A managed withdrawal

A quick post about an example of flawed logic on behalf of Bush supporters that DB feels like highlighting (one of a zillion.)

Last night on PBS’s NewsHour, New York Times columnist David Brooks argued that Congress acted “reasonably responsibly” in removing timelines from the Iraq supplemental.

Brooks incoherently argued, “The country wants to get out of Iraq, but they don’t want to get out precipitously. They want a managed withdrawal. The majority just isn’t there. So the majority in the Congress had to accede to those two realities.”

It’s unclear what point Brooks is trying to make. He either doesn’t understand what the American public wants or he doesn’t understand the timetable legislation.

Brooks’ own paper conducted a poll recently that found “sixty-three percent say the United States should set a date for withdrawing troops from Iraq sometime in 2008.” The bill that the Senate and House passed with bipartisan majorities — and Bush vetoed on the fourth anniversary of Mission Accomplished — set a goal for the phased withdrawal to be completed by April 2008.

In addition to the problems Think Progress noted above, there are two that bother DB, one a logical contradiction, the second a propaganda issue:

First, there will be and can be no "managed withdrawal" in a sense that is exclusive of a precipitous or quick exit from Iraq. Philip Carter wrote an excellent piece about the logistics last week for Slate. In short, if we get out before Iraq becomes completely stable (don't hold your breath), then the egress will have to be executed very quickly. Otherwise, it will be disastrous. The idea that there can be a prolonged exit is lacking any basis in reality. Quite frankly, the idea that this administration can "manage" anything is lacking a significant basis in reality, which is one of the reasons I've been afraid that it may be less costly to wait for another administration to do it.

Second, Bush and his supporters have been screeching about "micromanagement" ever since the Democrats took control of Congress. Now they are, in effect, embracing it.

"We can't have 535 members of Congress micromanaging the war," said Senator John Cornyn.

But millions of Americans dictating the speed of the operation is better? America saying simply "get us out of Iraq" is being rejected by Bush. America's reservations about the logistics of the exit are being touted as reasons for staying. Which sounds more like micromanagement to you?

Surreal, indeed

Before Senator Cornyn launched into an attack on John Dean at this morning's censure hearings, the Boot Full of Hammers showed us all how much his finger is on the pulse of America:

I think the American people would be also justified in thinking that the atmosphere in Washington D.C. is surreal when it comes to the GWOT and how we conduct our business and how we spend our time. While there were those who initially expressed some doubt as to the legality of the president's actions and his authority, you have conducted a number of different hearings including with some judges who serve on the FISA Court. The Chairman has noted a number of circuit court opinions which have reached the same conclusion that many of those judges did and that is the president's authority is not exclusively derived by a statutory grant from Congress under the FISA act. And that would be a very strange proposition to argue that one branch of the government is somehow limited by a grant of authority from another branch when in fact each derive their powers by the Constitution itself.

And no one, to my knowledge, has suggested that this program be stopped. Sen. Sessions mentioned that a number of people have been briefed on this program. I agree it should not be stopped. It's saving American lives and it's allowing us to fight and win the GWOT. And it would be ironic indeed if the Congress were to pass an authorization for the use of military force and say that we ought to locate and detain -- capture and detain and even kill the enemy, but we can't listen to their telephone calls that come from overseas to the United States. That is, I think, contributes to the surreal atmosphere.

Yes, sitting here worrying about my civil liberties while a Senator graces an important hearing with five minutes of his presence and then spends it talking about "ironic" hypotheticals concerning a situation he just finished mentioning that nobody is endorsing... Yes, that's "surreal."

(image swiped from Wonkette)