Bush's Supporters Will Libel Any Foe

Bush’s Supporters
Will Libel Any Foe
By: Joe Conason
Date: 7/3/2006
Page: 5
In the acrid debate over Iraq, the President’s supporters will say anything.
They will question the patriotism of those who disagree with “staying the
course.” They will insinuate cowardice on the part of those who would “cut
and run.” Even though they avoided military service, they will denigrate the
records of decorated veterans like John Kerry and Jack Murtha. They will
even accuse the war’s critics of providing “aid and comfort” to the enemy,
which is the legal definition of treason.
 
Then the White House will turn around—after days of encouraging such
vilification of their opponents—and leak the commanding general’s optimistic
plan to start withdrawing troops, which would proceed according to the same
timetable proposed by those weak and pusillanimous Democrats. That is meant
to reassure the majority of Americans who realize invading Iraq was a
strategic error and a tragedy that must be concluded as soon as possible.
 
All the slanders and all the maneuvers are performed for political
expedience, not national security. In pursuit of Karl Rove’s electoral
strategy, the Republicans will spend a trillion dollars and squander
thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and the
prestige of the United States. There is only one thing they won’t do. They
will not speak honestly about the war, because the truth cannot accommodate
their crude partisan rhetoric. The unfortunate reality is that President
Bush has no “plan for victory.” On some days, he cannot foresee removing
American troops during his Presidency and says that withdrawal will be a
decision for “future Presidents” to make. On other days, he contemplates
removing two-thirds of our combat brigades there by the end of next year. On
some days, his ambassador to Baghdad discusses amnesty for the insurgents
with the Iraqi government and other negotiable items. On other days, those
difficult subjects are utterly taboo. He has no plan because the invasion of
Iraq didn’t proceed according to the expectations of the White House and the
Pentagon. The Bush war cabinet had formulated a sketchy plan at the outset,
with vague, implausible notions of how postwar Iraq would be pacified,
rebuilt and governed.
 
Among the ill-conceived schemes originally contemplated by our ill-advised
leaders was the installation of Ahmad Chalabi, an exile of dubious
character, as Baghdad’s strongman. That daydream had to be abandoned, along
with the flower-strewn parades and the reimbursement of our invasion
expenses with Iraqi oil revenue. What we got instead were a plague of
suicide bombings, an intractable insurgency, an ethnic civil war and a
government allied with the Iranian mullahs.
 
While the Bush administration has no plan, the newly formed Iraqi government
seems to be considering a negotiated peace. For months, Iraqi officials have
been talking with representatives of the Sunni rebels, in the hope of
convincing them to lay down their weapons and engage in democratic politics.

 
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki recently offered a limited “reconciliation”
initiative meant to bring together the country’s warring factions and reduce
support for the insurgency. U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has assisted
this effort, although his help is limited by Mr. Bush’s political agenda.
Unfortunately, that agenda blocks the Iraqis from dealing with the real
problems motivating the insurgency.
 
Most Sunni insurgents, unlike the followers of the late and unlamented
terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, might be drawn to the bargaining table under
certain conditions. Credible press reports indicate that those conditions
must include a broad amnesty for fighters who have attacked American troops,
and a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops and the end of the
occupation.
 
The Iraqi government might well be inclined to discuss those issues. But the
Bush administration insists that there can be no broad amnesty—and that any
exit timetable will only encourage the terrorists.
 
When Mr. Bush visited Baghdad for a few hours on June 13, Iraqi Vice
President Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni leader, urged him to set a date for
ending the occupation. Then the Iraqi President, Kurdish leader Jalal
Talabani, who has been talking directly with insurgent representatives, said
he “supported” Mr. Hashimi’s request.
 
Polls in both countries show substantial agreement between the peoples of
Iraq and the United States on ending the occupation. Seventy percent of
Iraqis wish that foreign troops would leave their country by the end of next
year, and nearly 60 percent of Americans want our troops home by then or
sooner. But no matter what the Iraqis may want and no matter what the
American generals may recommend, don’t expect Mr. Bush to “cut and run”—or
at least not until after November.

COPYRIGHT © 2005 THE NEW YORK OBSERVER, L.P.  |  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

http://www.observer.com/20060703/20060703_Joe_Conason_politics_joeconason.as
p