answer:

Why have we not witnessed this in Iraq before now? If this brain power existed in the military at the start of the conflict why did the Bush administration fail to utilize them from the beginning? Why were political operatives used to build a pseudo-police force, a pathetic health care system, and left to exert little in the way of economic conditioning for Iraq? The answer is clear — the Bush administration, much like the Nixon administration, used its position and the war to reward those that had done so much to get Bush to the White House, ignoring the facts and rejecting logical approaches to securing Iraq from the start.

Petraeus may be the right man for the job, but unfortunately the job has morphed from a winnable war in 2003 to a complete disaster today, and despite his best efforts this strategy will have little to no effect on the overall outcome of this conflict. It is simply too little much too late.

From the Washington Posttoday comes an article on the President’s “inadvertent” mispronunciation of “Democratic Majority” (he called it “Democrat Majority”).

 Bush also said he “didn’t mean to be putting fingernails on the board,” while noting that the parties need to work together on addressing problems with the Social Security system. “I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town,” the president said. “And I’m sorry it’s the case, and I’ll work hard to try to elevate it. So the idea that somehow I was trying to needle the Democrats, it’s just — gosh, it’s probably Texas. Who knows what it is? But I’m not that good at pronouncing words anyway.”

 There are several points I want to make about this statement that are absolutely disturbing to me, and should be disturbing to people across this nation:

1. YOU, Mr. President, created the distrust that exists in this town today. Let’s be perfectly honest. You are the son of a life-long Washington politician, you fabricated evidence against an entire nation in order to retaliate for planned attempts on your father’s life, you lied to the American people, you lied to Congress, and you lied to the World. YOU, Mr. President, drove the Republican majority (or, “Republic Majority” if we need to speak your language, sir) to steamroll the minority rights of house members and Senators in order to further your failed agendas (of which there are many). So, I’m not sure why you are surprised, unless, of course this is another example of how far you are removed from reality.
2. You are the leader of the free-world (what you haven’t destroyed or allienated at least). DON’T USE THE WORD “Gosh“…EVER…AGAIN!!
3. “…it’s probably Texas…”– Huh? What the hell does that mean? Are you implying that Texans don’t speak well? Are you trying to blame your personal inadequacies and lack of a logical mind on the fact that you are from Texas? If that was your intent, then I would have to congratulate you on succeeding at something…finally. As a Texan, I would like to point out that you are not a product of the Texas education system (something you were responsible for during your do nothing term as Governor) and that your inability to formulate a coherent sentence has absolutely nothing to do with were you are from. Furthermore, I would like to point out that if Texas has done this to you that you seek another state to place your Presidential Library/Think Tank/Out-house (Alaska might be a good choice. I hear they have newly cleared land in the ANWR region of the state).
4. “But I’m not that good at pronouncing words anyway.”– Pronouncing words. That is your major fault? Mr. President, you are poor at pronouncing words beacuse you lack a clear command of the English language and simply lack the brain power to formulate logical thoughts into words that anyone can comprehend.

We have all known for sometime that this administration will say anything to gain or keep it’s abusive grip on power, but this is too much. Jim VandeHei at Politico.com is reporting that the administration has spent most of this weekend begging GOP Senators to oppose any resolution condeming the troop surge in Iraq. The article sites that administration has come to the realization that if Senators vote the way they spoke to the President this weekend, he could easily have 70 votes against him and his new, new, new strategy in Iraq.

Military commanders are entering the fray now by telling Senators, that the plan has a chance to work in Iraq, but only if Congress is seen as supporting the plan:

 On a more substantive level, White House officials are arguing that U.S. commanders are confident the escalation will work, but only if Iraqis and world leaders understand the plan has congressional backing. The White House has sent signals that it would stomach a resolution establishing firm deadlines and accountability requirements as long as it does not outright condemn the surge, congressional sources said.

 Um…since when do world leaders and Iraqis watch American politics for their queues on how to support or fight against U.S. military action? Did we have a flood of responsible nations coming to our side in 2003 when Congress voted to go to war? To assert that the world needs to hear Congress support this President and his seventh plan to save Iraq is absurd. Once again, this administration will say anything to get what it wants. The people in Iraq made up their minds years ago on opposing peace and seeking the ethnic cleansing Saddam had long denied them and we were the suckers who went in and opened the flood-gates of civil war. Insurgents, or whatever we wish to call them this week, are planning today for dealing with our troop surge, and don’t give a damn about Congressional support or opposition to the plan. In fact, I would imagine that the anti-U.S. elements in Iraq are on the same side of this debate as George W. Bush.

Twenty-five people killed in Gaza fighting overnight, mortar attacks on an all girl school in Iraq kills one and injures a dozen more, fifteen killed in bomb attacks in Pakistan…

This is where the United States should be stepping forward not as a military power, but as a beacon for reason and peace. But for this administration, seeking a peaceful and diplomatic solution to anything is absolutely impossible and is never given a serious consideration for any global problem.

Where are the TEAMS of diplomats working with nations in the middle east region? Where is Secretary Rice working tirelessly on shuttle diplomacy? Where are the images of the President reaching out to other global leaders to lead a frontal attack on terriorism, or developing a more intelligent strategy on the middle east?

President Bush today told reporters that he is “the decision-maker” on the plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq, and that he urges Congress to seriously think about their opposition to a plan that hasn’t been put into practice yet.

It may very well be the most telling statement about the divide between W and reality that we have ever seen. Clearly Mr. Bush is the “decision-maker”, as it was he who decided to enter into this war. It was he who decided not to enter the war with sufficient numbers of troops to begin with, and it was he who decided to pay little attention to the infrastructure requirements in restoring order qucikly after entering the country. It was he who also decided on the six different “post-War” strategies that have all ultimately failed.

And so it is crystal clear that W is “the decision-maker”, and the truth is that had he made decent decisions to begin with, Congress would not be opposing his “decision” today. I almost felt sorry for the guy during his state of the union address Tuesday night. There he was, like a whipped puppy, looking as if he just woke up after a long binge and realizing all of the transgressions he had committed while under the influence. Had he finally reached the point of repent? Was he finally taking responsibility for all of his mistakes? Was he going to turn over a new leaf? At times it seemed like we just might see a new W.

But, alas, it was all for show. Today he is reminding us that the emperor truly has no clothes, and no sense for that matter. Instead of making a generous statement about acknowleding the conflict with Congress, or striking a conciliatory note that signals some understanding of the opposition to the plan, he puffs up his chest like a fighting cock and proclaims “I AM THE DECISION-MAKER”.

That’s the sort of talk that brings it all back to reality. This guy is an arrogant, out-of-control, spoiled rotten brat that is living in some fantasy world where he is the terminator, and ultimately we will do what he says, simply because he says to, and not based on any sound judgement. 

So what is a very unpopular President supposed to do when he is required by law to brief Congress? Talk about anything and everything but Iraq. Bush will address Congress tonight and throw out some new initiatives, and a couple of old ones too, that are more focused on domestic issues.

Administration officials said Monday that among Mr. Bush’s proposals would be a plan to help states provide health care coverage to people who lack insurance by diverting federal aid from hospitals, especially public institutions.

Officials said Mr. Bush’s speech would include proposals to address the nation’s energy needs and global warming, partly by promoting the use and development of alternative fuels. He is also expected to renew his call for an overhaul of immigration law and to propose altering tax policies to help the uninsured.

The president’s advisers said they hoped Mr. Bush’s address would re-energize his domestic agenda by striking a bipartisan and ambitious tone as he faces further isolation on his Iraq policy.

According to the same article, Michael J. Fox will be sitting in the gallery tonight to hear the President speak. Wow! Talk about dramatic. The only thing that would make tonight even sweeter is Nancy Pelosi poking W with a big fork to see how done he is.

What a tangled web we weave…

Let me throw out a few numbers that help frame the current mood of the country and the disconnect with that mood known as George W. Bush…

According to the Washington Post reporting on the latest ABC News poll:
48% of Americans believe that Iraq is the single most important issue facing the nation
60% of Americans want Democrats in Congress to resolve the issue rather than W
65% oppose sending more troops (this is up from 62% following W’s announcement)
59% want to see Congress block Bush’s plan for more troops in Iraq
25% of Republicans want to see Congress block Bush’s plan for more troops in Iraq

We all know that Iraq is an albatross around Bush’s neck, but what about the direction of the nation and his leadership?

71% of those polled say the nation is “way off track”, while only 26% believe it is headed in the right direction.

65% disapprove of Bush’s performance on the job; while 33% approve (undoubtedly reflecting the GOP base)

And remember Bush’s soaring approval ratings of his handling of the “War on Terror” after 9/11 and the forward momentum he had going into the 2004 election cycle? Well, 52% now say that his handling of the “War on Terror” is not working.

Trust is another problem for Bush now. Following the botched handling of Katrina, 47% of Americans said Bush was a “strong leader”, a low point for his regime. Now, 45% of Americans refer to him as a “strong leader”, setting a new record for this president. But even if Bush is not a strong leader, a good leader always maintains a level of trust with his followers, right? A leader, for good or bad, can maintain a level of stewardship, a guiding hand if you will, to lead when times are hard, right? Well, apparently not. Only 42% of Americans say they trust Bush to lead the nation during a crisis.

I do not wish to point fingers and say “I told you so”, but it is comforting to know that most American’s have not lost their minds, and that a level of confidence in our overall national intelligence has been restored. Is there hope? Yes, at least some. But more importantly, there is a light at the end of this deep, dark tunnel Bush has led us into. And that light is perhaps the most encouraging number of them all:

729, the number of days until a new President can lead us out of this nightmare.