Kristol: ‘Sober, Serious’
People Want Over 100,000 Troops In Iraq When Bush Leaves Office
Think
Progress
Monday September 10, 2007
Tomorrow, Gen. David Petraeus will testify
to Congress to provide his perspective on the escalation in Iraq.
The Washington Post reports this morning that the White
House political office has been coordinating
with Petraeus for months to market Bush’s strategy to
the public:
Ed Gillespie, the new presidential counselor, organized daily conference
calls at 7:45 a.m. and again late in the afternoon between the White
House, the Pentagon, the State Department, and the U.S. Embassy and
military in Baghdad to map out ways of selling the surge.
Petraeus’ testimony should be seen in that light — another
way of “selling the surge.” The American public, however,
isn’t
fooled about what’s going on. 66 percent say Bush will stick
with his policy no matter what Petraeus says, and 53 percent say Petraeus
will try to make things in Iraq look better than they are.
This morning, Bill Kristol spoke plainly about the White House’s
intentions. “The truth is we are going to have over 100,000 troops
in Iraq when George Bush leaves office,” Kristol said. He added
“sober Democrats who want to be serious about” Iraq and “who
want to think about the consequences of losing” are coming to the
view that “of course you can’t just pull out.” Watch
it:
The Washington Post reports that CentCom chief Admiral William Fallon
has been pushing a plan to substantially slash the number of U.S. combat
forces in Iraq, and has been engaged
in a bitter clash with Petraeus:
[H]is efforts offended Petraeus’s team, which saw them as unwelcome
intrusion on their own long-term planning. The profoundly different
views of the U.S. role in Iraq only exacerbated the schism between the
two men.
“Bad relations?” said a senior civilian official
with a laugh. “That’s the understatement of the century.
… If you think Armageddon was a riot, that’s one way of
looking at it.”
Only “sober and serious” flacks for the White House believe
that a long-term presence in Iraq is a strategically sound decision.
Transcript:
WALLACE: Is it a consensus that’s forming? Or basically, has
the president has won and the Democrats have lost?
KRISTOL: The president is winning, and sober Democrats who want to
be serious about the fact that we are fighting Al Qaida in Iraq, and
we are fighting Iranian proxies in Iraq, and serious people who want
to think about the consequences of losing to Al Qaida in Iraq or the
Iranian proxies in Iraq, are coming to the view that of course you can’t
just pull out.
And Hillary Clinton knows you can’t pull out. And some of them
want to draw down a little more quickly than Petraeus is going to draw
down, and then the surge is going to unwind.
But the truth is we are going to have over 100,000 troops in Iraq when
George Bush leaves office, and we are going to be winning the war in
Iraq. And the next president is going to continue fighting the war in
Iraq.
WILLIAMS: Well, you speak the truth. I mean, I think what you just
said is absolutely right. We’re going to have 100,000 troops in
Iraq for I don’t know how long.
I think if we ask the American people, Are you willing to have –to
sustain that amount of commitment for what? Exactly for what? Tell me
why, I think most Americans are going to say…
WALLACE: So why are the Democrats going to sign on?
WILLIAMS: Well, at this point — what you have had over the last
several weeks is a campaign by the Bush administration — it’s
going to be capped off Tuesday by Petraeus’ report. He’s
in an untenable position, damned if he does and says, You know what?
This is hurting the Army, and damned if he doesn’t.
|
