On tonight's Countdown, Keith Olbermann lays out a timeline of the Bush administration's shell game leading up to the surge and how every time they w
September 5, 2007

countdown-surge-wilkerson.jpg On tonight's Countdown, Keith Olbermann lays out a timeline of the Bush administration's shell game leading up to the surge and how every time they were asked about details, the press and the American people were continually told to wait. Ret. Army Colonel and former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson, sits in with Keith and blasts Bush for his lack of planning for post-war Iraq and the revelation that Bush, regardless of what party the next president belongs to, he envisions a long-term presence in Iraq. In the end, Wilkerson rightfully shows his disgust with Democrats as they cower in fear of right-wing talking points and show no sign of true leadership in ending the nightmare. This is a long clip, but we're always trying to bring you as much content as possible and it's definitely worth it.

icon Download icon Download

On September 15th, the administration is due to report on the progress achieved in Iraq by the president's surge strategy.

Until then, we are told, "just wait."

If you expect that day to bring clarity on when the troops will come home, you either haven't been paying attention, or you're a member of Congress or both.

Don't feel too bad.

This is not the first time the administration has given Democrats, and the public, reason to hope for withdrawal.

When he was asked almost a year ago whether he was considering a surge, the president said, "just wait."

Full transcripts below the fold

Good Evening from New York.

When Mr. Bush announced the surge, he told those who wished to debate it on its merits... just wait for the official assessment.

Four days from now, General David Petraeus goes before Congress to give that assessment.

Then--only then, are we supposed to make judgments about, and debate the future of, America's military presence in Iraq.

Today, we learned that by then, it will be too late.

In our fifth story tonight, the President has already made up his mind.

We are staying. Maybe with slightly fewer troops, maybe not. He will discuss it in a speech next week; his chief of staff Josh Bolten giving "USA Today" a preview and echoing the words of his boss in the new book,'Dead Certain,' saying Mr. Bush wants to make it possible, "for his successor--whichever party that successor is from--to have a sustained presence in the Middle East."

He wants a sustained presence.

America's purpose in going to Iraq--now officially just to be in Iraq.

Explaining why he never debated leaving Iraq, only what to do in Iraq.

And even that debate, we learned today, woefully inadequate, when it came to one of Mr. Bush's most costly errors in Iraq...

Former administrator Paul Bremer continuing to rebut Mr. Bush's claim he never intended to disband the Army, writing in an op-ed today,

Quoting him, "The first I heard of doubts about the decision was in the fall of 2003 after the insurgency had picked up speed."

Mr. Bremer and the entire administration apparently unaware of mainstream media reports in spring of 2003-- before they disbanded the Army--that Saddam's soldiers warned that if they were let go they would attack American soldiers.

Whether it be about disbanding the Army, or about the surge, we have seen this congenital aversion to debate before.

It goes back, according to Sydney Blumenthal writing today at Salon.Com, to just under five years ago -- on the 18th of September, 2002 -- when, according to two former CIA officers, their boss George Tenet personally briefed Mr. Bush that Saddam Hussein's Foreign Minister had secretly confirmed Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Bush told Tenet his information was worthless.

Thus, now... when it comes to leaving Iraq, the shell game is an old and practiced one.

The nation debating withdrawal, while the administration only seemed to -- as Mr. Bolten confirmed today.

This pattern played out just last year. Then, as now, we awaited a report.

Then, as now, the prospect of a drawdown was dangled.

Then, as now, those who would debate Iraq were told "just wait."

Here is White House confirmation of the confidence scam it has run on the country -- in its own words.

On September 15th, the administration is due to report on the progress achieved in Iraq by the president's surge strategy.

Until then, we are told, "just wait."

If you expect that day to bring clarity on when the troops will come home, you either haven't been paying attention, or you're a member of Congress or both.

Don't feel too bad.

This is not the first time the administration has given Democrats, and the public, reason to hope for withdrawal.

When he was asked almost a year ago whether he was considering a surge, the president said, "just wait."

REPORTER: There's a report that you may want to send 30,000 additional troops to Iraq. Is that something--

BUSH: Look I'm going to listen to our commanders, Steve. Ours is a condition-based strategy. And Pete Pace is conducting a thorough study -- he's the chairman of the joint chiefs. John Abizaid has got some ideas, and the Baker-Hamilton Commission is looking. I want to hear from Democrats on Capitol Hill what their views may be. I want to hear from my fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill. And then I'll make up my mind."

Even well-connected journalists saw signals Mr. Bush might consider bringing the troops home.

BROKAW: I think there are signs he will listen now.

When Baker-Hamilton envisioned a combination drawdown-redeployment, Mr. Bush seemed open to it.

REPORTER: Is it possible to get them out of Iraq by early 2008, is that...

BUSH: One of the things the report did mention, and I think you've said it in your comment, if conditions so allow."

The media seized on that possibility, even after rumors surfaced about a surge.

"Do we stay, do we leave Iraq?"

"Is the president going to discuss how we get out of Iraq?"

REPORTER: "Will there be benchmarks on how the US gets out of there?"

Again we were told...

SNOW: "just wait. Wait until you see the whole package and then the debate will begin."

But only debate about what to do there.

Any debate about leaving was moot.

REPORTER: Wouldn't it be more useful at this point for the president to say, 'well, here's where I'm going, what do you all think about that?' If it's--

SNOW: No, because when that happens, there will be some of that, as well -- when he's decided upon the way forward--

REPORTER: But then it will already have been decided.(Laughter)

SNOW: No, wait a minute. You just told me -- what the hell do you want me to do here? (Laughter)

One week later, confirmation: debate about leaving was pointless.

REPORTER: The brigades that you've spoken of, you've got the money?

SNOW: Yes.

REPORTER: So it's moot. Any discussion right now of cutting off the money--

SNOW: I believe that's the case"

But then, just as with Baker-Hamilton, we were told to withold judgment... "just wait."

"We will probably have a better view a couple of months from now."

SNOW: "Wait until September."

ODIERNO:"In order to do a good assessment, I need until at least November."

As with Baker-Hamilton, Democrats looking ahead to the Petraeus report spoke as if the issue will be whether the troops can come home.

"If they're doing well, then we can start bring our troops out slowly."

The White House encouraged that thinking.

"It is conceivable that there will be troops moving out."

But in the same breath, he started downplaying hope for big change in September.

BUSH: "July is important, August is important, September is important."

And even if Petraeus were to recommend a drawdown, the history speaks loudly about what happens to that recommendation from the military.

REPORTER: "What happened to the statement that he had made for years that the people who decided troop levels in Iraq were the generals on the ground?"

SNOW: "Well, he's talked to them, too. And as you probably know, generals are not of one mind. Generals are independent individuals, as well, and there are a number of opinions within the ranks of the military."

Mr. Bush, meanwhile, has consistently had one guiding, abiding opinion.

"I reject those ideas-- ideas such as leaving before the job is done."

The problem: the debate rarely addresses his definition of that job -- as if no one hears, or wants to hear, when he admits just how far-reaching, just how ambitious his goals are.

BUSH: "Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security and is an ally in the war on terror."

An ally, as defined by Mr. Bush.

And how long could that take?

Without serious debate over his goals in Iraq... "Just wait."

"Typically, I think, historically, counterinsurgency operations have gone at least nine or ten years."

Can you help us out?

For nearly 20 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.

Discussion

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.
Mastodon