The President does a radio address:
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. In recent days, the House and Senate each passed emergency war spending bills that undercut our troops in the field. Each of the Democrats’ bills would substitute the judgment of politicians in Washington for that of our generals on the ground. Each bill would impose restrictive conditions on our military commanders. Each bill would also set an arbitrary deadline for surrender and withdrawal in Iraq, and I believe that would have disastrous consequences for our safety here at home.
If Bush wants to define a $121 billion funding bill as ‘surrender’ that is his prerogative. I think it’s bad politics and it encourages people that want to tout our eventual withdrawal from Iraq as a big victory. I said a long time ago that Bush should start defining down our goals in Iraq so that our withdrawal would not be universally seen as a defeat. I mean, we’re supposed to leave someday, right?
Maybe the fact that Bush sees a withdrawal from Iraq as synonymous with surrender tells us more than he intends. Perhaps the idea was to hold permanent bases in Iraq and have Anglo-energy companies ensconsed in Basra and Kirkuk. Perhaps Bush isn’t getting what he wanted.
In all seriousness, unless Iraq stabilizes after we leave (a very unlikely prospect) our efforts in Iraq will be seen as a failure. But a failure is not the same as a defeat, and I don’t anticipate America surrendering to anyone.
It’s pointless to ask, but George W. Bush should stop giving aid and comfort to the enemy by telling them America is considering surrender. That lame rhetoric is foolish and it won’t convince anyone to give a blank check for permawar in Iraq.
