I'll leave it to others to wade through the all vomit-inducing vomit that is David Brooks' latest column (free version here). But I just want to pull out and chew over one chunk that caught my eye.
The column is about how Bush "loves leadership." As evidence of this, "When Bush is asked about military strategy, he talks about the leadership qualities of his top generals. Before, it was Generals Abizaid and Casey. Now, it�s Generals Petraeus and Odierno."
And before that? It was Tommy Franks, who actually planned and led the invasion of Iraq. Bush sure loved his leadership qualities at the time. Today, its convenient for him to feel differently.
At the news conference, Mr. Bush was asked why � after failing to anticipate the ethnic divisions that would tear the country apart after the collapse of Saddam Hussein�s regime � Americans should believe he has the vision for victory in Iraq. He responded by appearing to lay blame for mistakes in the war directly on one of his military commanders at the beginning of the war, General Tommy R. Franks, who led the invasion more than four years ago.
�Those are all legitimate question that I�m sure historians will analyze,� Mr. Bush said, adding that he had asked at the outset of the war whether his military commanders needed more troops. �My primary question to General Franks was: Do you have what it takes to succeed, and do you have what it takes to succeed after you succeed in removing Saddam Hussein? And his answer was, 'Yeah.' �
That's right, Bush respects leadership so much that whenever he fucks something up, he can find just the right leader to blame for it. And don't forget that at the same time Franks was making his assurances, another military leader, Gen. Eric Shinseki, was saying Franks was wrong � that it would take "several hundred thousand soldiers" to secure postwar Iraq.
Bush had him fired. Yay, leadership!
