White House officials fear that the last pillars of political support among Senate Republicans for President Bush’s Iraq strategy are collapsing around them, according to several administration officials and outsiders they are consulting. They say that inside the administration, debate is intensifying over whether Mr. Bush should try to prevent more defections by announcing his intention to begin a gradual withdrawal of American troops from the high-casualty neighborhoods of Baghdad and other cities.
Mr. Bush and his aides once thought they could wait to begin those discussions until after Sept. 15, when the top field commander and the new American ambassador to Baghdad are scheduled to report on the effectiveness of the troop increase that the president announced in January. But suddenly, some of Mr. Bush’s aides acknowledge, it appears that forces are combining against him just as the Senate prepares this week to begin what promises to be a contentious debate on the war’s future and financing.
Four more Republican senators have recently declared that they can no longer support Mr. Bush’s strategy, including senior lawmakers who until now had expressed their doubts only privately. As a result, some aides are now telling Mr. Bush that if he wants to forestall more defections, it would be wiser to announce plans for a far more narrowly defined mission for American troops that would allow for a staged pullback, a strategy that he rejected in December as a prescription for defeat when it was proposed by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.
“When you count up the votes that we’ve lost and the votes we’re likely to lose over the next few weeks, it looks pretty grim,” said one senior official, who, like others involved in the discussions, would not speak on the record about internal White House deliberations. … “Sept. 15 now looks like an end point for the debate, not a starting point,” the official said. “Lots of people are concluding that the president has got to get out ahead of this train.” …
[However,] [t]he calendar may be working in Mr. Bush’s favor. If he can get through the next three weeks without more defections, Congress will recess until September, returning just as the report from Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker arrives in Washington.
Also, the Republican defectors have not agreed on what different strategy they would prescribe, giving the president some negotiating room. But Senator Lugar said yesterday on CNN that he would support a significant withdrawal that left “residual forces” in Iraq to ensure that “the whole area does not blow up.”
That approach would mean abandoning the current mission of using those forces to patrol Baghdad and try to reimpose order, which was Mr. Bush’s stated goal in January.
On a tangentially related note, antiwar demagogue Cindy Sheehan — whose retreat into private life lasted barely a month before she came “out of retirement” to “gather a people’s movement for humanity” in protest of “yet another Bush flagrant abuse of power” (the Libby commutation) — is now threatening to challenge Nancy Pelosi for her congressional seat “if Pelosi does not seek by July 23 to impeach Bush.” Sheehan would run as an independent. She told the AP: “Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by the Democratic leadership. We hired them to bring an end to the war. I’m not too far from San Francisco, so [moving to Pelosi’s district] wouldn’t be too big of a move for me. I would give her a run for her money.”
(Regular readers will recall that Cindy Sheehan bothers me.)
P.S. Seeing as how Sheehan has apparently joined the “post-partisanship” crowd with her conversion to being an independent: how does Bloomberg-Sheehan ‘08 sound? ;) Or better yet: Lieberman-Sheehan ‘08! Heh!
UPDATE: Here’s a helpful summary of the various Democratic proposals to push for an end to the war.
|
Categories: Iraq, Iran & the Middle East
|
July 8th, 2007 at 11:49:06 pm
Is there a reason they refer to him as “Mr Bush” rather than President Bush? Just curious.
July 8th, 2007 at 11:56:33 pm
It’s just the standard New York Times style for referring to all men in second reference. You’ll notice they refer to him as “President Bush” the first time they mention him, but after that, he’s always “Mr. Bush.” It’s the same for everyone: Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair, Mr. McVeigh, Mr. bin Ladin. If Jesus Christ returned to Earth tomorrow, the New York Times would refer to him on second reference as “Mr. Christ.”
July 9th, 2007 at 12:04:38 am
P.S. The only exceptions, I think, are for titled royalty, such as Queen Elizabeth II or Pope Benedict XVI, where it would make no sense to use Mr., Mrs., Miss or Ms. (”Mrs. Elizabeth”? “Mr. Benedict”? Heh.)
Judging by this article, it appears that Queen Elizabeth II becomes “Queen Elizabeth” on second and subsequent references; the “Queen” is never dropped. On the other hand, Pope Benedict XVI becomes simply “Benedict” rather than “Pope Benedict.” I’m not sure what the rationale is for the difference there.
So perhaps if Jesus returned tomorrow, he’d be “King Christ” or just “Christ” — but only if the New York Times editorial board actually acknowledged Him as royalty. :)
July 9th, 2007 at 1:03:37 am
Cindy Sheehan. One word: famewhore. That is all.
July 9th, 2007 at 6:38:03 am
[…] Brendan Loy […]
July 9th, 2007 at 10:44:15 am
The New York Times has another article comparing President Bush’s clemency policy now with his policy as governor of Texas:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/washington/08commute.html
Truth be told, the article only states what we knew all along, that there are two Americas, one for the poor and mentally-ill, and another for the rich and well-connected.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:36:39 pm
Robert Novak via Ramesh Ponnuru:
Some [Republican] senators were left with the impression that the White House still does not recognize the scope of the Iraq dilemma. Worse yet, they see the president running out the clock until April, when a depleted U.S. military will be blamed for the fiasco…
Nice.
July 9th, 2007 at 3:25:28 pm
You beat me to it on Jesus Christ. The New York Times referring to Him as Mr. Christ would not only be acknowledging royalty, but divinity, since he was “The King of the Jews” as declared by God and not the Jews.
The New York Times being the secular paper it is, I think they would probably refer to Him as Jesus of Nazareth. Since “Mr. Of Nazareth” would sound awkward, and noting the New York Times French-loving sensibilities, I believe it would refer to him as “Mr. de Nazareth.”
Left-wing pinkos ;-).
July 9th, 2007 at 3:27:06 pm
Run the clock out until April? Is Novak kidding? Bush is running the clock out until January of ‘09 when the next President is going to have to unfortunate honor of resolving the mess Bush created.
July 9th, 2007 at 4:36:50 pm
Here’s a story about a reservist who is suing the military over his FIFTH combat deployment in six years…
http://www.local6.com/news/13642869/detail.html
…I’m shocked…SHOCKED…that true patriots like Andrew and Joe Mama still haven’t signed up to shoulder some of the burden being shouldered by others.
July 9th, 2007 at 5:16:59 pm
So perhaps if Jesus returned tomorrow, he’d be “King Christ” or just “Christ” — but only if the New York Times editorial board actually acknowledged Him as royalty. :)
You beat me to it on Jesus Christ. The New York Times referring to Him as Mr. Christ would not only be acknowledging royalty, but divinity, since he was “The King of the Jews” as declared by God and not the Jews.
The New York Times being the secular paper it is, I think they would probably refer to Him as Jesus of Nazareth. Since “Mr. Of Nazareth” would sound awkward, and noting the New York Times French-loving sensibilities, I believe it would refer to him as “Mr. de Nazareth.”
You’re both wrong. The first mention would indeed be something like “Jesus of Nazareth, believed by billions the world over to be the Christ Savior of Humanity and the Son of Man, returned to Earth Monday.” But the second mention wouldn’t be “Christ” the “Mr. de Nazareth,” since the former wouldn’t make sense absent the article “The”, and the latter is not a standard reference to a person in this situation (well, I guess it depends on the generally accepted way of referring to people from that region during His life, but I think His historical importance trumps here). The second reference would either be “The Christ” or simply “Jesus.” Either way, I’m sure the Times has thought about it and has planned accordingly.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:29:17 pm
…I’m shocked…SHOCKED…that true patriots like Andrew and Joe Mama still haven’t signed up to shoulder some of the burden being shouldered by others.
…and I’m shocked…SHOCKED…that a skilled debater like Mad Max would fall back yet again to the tired, irrelevant, and logically fallacious chickenhawk argument.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:25:23 pm
Joe Mama-
I’m shocked…SHOCKED…that Joe Mama still refuses to answer why he doesn’t actually serve in a war he supposedly “supports” with such dedication.
I have family members in this war. Do you?
July 9th, 2007 at 9:45:57 pm
I am not in the military and serving the country, but I am serving the warfighter.
As for family in the military, I’ve got a cousin there right now and a brother-in-law who did three tours.
All of the above is completely irrelevant as to the merits of the Iraq war, pro or con.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:23:45 pm
“I have family members in this war. Do you?”
How much do they loathe you?
July 9th, 2007 at 11:00:41 pm
Actually they don’t loathe me at all. They think the war is a goatfuck, but they signed on to serve the nation despite the fact it is being run by a clueless ass.
As for “serving the warfighter,” that’s a crock of shit. You are getting paid good money to do a job. It isn’t the same thing as serving.
I’ve worked on military contracts as well, and it would be ridiculous to compare what I do to the people out there actually doing the fighting and dying. Your comparison is a joke.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:49:49 pm
“Actually they don’t loathe me at all.”
Keep telling yourself that.
July 10th, 2007 at 12:06:52 am
Mad Max, we’ve been over this, and Aaron — one of the more logical, reasonable, articulate liberal “regulars” on this blog — admitted that the “chickenhawk” argument is fatally flawed. Get over it, and yourself, and move on to an argument that actually has some weight. Please.
Oh, and the same goes for you, Anonymous, telling Angrier that his family loathes him. It is wrong (and ridiculous) to generalize about such things on the basis of someone’s opinion of the war. Just because someone is anti-war, and doesn’t serve, doesn’t mean their military family members loathe them; and just because someone is pro-war, and doesn’t serve, doesn’t make them a chickenhawk or a coward.
July 10th, 2007 at 12:09:57 am
P.S.
one of the more logical, reasonable, articulate liberal “regulars” on this blog
I forgot “clean.” :)
July 10th, 2007 at 4:19:37 am
“I have family members in this war. Do you?”
I do. And my husband’s best friend died there. It turns my life upside down now, but I supported it before and I support it now. It’s not that I’m hanging on because I don’t know what else to do or that I somehow “need to believe” it’s good in order to make the death a good death. It’s not because I’m a dutiful family member marching blindly down the patriotic path. I am fortunate enough to have been around and continue to be around people from different branches and with very different jobs who are able to share a lot of the good that’s been done there. Which doesn’t mean all good, but it certainly means not all bad.
July 10th, 2007 at 4:23:26 am
PS I feel I should apologize ahead of time, as usually too much time passes after the few times I actually comment within any sort of discussion for me to respond relevantly. (She says just in case)
July 10th, 2007 at 11:58:09 am
Brendan,
You think that’s funny? Biden’s a fucking racist, and you’re a racist too if you can make a joke about what he said. And a moron too.
Asshole.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
;)
July 10th, 2007 at 12:09:25 pm
Heh.
July 10th, 2007 at 1:13:31 pm
You gotta love the 20-35 year olds that believe this is the most important war of our time, and they “support” the war effort… from the comfort of their living rooms.
I don’t blame them at all for not fighting, afterall the military has been for losers and bottom-feeders since we won WWII, but at least I’m not a phony about why I wouldn’t pick up a weapon in this atrocity. There’s nothing fatally flawed about chickenhawks cheering from the sidelines. They’re the lowest cowards this country has. Sending other young people, our age, to die for something they wouldn’t get off their asses to do themselves is totally pathetic.
July 10th, 2007 at 1:20:04 pm
For some reason, when I saw the word “mull”, I immediately lengthened it to “mullet”.
I’m not sure what “Bush mullets over Iraq options” means, but the thing I keep seeing is “Bush” and “mullet”. Thus, I keep imagining Bush sporting a mullet. Which would be really funny.
July 11th, 2007 at 1:26:59 am
I don’t blame them at all for not fighting, afterall the military has been for losers and bottom-feeders since we won WWII,
Do you seriously believe that? Well at least you’re honest about how you feel, even if you’re dead wrong. The fact is, our military personnel are far more skilled, educated, and capable than our parents’ generation, or any generation that preceded it.