President Bush will not compromise with Democrats in Congress. Next.

Is training the national Iraqi military going to fair any better

That should be "fare," as in "fare well" or, in this case, dependably, "fare badly."

Sheesh, who thinks something that stupid deserves to be published in the Post?

Oh, Fred Hiatt would. Well, that explains a lot. If that guy can't be more circumspect with his sucking up to Bush, he's going to get his hero impeached.

Sounds like something Dick Cheney would have thunk up.

Well, if they trained a secular Suni army and told them to take back the country, it might work. Most of our allies in the region would support such a plan.

I'm guessing that by "Iraqi troops" Ignatius really means "Iraqi Shiites," inasmuch as he is stating outright that we will no longer even be pretending to care about political reconciliation. Presumably we'll only be training the fighters of one side of the civil war, right?

But as long as the slaughter of the Sunnis is backed by sensible moderate bipartisanship, no problem.

...and that's why a 2-Party System doesn't work.

Goodmorning everyone, coffees been brewing while you've been playing that shell game.

Question...bush has been training Iraqis for 3 years...so when does bush start training Iraqis to train themselves?????

In other words, the surge won't work, and so Bush wants to throw more money at yet another slightly different Iraq strategy. But this time it'll work because they'll use the now-outdated Baker-Hamilton report!

...how dumb do they think we are?

On second thought, don't answer that. I think I already know.

Just remember the bush administration governs according to the rules of marketing, which includes that every few years you need to re-introduce the same old product with a new name, ergo the "post-surge strategy" a.k.a. stay the course.
.

Lather, rinse, repeat:

Bremer 2003: "After a week of deadly violence and sharp criticism from Iraq's Governing Council over security, the US-led coalition said yesterday that it would accelerate the training of more Iraqi police and troops.

The top US official in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, vowed that by September more than 200,000 Iraqis would be involved in defending their country, either in the military, the police, or the civil defense forces. "This is, after all, their country"

Bush 2004: But Bush said "a great many are standing firm," and the United States would continue training Iraqi security forces "so the Iraqi people can eventually take responsibility for their own security."

Bush 2005: "In the days ahead, I'll be discussing the various pillars of our strategy in Iraq. Today, I want to speak in depth about one aspect of this strategy that will be critical to victory in Iraq -- and that's the training of Iraqi security forces. To defeat the terrorists and marginalize the Saddamists and rejectionists, Iraqis need strong military and police forces. Iraqi troops bring knowledge and capabilities to the fight that coalition forces cannot."

Gen. Dempsey, 2006: "Dempsey said the Iraqi army, now with 115,000 soldiers, will reach its final goal of 137,500 soldiers by the end of this year, at the same time that overall Iraqi security forces, including police, reach their goal of 325,000, up from 265,000 currently.

"The Iraqi army will be built by the end of this calendar year," Dempsey told a Pentagon briefing.

That means that at the end of 2006, he said, the Iraqis will be fully capable of recruiting, vetting and training soldiers, forming them into units, putting them into barracks and "sending them out the gate to perform their missions".

The Bush Administration has driven the bus off the road. And now the prez insists that the only way to resolve this problem is to step on the gas and drive faster -- in the ditch. Beats me how he can expect bipartisan support when 70 percent of the passengers want to call a tow truck.

So we're back to "as they stand up we'll stand down?"

I thought we gave up on that (as our primary strategy at least) because it wasn't working, and we were going to count on political reconciliation.

Now they are giving up on political reconciliation and going back to the plan that didn't work before.

And we will be told we have to give this new plan a chance to work!

Repeat until January 20, 2009.

Groundhog day in Iraq...

The only variable here is time: It's now comin' nigh on another Election year, and the Rethuglycan troops cannot, will not stand for yet another "thumpin' " in 2008.

This Bush tactic of using outdated 1980 marketing concepts was fine for a lickspittle Congress willing to cut any slack demanded, but they ain't no slack left in that hangin' rope.

The GOP's panic is rising, and I have a feeling it's going to get real ugly.

With that reality, the only variable left will be what the Bushistas are capable of in order to remain in power.

War in Iran? Suspension of Elections and Martial Law after a staged attack on the US? Who knows for sure?

Cheney is a psychopath.

You're right to point out that the new plan (which is not a strategy) is just like the old one. One difference is that it will thrash about, demonstrating its malevolent futility, in a post-surge Iraq: fewer Iraqis alive and in the country than before the surge.

The other difference is that it wants to be bipartisan. Right now, it's Bush's war. Even the British want out. Bush wants it to be somebody else's war--the Republicans' and the Democrats' until the next presidential election, after which his successor will find the Democrats in sole possession of the consequences while Bush and his friends tiptoe away, in sole possession of the profits.

The Iraq war is a criminal enterprise. If you're not a criminal, it makes no sense to join it. The Democrats are already accessories. This so-called bipartisanship would just suck them in deeper.

"Can these two leaders share the controls enough that Iraq will become a U.S. project, rather than George Bush's war? There's a bipartisan path out of this impasse, but will America's leaders be wise enough to take it?"

Tune in next time! Same Bat-time, same Bat-channel!

Bobblespeaking Ignatius would like to think he's saying 'a pox on both their houses.' What he's really asking:

Will Pelosi step up and take responsibility for Bush's war?

Will Bush be willing to share his disastrous war with Nancy Pelosi?

Some compromise.

Oh, so this is how Bushco will package the Freedman unit they plan to force everyone to buy in September. And those "bipartisans" will no doubt do the shilling. But who are those bipartisans, now, outside of Holy Joe Lieberman, party of one? You see, David Ignatius, those partisans interests that Reid and Pelosi better be tethered to is the vast majority of the American public, who get what Ignatius can't seem to get: this disaster must end. Maybe all those cocktail weenies have gotten to his brain.

Shorter Ignatius: Because Bush won't withdraw from Iraq until he can blame Democrats for it, it's the patriotic duty of Democrats, if they (want to get out of Iraq/want to win the war), to swear that they won't use Bush's war against Republicans in any way, shape, or manner, and to offer up their own political aspirations as a blood sacrifice instead of the lives of American troops. Until they do, they won't be able to do anything else, and nobody will ask Bush to do anything or suffer any accountability.

Bipartisanship means never having to say Republicans are wrong.

Here's a plan for Iraq.

1. Stop all patrols.
2. Send all US troops to banks, financial institutions, oilfields.
3. Freeze all monies.
4. Pay allowance to all citizens so they can eat.
5. Wait for warring parties to sue for peace.

Is one of the goals of the continued occupation to stay in Iraq until something happens which justifies expanding the conflict to attacking Iran?

President Bush will not compromise with Democrats in Congress. Next.

Posted by: justin | May 22, 2007 09:49 AM

The truth is shrub won't compromise at all with anyone, no matter what party it is. He's the Decider. That's the problem.

Yes, the key to success in Iraq is making sure that failure is bipartisan. Great strategery!

Do they forget that the vote that gave BushCo the authorization to start this disastrous war of aggression was bi-partisan? I think we've had enough bi-partisan ponies for now.

Someone in DC wanted to try resurrecting the Baker-Hamilton approach, and Ignatius is dutifully helping. Of course, he has to ignore the fact that, by the time it was delivered, the window for Baker-Hamilton to work was probably already closed. And he has to ignore the fact that El Jefe told the Baker-Hamilton crew to suck eggs, and raised his finger to Congress. His handlers don't get to now wonder if maybe they could still convince anyone to try the Baker-Hamilton approach. Except in Ignatius-land, that ship has sailed.

Can these two leaders share the controls enough that Iraq will become a U.S. project, rather than George Bush's war?

Why in God's name should they?

I'm not a huge fan of the democrats at this point. They've done little to win my vote. They tend to be spineless and back down when confronted.

However, that being said, the only solution to this problem is a veto proof majority in both the house and senate, and a democrat in the white house. It is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that republicans cannot come up with any creative ways to solve this conflict. They need to be removed from the conversation entirely.

This reminds me of an old tale by, I dunno, Bill Bryson, about arguments in pubs.
Drinker X states that 2 plus 2 equals 4. Drinker Y disagrees, and says that 2 plus 2 equals 6. An old sage wanders by and avers that 2 plus 2 is actually 5, and everyone nods in agreement at such deep thinking.
This bulls*** about "bipartisanship" hasn't quite descended to such a Monty Python-esque theater of the absurd, but it's close.

I thought they abandoned the training of the Iraqi security forces last month?

It needs to be stated straight out that the floating of this trial balloon by the White House is an admission that the "surge" is failing. They would never begin preparing for the next phase of their disaster if they believed that the surge would succeed.

Jeez, don't you have a Pundit Dictionary? Everyone knows "Bipartisan" means "exactly what George Bush wants."

Could somebody tell me what we are teaching the Iraqis?
How to shoot guns, drive trucks? How to interrogate prisoners? How to conduct a search?
These are not Hmong tribesmen living in the jungle; these are not even Pashtun tribesmen living in the mountains.This was a country with a modern military and police that were, in fact, too good.
How many of the American trainers are fluent in Arabic?
This is a farce in the center of a horror movie.

A question:

When an idea is supported my a supermajority, can it still be considered "partisan" ?

where is the bipartisan plan to win the lottery for me?

Maybe someone said it up above but when the plane is in a nosedive and two people are fighting for control *only one of whom intends to right the plane and fly it upwards* while the other intends to fly it into the ground the passengers aren't cheering for a "bipartisan approach." They want the one who plans to fly the plane out of its nose dive, and not the guy who put it into a tailspin.

Or am I being too literal?

aimai

Hey, at least we can all stop pretending that Republicans or the WH actually care about that goes on in Iraq itself. The operational definition of victory is evidently to keep Democrats divided and ineffective.

aimai, I think that's a fine analogy, but given today's Democratic cave-in, which one's Pelosi and which one's Reid?

Oh, you mean one pilot's Bush and one's Congressional Dems generally. Sorry, it's sort of hard to tell where the line between sabotaging ourselves and merely enabling Bush is. My bad...

crimminy, at least put some big tails on it if you're introducing last year's model this year.

Do pundits not realize the entire Bush strategy revolves around ensuring he is not in office when the troops come home. That is the adminstrations one and only goal. The man could not give a shit about what happens after January 20, 2009. Bush just doesn't want a replay of the fall of Saigon to happen on his watch.

MEMO TO: D. Ignatius
FROM: reality-based community
RE: reality

1) 1 + 1 = 2

2) up is not down

3) black is not white

4) "bi-partisan" means "bi-partisan", NOT "the bestest, most scrumpdeedleyicious solution EVAH!"

5) Bush, Cheney and their neo-con choir don't compromise -- it's a sign of weakness.

6) George W. Bush shares nothing with those unwilling to submit to his authority.

6) advising Democrats to aid and abet the deadly, uninformed, unethical, immoral, un-Constitutional, illegal and impeachable offenses committed by our unrecovered substance-abuser-in-chief -- whose brittle ego, proven track record of failure, lies and all around moral turpitude should automatically disqualify him from consideration as a voice for reasonable foreign policy -- is not "wise", it's through-the-looking-glass, Orwellian nonsense.

Is there anyone in Iraq we could pay to occupy the crawford ranch by force? Maybe blow up some scrub for awhile, shoot some rpg's through the buildings, etc.

I've taken to rating the WaPo's pundits on the Quail Dinner Scale, also known as the Rove Appeasement Scale.

I give Ignatius's oil slick a double Quail.

I don’t want to wait till the end of Summer :( , I want it now. Who with me?
save your time and join me. ;)

oiysjxfh ulcdfsjr xwcvu edslmwokc vxkyselim pcknodfu ptkgi