Iraq
Posted: Friday, July 13, 2007 9:13 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under:
White House, Security
The
New York Times makes this point: “President Bush’s Iraq strategy now boils down to this: He is trying to buy time for a surge that is living on borrowed time.” The
Washington Post's Baker notes that Iraq policy is unlikely to shift in the very near-term: "The almost-certain result, according to strategists in both parties, will be at least two more months of anger and posturing but no change in direction.” By the way, the other part of Baker's analysis piece on the politics of Iraq that’s striking -- the White House’s new Senate goalpost is 67 votes versus 60 votes. Forget avoiding filibusters; it's now about sustaining vetoes. Are there really 18-20 Republicans ready to break with Bush on Iraq? Probably not.
A day after his news conference yesterday, Bush participates in a video teleconference this morning with Iraq provincial reconstruction leaders, as well as brigade combat commanders.
The New York Times also delves into a topic area that will dominate the debate today, especially among liberal bloggers: Bush's use of al Qaeda as the main Iraq boogeyman. "In rebuffing calls to bring troops home from Iraq, President Bush on Thursday employed a stark and ominous defense. ‘The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq,’ he said, ‘were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that’s why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home. It is an argument Mr. Bush has been making with frequency in the past few months, as the challenges to the continuation of the war have grown. On Thursday alone, he referred at least 30 times to Al Qaeda or its presence in Iraq.”
USA Today: “For the sixth time this year, the House on Thursday voted against President Bush's Iraq policy, setting the stage for a series of Senate roll calls next week… The 223-201 House vote in favor of the deadline underscored the complexities of the Iraq issue. In February, 17 Republicans opposed the president's plan to increase troop levels in Iraq when the House voted 246-182 in favor of a non-binding resolution of disapproval. Yet four Republicans voted Thursday to withdraw troops. Ten Democrats voted against it.”
NBC’s Mike Viqueira lists the reasons why only four Republicans crossed the line last night: 1) GOP leaders made the case that this was an empty political vote; 2) they promised hold the line for three more weeks until recess -- when they get back after Labor Day it all changes and there will be plenty of company and cover to vote for withdrawal; and 3) the bill’s language wasn't worth defecting for -- the measure does not specify troop levels, and there could be a far smaller reduction than envisioned by proponents.
Today in Concord, NH McCain will give a speech on Iraq and global terrorism. And according to excerpts of his speech, he will make many of the same arguments that President Bush did yesterday. “To talk about the struggle against Islamic extremists is, of necessity, to talk about our war with al Qaeda in Iraq,” McCain will say. “Many Democrats claim this is a conflict we cannot win. They ignore the consequences of a US defeat at the hands of al Qaeda – and some ignore al Qaeda altogether. Just this week, Senators Clinton and Byrd wrote an op-ed about the war in Iraq and never once mentioned al Qaeda or the terrorist presence in Iraq. Foreign jihadists—Al Qaeda operatives--are responsible for at least 80% of the suicide bombings that are the driving force of sectarian strife. They are in this war to win and we cannot let them.”
More from McCain: “Defeatism will not buy peace in our time. It will only lead to more bloodshed—and to more American casualties in the future. If we choose to lose in Iraq, our enemies will hit us harder in Afghanistan hoping to erode our political will and encourage calls in Western capitals for withdrawal and accommodation with our enemy there as well… In November 2008 the American people will decide with their votes how and where this war will be fought or if it will be fought at all. I have told you how I intend to fight this war. Other candidates will argue for a different course. Democratic candidates for President will argue for the course of cutting our losses and withdrawing from the threat in the vain hope it will not follow us here. I cannot join them in such wishful and very dangerous thinking.”
