Thanks for the Beinart article. I agree with him about the necessity of dumping Rumsfeld but I think for some time now that instead of sacking him Bush has given him as much rope as he needs to hang himself. Which he will do. He's saying more and more ridiculous things. As to Bolton, it may be that Bush has a use for him in the UN if, in fact, there is some secret oil deal going on with the Kurds and that the UN might be necessary to grant it national status at some stage. However, there's a limit to Bush being able to hang onto him as his nominee if Congress continues to resist him.
Keith
At 13:48 28/06/2005 -0700, you wrote:
Here is Beinarts commentary and the link to Kerrys follows. I dont agree with Beinarts assumption that Iraq isnt already in civil war, or that it is an established state at this time in its history, and doubt, like military experts whove allowed themselves to say it, that the Iraqi Army will be sufficient to the task created for them in approximately two years. But his comments about conduct unbecoming make it impossible for those few diehards left who believe every word said in the past to ignore that leadership doesnt come in a bottle, and it isnt vaccinated by a born again experience, either. The charade must end.
Time For Some Humility, Mr. President
By Peter Beinart, in The Oregonian, June 28, 2005, page B7
President Bush and Democratic Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California deserve each other. Woolsey is a founder of the newly created Our of Iraq Congressional Caucus. She recently told Roll Call that Success for us is two words: Troops. Home.
That's breathtakingly irresponsible. Of course, success means eventually bringing American troops home. But it also means ensuring that Iraq doesnt dissolve into civil war. Preventing Iraq from becoming a failed state that exports a new generation of jihadists killers is vital to American security. And making sure we dont abandon the Iraqi people to Lebanon-style slaughter is vital to American honor. Woolsey doesnt seem to understand that.
But the Out of Iraq Caucus didnt come from nowhere. Its the result of President Bushs ongoing refusal to speak honestly about the war. All but the most die-hard sycophants now acknowledge that before the war the Bush administration exaggerated the threat from Saddam Husseins weapons of mass destruction and terrorist ties. And that it lowballed the costs in money, troops and time of building a stable, liberal government in Baghdad. Yet even today the president keeps playing the same dishonest games. In his June 18 radio address, Bush said, in the context of Iraq, that we went to war because we were attacked, He's still implying a connection between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11, 2001 even now!
A plurality of Americans now believe they were deliberately misledbefore the war. When the president talks to the country about Iraq tonight, he needs to address that. Otherwise, hell never have the credibility to tell Americans the harsh truth: that Iraqi troops wont be ready to defend their government for two years or more. And until they can, brave young US soldiers will have to keep doing the job.
A good way to begin addressing this credibility gap is by dumping John Bolton. The nomination of Bolton is a giant declaration that the Bush administration still thinks it did nothing wrong on prewar intelligence. As undersecretary of state for arms control, Bolton tried to hype the threat from Cuba, Syria and Iraq. And when intelligence analysts opposed him, he tried to fire them. Now the Bush administration wants to send him to the United Nations so he can opine about US intelligence on Irans nuclear program and be laughed out of the building.
Then Bush should dump Donald Rumsfeld whose continued employment signals that the Bush administration still thinks it did nothing wrong on prewar planning. Rumsfelds refusal to listen to the Army, the State Department, outside experts and even conservative pundits who said that America needed more troops to secure postwar Iraq constitutes, in the words of Larry Diamon, a former Coalition Provisional Authority senior adviser, criminal negligence. How can Bush offer credible strategy for winning peace if he relies on an utterly discredited defense secretary to carry it out?
President Bush famously hates admitting mistakes. And he generally plays to his base. But on Iraq, those instincts are driving his administration off a cliff. The vast majority of Democrats, and most independents, now think Iraq was a mistake. And the calls for withdrawal are moving from the fringes of American politics to the center.
Congressional Democrats must resist those calls. As retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, a fierce critic of the war, recently explained, even a timetable for withdrawal is a terrible idea. Knowing America was on its way out would embolden the insurgency and undermine Iraqis risking their lives to build a free country.
But if Bush wants to stem the rising sentiment for withdrawal, he needs to do something he has avoided for more than two years: He needs to make this a national war, not a partisan one. That means appointing independent figures to key jobs people like Richard Lugar or Sam Nunn, who come from outside the conservative cocoon. And it means speaking about Iraq with a humility that this administration has richly earned.
For America to win in Iraq, President Bush first needs to win back Americas trust. Lets hope its not too late.
Peter Beinart is editor of the New Republic and a guest scholar at the Brookings Institute.
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
