Slowly Sidling To Iraq's Exit
Many GOP Candidates Part Company With Bush
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006; Page A15
By
Election Day, how many Republican candidates will have come out against the Iraq war or distanced themselves from the administration's
policies?
August 2006 will be remembered as a watershed in the politics of Iraq. It is the month in which a majority of Americans
told pollsters that the struggle for Iraq was not connected to the larger war on terrorism. They thus renounced a proposition the
administration has pushed relentlessly since it began making the case four years ago to invade Iraq.
That poll finding, from
a New York Times-CBS News survey, came to life on the campaign trail when Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.), one of the most articulate supporters
of the war, announced last Thursday that he favored a time frame for withdrawing troops.
Shays is in a tough race for reelection
against Democrat Diane Farrell, who has made opposition to the war a central issue. After his 14th trip to Iraq, Shays announced that
"the only way we are able to encourage some political will on the part of Iraqis is to have a timeline for troop withdrawal."
In
July Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-Minn.) returned from Iraq with an equally grim view. Americans, he said, lacked "strategic control" of
the streets of Baghdad, and he called for a "limited troop withdrawal -- to send the Iraqis a message." Just the month before, Gutknecht
had told his fellow House members that "now is not the time to go wobbly" on Iraq.
Nearly as significant as the new support for
troop withdrawals is the effort of many Republicans to criticize President Bush without taking a firm stand on when the troops should
come home.
Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), facing a challenge from Democrat Patrick Murphy, an Iraq war veteran, took a page from
former president Bill Clinton's playbook by triangulating between Murphy and the president. A Fitzpatrick mailing sent earlier this
month said that Fitzpatrick favored a "better, smarter plan in Iraq" that "says NO to both extremes: No to President Bush's 'stay
the course' strategy . . . and no to Patrick Murphy's 'cut and run' approach."
Notice: A Republican is suggesting that Bush's
Iraq policy is extreme. That would not have happened in 2004.
Other Republicans have taken their distance from the president
more subtly. In May Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.), facing a difficult rematch against Democrat Lois Murphy, called on Congress "to step
up and be more assertive in assessing the level of progress" in Iraq. He added: "The Iraqi government needs to know that American
patience and support are not blank checks that Iraqi politicians can cash with American lives and tax dollars."
And judging from
the Web sites of other Republicans in close races, many would prefer to make the Iraq issue disappear between now and November.
Consider
the campaign Web site of Rep. Mike Sodrel (R-Ind.), who faces a serious opponent in Democrat Baron Hill, a former House member. On
the "Issues" portion of his campaign site, Sodrel is proud to describe his stands on border security, gas prices and energy, tax relief,
creating jobs, veterans, health care, supporting small business, and agriculture. As of yesterday evening, there was no entry for
Iraq on the site, though he does discuss the issue on his House Web site.
All this Republican uneasiness underscores the importance
of the New York Times-CBS poll showing that 51 percent of those surveyed found no link between the war in Iraq and the broader war
on terrorism, an increase of 10 percentage points since June. A majority now rejects the administration's core foreign policy argument.
The
cracking of Republican solidarity in support of Bush on Iraq has short-term implications for November's elections and long-term implications
for whether the administration can sustain its policies.
With a growing number of Republicans now echoing Democratic criticisms
of the war, Republican strategists will have a harder time making the election a referendum on whether the United States should "cut
and run" from Iraq, the administration's typical characterization of the Democrats' view.
And even the war's strongest supporters
are offering increasingly critical assessments of past decisions. Last Tuesday Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) recited a litany of past
administration statements -- "stuff happens, mission accomplished, last throes, a few dead-enders" -- as indications that "we had
not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be." On Friday McCain reiterated his loyalty to the Iraq mission,
but he had already made his point.
The Republicans' restiveness suggests that Bush may not be able to stick with his current
Iraq policy through Election Day. Even if he does, he will come under heavy pressure from his own party after Nov. 7 to pursue a demonstrably
more effective strategy -- or to begin pulling American forces out.
27 Aug 2005 @ 19:32
Contrary to what Bush said repeatedly during the built up to his war in Iraq, he made the decision to start
his bloody, expensive, unjust war before the first troops were even sent.
9/11 served as a convenient reminder of the 'threat of terrorism'
and the 'evildoers' who need to be brought to justice. Bush juxtapositioned Iraq and Al Qaeda at every op-opportunity and was able
to get away with it because of the Muslim/Arab phobia instilled in most Americans immediately following 9/11.
Bush was able to get
away with this because many Americans are fairly
ignorant of the culture, geography, and life styles of the people in the Middle East
and many probably still can't pronounce 'Iraq' properly let alone find it on a map. This is especially true among Bush supporters.
Many of whom are so dumb that they still say 'I - rack' instead of 'ear- ROCK' and think that Saddam Hussein had something to do with
9/11!
During the military buildup, Bush repeatedly said that 'Saddam Hussein must comply with the UN and allow UNSCOM inspectors'.
When the inspectors were let in and allowed unfettered access to locations given to them by the CIA, Bush became nervous. The longer
the inspectors came up empty-handed the less likely it looked like there were any of the phantom WMDs he had been preaching about
and hence, less need for a war that he had been rushing too.
So a ridiculous ultimatum was issued to justify war.
The scariest part
was when Bush said that 'God' told him to start a war
against a third world country one tenth America's size, with one percent of
its wealth, and a nation with no navy, no air force, no long range ballistic missiles, no nukes, no WMDs of any kind, and an army
consisting of twenty to thirty year old Russian tanks lacking spare parts.
Did God tell the leader of the world's only superpower
to start a war that has cost to date over two hundred billion dollars, fifteen thousand American casualties, one hundred thousand
dead Iraqis, more instability and terrorism in the world, and a loss of respect for America in the world?
With more lies of President
Bush being exposed, an increasing attention is now being given to the true reasons that made the United States decide to invade Iraq.
More than two years have passed since the war began, and the American President still repeats same claims that the U.S. forces are
fighting in Iraq to protect Americans against the threat of attacks similar to those of September 11.
Several reports have revealed
that the United States plotted for Iraq invasion months before September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Five
hours after the Pentagon building was hit by American Airlines Flight 77, the U.S. secretary of Defence was asking his aides to try
and come up with a plan to invade Iraq and topple its leader Saddam Hussein. Notes taken by aides who were present with Rumsfeld in
the National Military Command Center on September 11 2001 can confirm what I’m saying.
So Iraq war wasn’t a result of 9/11, but the
attacks, together with the Weapons of Mass Destruction claims gave Bush’s administration a convenient reason and excuse to bomb Iraq
without facing international condemnation.
But the deepening quagmire in Iraq doesn’t seem to be a good enough reason for the President
to admit his mistakes and lies.
When about 6000 people died in September 11 attacks, which I greatly denounce, the act was internationally
condemned as a bloody, horrifying, merciless “terror attack”. Whereas there’s been a little or no outcry for the innocent lives lost
everyday in Iraq and Afghanistan wars, both launched without a logic justification or evidence or involvement in 9/11.
None of the
world leaders stood up and accused America of committing war crimes in Iraq, no one criticised the actions of the U.S. soldiers in
Iraq, and instead their attitude was justified.
Is this Bush’s version of democracy? Killing thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq?
Devastating the country and destroying its infrastructure? Stealing the country’s oil wealth?
No wonder the Iraqis don’t want this
democracy and fight it with every means.
see More >
