"Stubborner Than a Donkey": Bush's refusal to compromise keeps Iraq firmly in his own hands

[DeepModem Mom]

NYT: Craig Crawford’s 1600: Stubborner Than a Donkey
By Craig Crawford, CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY
Published: May 25, 2007

Whether you call it admirable resolve or blind stubbornness, George W. Bush’s refusal to compromise has once again kept management of the Iraq War firmly in his own hands.

Last week, the Democratic Congress blinked with both eyes and gave the president the money he wants to prosecute the conflict through the summer — without any meaningful strings. Lacking veto-proof majorities at both ends of the Capitol, as well as the political fortitude required to risk getting tagged as “failing to support the troops,” the new majority leadership stripped the exit timetables out of the midyear war spending measure and gave Bush the “clean bill” he’d demanded from the outset.

Indeed, Bush may have just executed one of the more remarkable feats of high-stakes brinkmanship in presidential history, a case of sheer will overcoming political forces. Even Abraham Lincoln had to show tangible success on the battlefield — namely, the burning of Atlanta in 1864 — to sidetrack mounting opposition to the Civil War and avoid what might have been an electoral disaster for himself and his party that year.

Faced with nothing but bad news from Iraq, coupled with the enduring and widespread fear that his strategies are showing little or no hope of producing a turnaround on the battlefield or in public opinion, an unpopular president has been able to secure unfettered financing to maintain an unpopular war with no end in sight....

***

Democrats are now counting on drawing another line in the sand come September, when the new round of funding debates will climax and the full measure of the Bush “surge” can be taken. They are hoping that, if the increased troop levels and new combat tactics haven’t produced results by then, Republican solidarity will collapse.

Even in the best-case scenarios for Democrats, however, they could still fall short of the veto-proof majority they will need to take control of this war. The more likely possibility is that only the 2008 election can change things. And by then, Bush will have kept his war going all the way to his last day in office.

(Contributing Editor Craig Crawford is a news analyst for NBC, MSNBC and CNBC. His new book is “The Politics of Life: 25 Rules for Survival in a Brutal and Manipulative World.”)

http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/05/25/cq_2798.html

[spanone]

1. To call bu$h* stubborn is way too kind. Psychotic, yes.

[Berry Cool]

2. Thank you, Craig, for telling it like it is.

Game, set, match for Bush. He didn't even have to really play; his opponent forfeited.

A whole lot of people are going to die this summer as a result of this cowardly "wait until September" bunch.

[Patsy Stone]

3. True

but the Republicans did nothing to stop the war either. The ones who went to see him chose to continue to support him and were just as cowardly.

And how nice that he mentioned Keith. :hi:

[DeepModem Mom]

5. Indeed!

:hi:

[pretzel4gore]

4. where do you want the spotlight focused?

Iraq, natch. Or 'war on terror' If you wanna be nit picky. Just as long as the light is AWAY from 911, and thus the 2k election. Those articles of faith, precious chestnuts, will not withstand critical examination, goddam you. The mission impossible team got this note: "your job is to keep newsmedia focused on Iraq, or the WOT, and to keep the news away from 911 and especially the theft of the 2000 election (even al gore is onside with that one!) which says USA is only a banana republic, with the popular will (represented by votes) just big turds from bush's bum"
'burn this"

[Spinzonner]

6. He really doesn't have any choice

It's all he has.

If he starts showing what is perceived as weakness, all the scandals and incompetence will start or accelerate on him.