May 25, 2004
KNOWING YOUR ALLIES:
BUSH BETS THE HOUSE (John Podhoretz, May 25, 2004, NY Post)
GEORGE W. Bush is a high-stakes player, a political gambler. And last night he took a fantastically bold gamble: In the teeth of bad polls, an atmosphere of panic in his own party and the barely concealed glee of his rivals . . . he has decided to stand pat. [...]Bush's decision to stay on course may not simply be an example of stubbornness. The fact is that the news from the battlefield in Iraq these past five or six days has been remarkably good. The forces commanded and directed by the thug-cleric Muqtada al-Sadr are on the run or nearly destroyed in three different cities.
Sadr's uprising two months ago was the moment at which even passionate supporters of the war and proponents of the success in achieving civil order began to grow terrified that somehow the United States might actually lose in Iraq. So shouldn't the fact that we're routing him be grounds for some optimism?
It's very meaningful that other Shiite clerics in the city of Najaf now feel safe enough to issue what must be judged an astounding denunciation of Sadr in the past few days.
As reported on the brilliant Healing Iraq blog, Najaf clerics laid the blame for the entry of U.S. forces into that holy city: "It is the movement of Sayyid Muqtada [Sadr] that has encouraged the occupiers to cross the red lines," the senior clerics in Najaf wrote. "And it is clear that the organization of Sayyid Muqtada - and whoever follows the Sadrist movement - were the first to violate the sanctity of" the city's holiest shrine.
It's a reasonably safe bet. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 25, 2004 9:46 AM
That's one of my favorite things about Bush, his absolute belief in his decisions.
He doesn't always make the best choices, but he's willing to stand by them.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at May 25, 2004 10:06 AMGotta admit, there is something strangely thrilling about watching the man play poker.
Podhertz has nailed it. What many of the chatters will call "out of ideas", "stymied" whatever, they will call it because of their singular inability to grasp two of the most fundamental characteristics of the nation: faith and stoicism.
Podhurtz is right. Bush has basically played all or most of the cards he is going to play between now and the election, not because he is out, but because.... he has played the ones he is going to play, economically and Iraq-ally. Now, as Gandalf said, "the pieces are moving". If his three-of-a-kind beats his opponents foreign and domestic) two pair.... four more years. If they come up with a chance full-house.... well, he's done his best before God and the American people, and will go back to Texas, with head held high, and leave the jabberers to see how coherent a policy framework can be made from eternal bitching and indignation.
The pieces indeed are moving.
Posted by: Andrew X at May 25, 2004 10:07 AMThe defeatism and negativity from the Dems and media was expected. What was unexpected and has been very dissapointing is the defeatism and run for the hills attitude from the right and conservatives (NRO, Weekly Standard, etc).
Everyone knew a year ago the war would boil down to the economy and Iraq. Assuming Bush doesn't make a short-sighted move re Iraq (and this speech seems to indicate he won't) Iraq should be better in a few months, and with the economy improving, Bush should look better.
Well over a year ago, an elderly chaplain, himself ex-military and acquainted with people who knew Bush in Texas, told a group of us that Bush, above all, was a poker player. He stressed it a couple times: "Whatever happens in the following months, whatever you hear from the media and the pundits, remember this: Bush is a poker player."
RW:
We prefer the riverboat gambler tag:
http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/008810.html
Posted by: oj at May 25, 2004 10:51 AMHe may be holding some cards yet to be played. One may be the news ticker item on MEMRI concerning Sadaam's recorded confessed support of al Qaeda, et al, through UNSCAM (see MEMRI or Instapundit yesterday).
The other may be on WMD. Just a hunch; but what an announcement that would make either just before or just after the Demo's convention or at the Rep. convention. Make your wish and take your choice of dates.
Posted by: Genecis at May 25, 2004 11:01 AMGenecis - my wish - 200K+ new jobs each month going forward, Dow near 11K, Nasdaq near 2200, and Iraq fairly quiet and the transition moving along. These should help Bush.
Posted by: AWW at May 25, 2004 11:07 AMLast night I got around to watching last weekend's McLaughlin Group. Wow, what gloom and doom pessimists. They barely think that it's worth holding the election; might as well give the keys to Kerry today. It is just astonishing how often, when the pundits finally get around to noticing something, it's been over for about a week.
Posted by: David Cohen at May 25, 2004 11:19 AMDavid:
But do any of these "pundits" ever commit to a firm number for Kerry that is higher than 45%? If so, I haven't seen it. This is all just blather. A poll is one thing (however skewed the questions); predicting an absolute number on Nov. 2 is quite different. Even Eleanor Clift can't be giving Kerry more than 48%, can she?
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 25, 2004 11:46 AMI'll go on record right now with an absolute number for Kerry...40%!
Posted by: Bartman at May 25, 2004 12:14 PMRegarding my MEMRI post above. I went back to check and what I thought was al Qaeda may have been wishful thinking on my part because all I could find on the news ticker was a different reference Re:unscam payoffs to al Jezeera(Sp.). Possibly I crossed them in my mind. Sorry.
AWW, I join you in your wish. That's within the realm of probability.
Posted by: genecis at May 25, 2004 1:48 PMPoker players do rely strategy and psychology, but they also rely very heavily on fortune. Assuming that he gets the U.S. out of this mess (a long assumption given the past year's track record), the fact that Bush has even gotten us into this situation attests to his piss-poor leadership.
The fact that Poddy's sticking with him is hardly any comfort, either.
Posted by: Derek Copold at May 25, 2004 3:07 PMHeads Derek wins, tails we lose. Welcome to the closed mind.
Posted by: oj at May 25, 2004 3:13 PMActually, we all lost a long time ago. That's the point. Everything since has been flimsy rationalization on your part.
Posted by: Derek Copold at May 25, 2004 3:51 PMWe enforced the 1991 ceasefire
There's a free Kurdistan
There'll be a Shi'astan in the South
Not sure how much better things could go.
Posted by: oj at May 25, 2004 4:01 PM"I'm not a gambler ma'am, I'm a poker player."
Bret Maverick
Eight hundred and two of our soldiers could still be alive. A couple thousand more wouldn't be missing limbs or suffering other serious injury. Thousands of Iraqi civilians would still be alive.
Add onto that the facts that there already was a de facto Kurdistan and we're not really sure if a "Shiastan" is in our interest and you've got a big goose egg of a return on our investment in blood and treasure.
Bush still doesn't get who the enemy is.
If he's going to go around demolishing symbols of evil, he should start with mosques and schools, not prisons.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 25, 2004 5:11 PMI heard part of a hilarious bit on NPR this morning discussing Bush's speech last night. The "pro" was a woman from S. Carolina with a son in the Army in Iraq who was reassured and said she and her son know that he is fighting now so his children don't have to. The "con" was Ivo Daalder. I think one of these commentators is a bit more representative of American opinion than the other...
Posted by: brian at May 25, 2004 5:27 PM>Eight hundred and two of our soldiers could
>still be alive. A couple thousand more wouldn't
>be missing limbs or suffering other serious
>injury. Thousands of Iraqi civilians would still
>be alive.
No, tens of thousands more Iraqi civilians would be dead from Saddam's abuse & cruelty. Saddam, his sons, and his bought-and-paid-for French & UN allies would be richer; more palaces, more gold-and-ivory toilets, more under-the-table weapons, more money under-the-table to the UN.
And over 802 more of our civilians might be dead from a terrorist follow-up strike if the Iraq war hadn't diverted/decoyed them into "defending the holy cities of Iraq from the infidel". Better to have terrorists attacking armed & ready American soldiers there than unarmed & oblivio civilians here.
Posted by: Ken at May 25, 2004 6:35 PMI'm with Ken. Those men have not given their lives and suffered their injuries in vain. "What greater love hath man..."
Posted by: genecis at May 25, 2004 10:02 PMHarry,
Bush knows exactly who the enemy is. How you've missed that this past year is baffling.
Posted by: Bartman at May 26, 2004 5:46 PMDiscount prescription Fioricet online
Posted by: fiorcet at November 17, 2004 12:20 AM