Since we're on the subject . . .

of the "surge", I might as well post one more time about the topic, especially since Bush gave his much-awaited speech on Iraq and the surge last night. One of the important things that must be done with any Bush speech is to determine how far from reality he deviated and whether such deviations are trivial or critical to the arguments of the speech. As usual with Bush, he deviated quite a bit and on issues critical to the overall points he was trying to win with the American public.

The Washington Post actually ran a "fact-check" article just to go over the things that Bush got wrong. For a newspaper that unequivocally supports Bush's Iraq plans, this is rather amusing. Essentially, they knew that Bush was a lying liar and that he would lie his way through his speech last night. So, they got prepared to comb through his speech and find all the glaring problems. I'll let you read the article to see the biggies, but surely one of the most obvious was his assertion that "Iraq's national leaders are getting things done", a critical assertion because the overall goal of the "surge" was to give said leaders "breathing room" to get "things done". (It is the lack of a political reconciliation that makes the "surge" a failure, according to Bush's own standards set out last winter.) Unfortunately, his example of sharing oil revenue was absolutely incorrect and, as of today, no deal exists on that issue.

But perhaps most deceptive of all was his statement that the surge-level of troops could be reduced due to the successes of the surge itself. This is utter nonsense as commentators on both the left and right pointed out, as in fact, the surge level of troops could never have been more than temporary due to deployment schedules. Analysts pointed this out last winter and spring after Bush proposed his surge. Therefore, had the surge NOT worked, troop levels still would have been reduced to "pre-surge" levels. Even the Post editorial supporting Bush (with both fingers in their ears and a third hand covering their eyes) acknowledges this.

More than that, though, is the utter lack of logic in Bush's statement on reducing the surge back to pre-surge levels. If the increase in troops has brought about an important increase in security missing at pre-surge levels, wouldn't it be logical, therefore, to argue for KEEPING the extra troops in Iraq? I mean, if pre-surge levels aren't sufficient, then why return to those levels? The whole Bush argument is absurd. In fact, if Petraeus and Crocker are right that we need these levels of troops to prevent the return to sectarian violence, doesn't this mean that Bush believes his top general and top civilian in Iraq are just plain wrong? At least Petraeus and Crocker are consistent -- yes, if you want to keep the reversible gains that you have achieved, then you will need to keep the circumstances in place that have produced those gains.

But, of course, my argument is naive. As I mentioned, Bush never had any intention of keeping the "surge" going -- deployment schedules would have made it impossible, unless Bush chose to extend deployment times dramatically. That, however, was politically unpalatable and would have sent his own party into a massive intra-party war and eventual tailspin (as if the 2008 elections won't produce enough of a loss of Republican senators). Such a step would have been, as the Post calls it, "politically explosive". At least, it would have been honest and logical.