Who's the Decider?

It's no surprise that commissions get formed for the purpose of researching an issue in order for politicians to take political cover beneath the commission's findings.

It's also no surprise that commissions get formed in order to arrive at the pre-ordained recommendations favored by those who created the commission.

Here's a surprise: the Great Decider can't even get his own commission, the Baker/Hamilton Commission, to endorse his agenda.

Mr. Bush spent 90 minutes with commission members in a closed session at the White House two weeks ago “essentially arguing why we should embrace what amounts to a ‘stay the course’ strategy,” said one commission official who was present.

There's more on the flip.

And yet, the NYT reports that the draft report calls for plenty that W opposes, i.e. direct talks with Syria and Iran.  Granted they're not setting timetable for troop withdrawal ("performance benchmarks" sound so much better), but they are inevitably going to be part of the debate over the final report.

You'd think that a sitting President who spends that much time with a commission would be able to get his agenda through.  It just shows how out of touch he is that the commission, most of whom are pretty darn conservative themselves, is going to repudiate his approach.

Or... is it something more sinister?  Are they floating details of this meeting for political purposes?  I've got to go teach this morning, but I'll be back later to see if anyone has any ideas about it.

•  I'm not proud

  Tips are always accepted.

  by gsbadj on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:46:34 AM PDT

•  It shows just how out of touch

  georgie is with reality.  Can you imagine those poor people having to listen to this man for 90 minutes. Then to even try to make a plan knowing he will never put the plan into a reality.

  by Owllwoman on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 04:55:14 AM PDT

  •  Not only out of touch

    The Bush people have contempt for those of us who are "reality based".  Check out this speech he gave yesterday.  The money quote -

    There's a lot of sectarian violence taking place, fomented in my opinion because of the attacks by al-Qaida causing people to seek reprisal."

    Translation: it's not Civil War, and if it were, it's not his fault.

    by MadRuth on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:04:30 AM PDT

    •  I agree

         When this war started, a lot of the people who post here at DKos said the republicans would try to find a way to blame someone or something for this war, if it made Bush and the gop talking heads look bad.
         Somehow they would try to "get out from under." Lo and behold: a glimpse into the future.
         The republican party is concerned about their image while people are dying in Iraq, American and Iraqi alike. Pitiful.

      by lyvwyr101 on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:17:41 AM PDT

    •  Read it over

      He's not saying that the sectarain violence is perpetrated BY Al Qaeda.

      He's saying that the violence is because of the Al Qaeda attacks.

      If that makes sense to you, you're a better Kossack than I.  It's another of those empty W-phrases that don't mean a damn thing and that he can weasel out of later should he need to.

      by gsbadj on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 06:38:08 AM PDT

  •  Not only that...

    ... if they're on the commission, they know damn well that the only reason for them being there is because W. has screwed up the situation so badly.

    I can see them in the WH, looking among each other while W. is pitching them, and saying to W., "I think we know your position.  Thanks for the coffee and bagels but we gotta run."

    by gsbadj on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 06:32:55 AM PDT

•  "Sectartian Violence Part Of Al-Queda Plot?!?"

  My head hurts from pounding it with this baseball bat.

  http://news.yahoo.com/...

  Bush: Iraq violence part of al-Qaida plot

  By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 20 minutes ago
  TALLINN, Estonia - President Bush said Tuesday an al-Qaida plot to stoke cycles of sectarian revenge in Iraq is to blame for escalating bloodshed, and refused to debate whether the country has fallen into civil war.

  "No question it's tough, no question about it," Bush said at a news conference with Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves. "There's a lot of sectarian violence taking place, fomented in my opinion because of the attacks by al-Qaida causing people to seek reprisal."

  Advil, please.

  by tkmattson on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:08:58 AM PDT

  •  Someone should quickly tell him that his opinions

    are as uninformed as ever, and we can do without them, thank you very much!

    by Fasaha on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:58:11 AM PDT

•  He can't talk with Syria and Iran.,,,

  those two contries are guilty of destabilizing the Middle East. Which of those two invaded Iraq anyway?

  by irate on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 05:27:47 AM PDT

  •  Who destabilized who?

    Last I saw, there was no instability in Iraq before we invaded.  Despotism yes, but instablility no.

    by gsbadj on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 06:34:18 AM PDT

•  just trying to influence US public opinion

  All this violence - thousands of Iraqis gettign killed each month -

  It's ALL an attempt to convince the people of the US that we should leave.....it's ALL one big PR effort by al-Quaeda.....

  But our President is too smart to fall for those tactics......

  by xrepub on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 07:36:20 AM PDT

•  We are

  Those of us who vote that is..  

  They might not agree, but we can change their minds.  2008 is going to be great!

  by hypersphere01 on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 10:01:47 AM PDT

  •  You're right of course..

    .. but I just thought it remarkable that the self-proclaimed "Decider" A) abdicates his authority to make important decisions to a commission and then B) needs to meet with them to try to justify his approach.

    by gsbadj on Tue Nov 28, 2006 at 01:06:56 PM PDT