The New York Times
December 1, 2005
News Analysis
Gaining Control in Iraq, and Regaining Support at Home
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 - The political calculation behind President Bush's speech in Annapolis on Wednesday is that Washington, not Baghdad, is the battlefront that will decide the ultimate outcome of the war in Iraq, but that Mr. Bush's decisions do not have to be driven by fears of heavy Republican losses in the 2006 midterm elections.
At a time of increasing Democratic attacks on Mr. Bush's handling of the war and a drop in public support for the conflict, Mr. Bush's political advisers assert that they can still hold Congress next year. By their reasoning, there will be only 35 to 40 compe ive seats in the House of Representatives, and at this point they see no evidence that the war will be the determining factor in those races. While there may be Democratic gains in the Senate, both parties doubt that the Republicans will lose control.
In any case, the advisers say, Mr. Bush is adamantly committed to holding tough in Iraq, even if it means disregarding the domestic political repercussions and pressure from his own party. The White House regularly asserts that Mr. Bush pays little heed to political considerations and no attention to opinion polls.
( ..... the lying bas s lie evey time they open their mouths.)
Democrats did not dispute the White House estimate of the number of compe ive House races next year, but they said it was far too early to dismiss Iraq as a major factor in the elections. And Amy Walter, the senior editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, which closely tracks Congressional races, said that most House races had not even started, and that the antiwar political climate "could still overwhelm the structural advantages of Republicans."
The longer term worry of the White House, Mr. Bush's advisers say, is that support for the war could drop so precipitously by the 2008 presidential election that a majority in Congress could demand withdrawal and start to hold back financing - the "cut and run" strategy that Mr. Bush both derides and fears.
(... ie, the polls indicate how people might vote, so the Congressbas s pay attention to them, and therefore the WH really does pay close attention to the polls, no matter how many times they lie that they don't.)
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, said Mr. Bush must make adjustments in his Iraq policy or face failure there. If Mr. Bush does not, Mr. Biden said, "We will have traded a dictatorship for chaos, we will have a regional war from a civil war and a new haven for terrorists."
For those reasons, Mr. Bush presented a more comprehensive explanation on Wednesday of the administration's policy in Iraq than he has in recent months. What he left unclear in his strategy for "victory in Iraq" is how Americans will be able to measure any progress, and whether it is realistic to believe his ambitious goals.
The 35-page do ent that accompanied Mr. Bush's speech in Annapolis, led "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq," defined victory in the short term as "steady progress" in fighting terrorists, the meeting of political milestones, the building of democratic ins utions and the training of Iraqi security forces. In the long term, it said victory would require no less than a peaceful and secure Iraq, "well integrated into the international community" and a "full partner" in fighting terrorism.
But in redefining victory as, effectively, creating conditions that would allow the United States to leave, Mr. Bush made no promises that he would be able to reduce American forces significantly in 2006.
But that is the one measure of success most meaningful to Americans, Ms. Walter said. "Voters' perceptions of success may not be the same as how military planners define success," she said. "If voters are still seeing a lot of violence and upheaval, success with a cons ution or an election does not mean as much. They need some sort of tangible change. Troops coming home seems to be that sort of change."
In response to the Democrats who have demanded a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, Mr. Bush said that setting a deadline would send a message around the world that America was weak, and "would vindicate the terrorists' tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder and invite new attacks on America."
The "victory in Iraq" do ent does say that troop levels in Iraq "will decrease over time," but cautions that "we expect, but cannot guarantee, that our force posture will change over the next year."
Between the lines, the do ent offers an unusually candid assessment of what the administration still faces in Iraq. For example, it says that "it is not realistic to expect a fully functioning democracy, able to defeat its enemies and peacefully reconcile generational grievances, to be in place less than three years after Saddam was finally removed from power." The words stand in dramatic contrast to what the administration was saying less than three years ago.
Mr. Bush's advisers said that his speech and the do ent were long overdue, and that the need for such a statement dated to last summer, when antiwar sentiment coalesced around Cindy Sheehan, the mother of an American soldier killed in Iraq who staged a monthlong protest outside the president's Texas ranch. In the view of some of Mr. Bush's advisers, the president lost a connection with the American people in August, when Ms. Sheehan commanded the stage and Mr. Bush spent much of the month out of sight.
The advisers said that a chance for the president to regain ground with voters was lost in September, when the White House was overwhelmed by Hurricane Katrina, and then again in October, when the West Wing remained in limbo over the investigation into the C.I.A. leak case.
After that, Mr. Bush's first significant speech on Iraq was on Nov. 11, when he punched back at his critics. The strategy now is to make a series of speeches on the subject.
* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Anybody else notice that once Rove got (temporarily) out of hot water, the White-House's string of missteps & lackadaisacal handling of the beating they've been taking kind of stopped. Everybody's back on message now.The advisers said that a chance for the president to regain ground with voters was lost in September, when the White House was overwhelmed by Hurricane Katrina, and then again in October, when the West Wing remained in limbo over the investigation into the C.I.A. leak case.
.
Rove is hardly out of hot water. Fitzgerald is threatening to call a new grand jury any day now and this time, Rove may take Cheney down with him. The Republicans have initiated a campaign of fresh lies about the original justification for the Iraq war and since a majority of Americans spend less than 30 minutes listening to news, including such 'credible' sources as Bill O'Reilly and Rush, the lies seem to be working for now.
A temporary fix at best. The administration knows that with the current troop levels in the Army and Marines, we can't continue hold Iraq in it's present condition for ever. This is why we have all the 'wishful' thinking about troop redeployment coming from a bunch of Republican talking-heads.
Nixon did the same thing in Vietnam, except Nixon could be more critical of the Vietnam war because he didn't start it.
^Dude, you should just resort to masturbation instead of having Rove indictment wet dreams. It's worked for everyother liberal on this board.
But seriously, the only reason Fitz crackers has called a second grand jury was becuase of Bob Woodwards statement exonerating Libby.
Woodward's statements don't exonerate Libby. Libby was indicted for lying to a federal investigator and obstruction of Justice. Nothing Woodward says can have the slightest effect on those charges.
I was just making an observation, Dan. I did put the "temorarily" disclaimer in there, after all. I believe Rove is certainly still under the gun, but the heat has been turned down in the most recent weeks, relatively.
In that time, the administration has:
1. Gotten rid of a very questionable Supreme Court Nominee
2. Picked a fight with a very conservative Nominee
3. Stayed much more on point and aggressive w/their talking points on Iraq.
4. Published their "Victory" guidelines.
Just suggesting Rove's fingerprints. Before this latest string, when it appeared an indictment was immenent, the WH looked about as discombobulated as any I can remember, since he didn't get handed one, it has looked more cohesive. That's all I was saying.
This is actually common senes to some ppl.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
