Bush Seeks To Capitalize On Recent Momentum
From Peter Baker of the Washington Post:
In a White House that had virtually forgotten what good news looks like, the past few weeks have been refreshing. A Republican won a much-watched special congressional election. President Bush recruited a Wall Street heavy hitter as Treasury secretary. U.S. forces killed the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. And now the architect of the Bush presidency has avoided criminal charges.
The question is whether this latest updraft in Bush’s fortunes will last much longer than the president’s surprise trip yesterday to Iraq. Bush took full command of the political stage with his five-hour appearance in Baghdad, just days after the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and used it to showcase a new Iraqi government he hopes to turn the war over to eventually. Yet in the end, some analysts noted, it will matter only if this new government can heal societal schisms and stand up effective security forces.
For Bush, any progress at the moment is critical. Iraq has been at the heart of his political troubles, alienating voters weary of the war, unsettling congressional allies facing reelection this fall, and souring the public mood toward other initiatives by the administration. Even Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove’s legal problems stemmed from Iraq and the initial White House effort to justify the decision to invade.
Well, yes – we’ve known for some time that as goes Iraq, so goes this presidency. That’s why Bush’s trip to Baghdad yesterday was a wonderful bit of political theater – and if, as some suggest, the president is laying the groundwork for troop reductions, so much the better.
This summer has turned quite interesting…
I remember when LBJ and Nixon went to VietNam, and I don’t think it helped either of them — the facts on the ground didn’t change –
No, but the facts on the ground HAVE changed – the unity government is filled, with every position now, the government is about to deploy 75,000 Iraqi security forces in Baghdad, and we killed al-Zarqawi just a few days ago – all of which adds up to momentum. This isn’t Vietnam, needless to say…
Well, I certainly hope that you are right, but we’ve had numerous events since the fall of Baghdad which looked like turning points, only to be illusory. The level of violence doesn’t seem to be abating, oil output is still low, unemployment is 40%, and electricity is intermittent. Until these things change, I’m not sure that who is in the government or the death of Zarqawi will mean that much. I hope I am wrong, but we’ll see –
…and Hurricane season is starting up again. Which U.S. city will Bush lose this time? I’m rooting for Miami!
Yes, jt, because Bush controls the weather, and no one EVER SUSPECTED New Orleans might be in trouble if a major hurricane hit it…
Please pardon me, Mark, but are you being sarcastic about no one thinking that New Orleans would be in trouble from a hurricane? I am just curious, b/c I have seen more than enough reports and specials that say the oposite. The weather channel made a program about a hurricane hitting New Orleans in “It could happen tomorrow”, but never showed it because it did happen. You are correct, though, Bush is not responsible for the weather. He is in charge of the government, and the failures that occur under his watch are ultimately his responsibility. He did fail New Orleans. On that same note, the fact that we got Zarqaui is a fact that shows that Bush can accomplish some good things as well, as he should get credit for the successes as well as blame for the failures.
Yep, the sarcasm level was pretty high…
“He did fail New Orleans.”
To a certain extent he surely did – but you also have to include their local representatives, who utterly failed in their evacuation planning (meaning they never implemented one), along with their idiot mayor (same reason), and also include the lovely Governor, who refused National Guard assistance on the day of the Hurricane itself. Lots of blame to go around on this one, and the corrupt city and state governments of LA played a large part in the disaster and the aftermath.
I’m still waiting for some historical comparison that can declare the Bush/Katrina response sub-par, much less some sort of “disaster” or debacle or whatever is the term of art describing the respiratory habits of George Bush these days. Hey, hurricanes happen. They happened under Bush and they will happen post-Bush. Let’s see some fair numbers on fatalities that corrects for the level of development in the Delta. Of course we also await such an analysis of Iraq which, as far as I can tell comparing to WWII, Korea, Kosovo and VN, has been the LEAST deadly conflict, considering all variable, in history. Comments?
Mega:
Kosovo was less deadly
As of 2 months ago, Korean War was shorter.
In november of this year, american involvement in WWII will have been shorter.
If in five years Iraq is not a neutral to unfriendly Islamic republic, or broken into three federated nations, I will be pleasantly surprised. Time will tell if Iraq was “worth it” but please, for god’s sake, don’t imply it was run well just because fewer americans* died than they did in a 7 year long disaster or a war spread over 3 continents.
*I know you don’t count iraqi casualties since 2003 cause they aren’t us but that’s higher than Kosovo also. Maybe higher than Koreans killed in the Korean war but I don’t have those numbers handy.
His press conference yesterday (6/14) after returning was a national embarrassment. The speech wasn’t that bad (if you can excuse the awful reading of it), but the Q&A session was an absolute disgrace. His “needling” of reporters is not cute anymore. And no, I don’t care about the sunglasses thing. Honest mistake when you’re a stand-up comedian I suppose, which is for some reason, what he tries to be. Seriously, WTF is his problem? I can’t find the transcript of the speech online or the Q&A, but, ick. I do not understand why the right is not publicly embarrassed by him. I guess that’s a sign a strength or something?
Oh, a reporter did indeed ask what measure would be used to remove troops and he skirted the question fairly easily by saying there are various measures and we would use them, but never saying when we might make the decisions to redeploy. “As Iraqis stand up, we’ll stand down”. Are we going to be infinitely patient for them to stand up?
Well, I didn’t see the speech, but I do suspect that people will, like yourself, grow tired of the ‘As Iraqis stand up…’ line – that’s why I do expect an announcement of some token reduction in force levels fairly soon…
dmac, you are totally correct. I am NOT excusing the local government of New Orleans at all. I have heard some horror stories from locals there, and still, nothing is really being done. Mark, I bet that we are down to ~100K troops in Iraq by the November elections. I hope that we can afford to reduce troops, and not do it as just a political ploy. Although, as some of the documents that are coming out say, maybe the insurgency is weakening….(insert wild hope here)