Just For the Record

Though I was put off guard and lulled into a hypnotic trance by the carefully chosen necktie Bush was wearing last night as he held his third primetime news conference since taking office (only his twelfth over all), I still saw a man with no grasp of the truth, or at the very least a dogged refusal to acknowledge truth (or answer questions, but that's another story). As I've told clients, many times in the past, "it's not spin when you can see the ball turning."

Q. What's your best prediction on how long U.S. troops will have to be in Iraq. It sounds like you will have to add some troops. Is that a fair assessment?

A. Well, first of all, that's up to General Abizaid. And he's clearly indicating that he may want more troops. It's coming up through the chain of command. And if that's what he wants, that's what he gets.

Generally, we've had about 115,000 troops in Iraq. There's 135,000 now as a result of the changeover from one division to the next. If he wants to keep troops there to help, I'm more than willing to say, Yes, General Abizaid.

I talk to General Abizaid quite frequently. I'm constantly asking him does he have what he needs. Whether it be in troop strength or in equipment. He and General Sanchez talk all the time. And if he makes the recommendation, he'll get it.

Compare, contrast, discuss:

General rebuffs Rumsfeld by pressing for more troops in Iraq

By THOMAS M. DEFRANK
New York Daily News
April 12, 2004

WASHINGTON - War is too important to be left to the generals, a French prime minister famously observed. Now, the generals have decided the Iraq war is too important to be left to the politicians.

Gen. John Abizaid's decision to press for bulking up U.S. firepower is a polite but unmistakable rebuff to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who for months has rejected sending more troops to Iraq in a campaign year.

"What Abizaid is really doing is confronting Rumsfeld," a senior Pentagon official told the New York Daily News. "He's not going to let the election calendar determine what he needs to do the job."

Civilian control of the military is a time-honored American tradition, saluted briskly if not always revered by military brass. As fighting in Iraq exploded last week, killing dozens of G.I.s, Abizaid and his senior commanders were emboldened to press the case for more combat strength, Pentagon sources said.

A senior military official told the Daily News that Abizaid, who speaks fluent Arabic and is regarded as more independent than his predecessor, Gen. Tommy Franks, has been repeatedly discouraged from asking for more soldiers because President Bush has publicly pledged to bring 25,000 troops home from Iraq before the November elections.

"Rumsfeld has made it clear to the whole building that he wasn't interested in getting any requests for more troops," the Pentagon official said.

To placate Rumsfeld, Abizaid has consistently said he has enough "assets" to carry out his assigned mission. Sources close to Abizaid said, however, that for months, he's wanted to expand that mission to seal off Iraq's borders.

Currently, U.S. commanders don't have enough troops to stop the infiltration of foreign fighters into Iraq from Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia to bolster anti-American insurgents.

In Baghdad last week, a bullish Abizaid said, "We are not headed for disaster as long as we are resolute, courageous and patient." But when asked about needing more troops, he also made clear "everything is on the table," including holding over some units set to rotate home and speeding up the arrival of replacement outfits.

With Rumsfeld belatedly preparing to give Abizaid what he needs, the Bush administration seems to have absorbed the new political reality: sending more troops to contain the upsurge in fighting may threaten Bush's electoral prospects less than bringing greater numbers of young Americans home in coffins.