Analysis: U.S. National Security Advisor's Lying Oped in Today's Washington Post

And in a most Orwellian way...

---

Jan 29, 2006

Grasping at straws: *Now* they like the Iraq Study Group

By D.M. Silev, dmsilev@uchicago.edu

In this morning's Washington Post, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley writes an op/ed where he argues for the Surge!, and as part of his argument claims the support of the conclusions of the Iraq Study Group.

So, what did Hadley say? This:

As Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander of our forces in Iraq, explained in hearings before Congress last week, reinforcing U.S. troops is necessary for this new plan to succeed. Any plan that limits our ability to reinforce our troops in the field is a plan for failure -- and could hand Baghdad to terrorists and extremists before legitimate Iraqi forces are ready to take over the fight. That is an outcome the president simply could not accept.

The Baker-Hamilton report supports this conclusion. It said: "We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad . . . if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective." Our military commanders, and the president, have determined just that.

Which is awfully funny, because I seem to remember that the ISG report said something a tad different:

Mr Baker said "staying the course was no longer viable" and called "for a support group to reinforce security and national reconciliation within Iraq, neither of which Iraq can achieve on its own".

The report said the US could not achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it dealt with the Israeli-Arab conflict and regional instability, adding that talks should include Israel, Lebanon and Palestinian leaders who recognised Israel's right to exist.

To improve the political climate for its diplomatic efforts internationally and within Iraq, the study said Mr Bush should state publicly that the US does not seek to control Iraq's oil
[...]
The report's recommendation for a prompt start to withdrawal goes against Mr Bush's insistence that the US will stay in Iraq until the job is done.

So, in other words, Hadley is cherry-picking one or two sentences from the report, taking them way out of context (the context being "how best to get us the hell out of this mess ASAP"), and using them to support a diametrically opposite viewpoint ("we're staying until Hell freezes over or until Bush grows a functional brain, whichever comes first") (nb: my money is on the new NHL franchise, the Infernals)

Now, remember also that this is the report that Bush and his circle went out of their way to ignore, marginalize, and eventually shelve in favor of the Surge! augmentation escalation of the war. So, now that only 1 in 4 Americans think that Bush is doing a good job, they're looking for a lifeline, any lifeline, to get them out of the mess that they've created. And, for better or for worse, the Baker-Hamilton Commission had a fair amount of prestige associated with it, so the administration is now trying to associate themselves with that report, even while ignoring or actively opposing its substantive recommendations.