Stuart Rothenberg makes a point that I have been making in today’s Roll Call. The President cannot leave or substantially withdraw troops from Iraq. I put a different emphasis on it. The way I usually describe the situation is: no nation has ever let their leader launch a war of choice, lose that war, and then stick around to oversee the aftermath (or orderly withdrawal). It doesn’t make any sense to do that. Do you really trust Bush/Cheney to organize and conduct an orderly withdrawal? If so, why?
Rothenberg thinks less about the good of the country, the safety of our troops, and the complicated diplomacy that would be required than he does about Bush’s own psychological needs. But it leads to the same place.
Bush’s chances of having his reputation improve years or even decades after he leaves office almost certainly depends on what ultimately happens in Iraq…
…Given that, and given the way Bush now views the situation in Iraq and the costs of failure, he cannot possibly agree to remove U.S. forces as quickly as his critics would like. Withdrawal would guarantee “defeat,” as the president sees it, thereby establishing the error of his policy and the failure of his administration.
If the president did what his critics (as well as some of his friends within the GOP) want, his reputation would be permanently set. His only legacy would be the mess in Iraq and the United States’ failures. Even if things improved in the region 10 years down the road, Bush would get no credit for it. And let’s be entirely clear: Bush wouldn’t get any credit for pulling troops out at this point. Nobody really thinks the president’s overall reputation would improve after being forced, kicking and screaming, to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq, do they?
In answer to the last question, the President actually would improve his overall reputation by withdrawing. But the improvement would be barely perceptible and wouldn’t emerge until much later. In the short-term, it would indeed cement his entire administration as a catastrophic failure. His best bet for posterity is to effectively resign an noon tomorrow since he can’t follow LBJ’s example and get points for not running again for president.
With America’s sons in the fields far away, with America’s future under challenge right here at home, with our hopes and the world’s hopes for peace in the balance every day, I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office–the Presidency of your country.
Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President.
There’s no question that LBJ thereby improved his reputation in the history books. And if Bush cannot exactly replicate that performance, he can come close. Rothenberg hints at this, but in a much different way.
The only way to influence [Bush’s Iraq] policy is to demonstrate to Bush that his long-term goal of a peaceful, stable and free Iraq – which would be good both for the Middle East and for his historical reputation – can be achieved only if Republicans hold onto the White House, and that continued Republican control of the White House is impossible, absolutely impossible, without some withdrawal of U.S. forces within the next few months.
Actually, I want to go a step further here and point out that a ‘peaceful, stable, and free Iraq’ is impossible, absolutely impossible, under Bush and Cheney’s leadership and that Bush’s best option is to hand off the war to another Republican now, rather than wait until 2009 (this is especially true because it is so unlikely that a Republican will win in 2008). So, the best way to influence policy is to convince Bush and Cheney to step down. This is in the interests of all Republicans and I have been saying that from the moment they decided to ignore the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton report.
Bush’s legacy is lost. There is no chance that he will go down as anything but our worst president since Buchanan. But, he doesn’t have to make things worse. No matter how bad things get, there is always the best thing you can do now. Convincing Bush and Cheney to resign is our best option. It’s also their best option.
So, our only option to withdraw from Iraq is impeachment?
I wish I trusted the Democrats to do that.
Well, two things.
First, resignation is the goal, the threat of impeachment is the vehicle.
Second, what if congress succeeded in cutting off funds and forcing a withdrawal no later than March? Would you be satisfied? Wouldn’t you see it as more imperative than ever that we rid ourselves of this cabal and get in some people with a shred of credibility and competence?
Bush knows this. He knows if he backs down that he will have no further purpose.
I’m not sure what Bush knows at this point. Rove and Cheney on the other hand …
But its all pure fantasy in one respect. The Dems won’t impeach, and Bush will never withdraw any troops, not even a token amount. If anything, I expect to see him emboldened when Congress backs down on the supplemental (as I fully expect them to do) and send into the Iraqi meat grinder even more under-trained, under equipped troops. He’s a “bash head against wall” type of thinker.
I guess I got up on the viciously cynical side of the bed today as opposed to the regularly scheduled cynical side of the bed and agree with you Steven…bush isn’t going to back down and the dems will cave in on just about everything and bush will go his merry way until he leaves office.(minus the time of course that him and Pickles have spent suffering more than anyone ya know) Impeachment isn’t even on the horizon, not really, the dems can’t even stand up to bush on this war funding bill much less even say the word impeachment.
You might be cynical but I think you and Steven are “dead on” this.
The Dems are playing this for one thing and one thing only and that is the 2008 election. Put me down in the column agreeing that there will be no accountability, no time-lines, no hard benchmarks with consequences. There will be no serious investigation or discussions about lies, high crimes and misdemeanors. Unfortunately, in the end, it is probably all “political theater”, though not in the same vein cited by the administration.
I hope to hell I’m wrong but I think all that the Dems will do is nibble around at the edges of the cancer that is this administration. It is politically beneficial to keep this administration alive and on life support with the anticipation of figuratively killing this Hydra at the polls in 2008. Unfortunately, this course results in thousands more dead and wounded and untold damage to this country’s moral standing from which we might never fully recover.
Cynical, yes. But someone please give me some tangible reasons not to be cynical.
From Korea to Kosovo, we’ll remain for decades.
Evidence No:1. The largest fortress; US embassy in the world opens in September at a cost of $592 million.
More details here. Will it be a targeted white elephant?
No. there’s
Evidence No: 2 Pentagon Making Preparations To Keep Tens Of Thousands Of Troops In Iraq For `Decades’ – (H/T: Thinkprogress)
“NPR investigated Pace’s statements and found one scenario being considered within the Pentagon would maintain a strong U.S. military presence in Iraq for several decades into the future.
This so-called “lily pad” strategy entails keeping a “series of military installations around Iraq,” with tens of thousands of U.S. troops remaining in the country for as long as a few decades:”
Meanwhile Bush is planning a coup.
but gifted man who miscalculated severely in Vietnam but still had a conscious and cared about his country. Hence, the speech he delivered in 1968. Bush doesn’t give a hoot about America. He never did. He only cares about himself and will remain in office under the delusion he can pull a rabbit out of the hat and salvage his reputation for posterity. The man is a waste of skin.
Convince them to resign? C’mon Booman, get real.
Bush knows he is in a situation where he can afford to stand his ground. He isn’t up for reelection, he knows that 70% of the country thinks he’s a loser but the fact of the matter is that none if it has any relevance to his decision making process on the issue of Iraq.
By most measures the Democrats have clearly won the debate on Iraq. The vast majority of the public agrees with them that we have to get out as soon as possible. But none of that matters here. The normal, logical and rational rules do not apply. Political pressure is no longer an effective tool against this President. There is no way to really exploit his weak hand when it comes to the Iraq debate. He has nothing to lose by holding his ground. Congress, on the other hand, has much more at stake. Even normal discussions which go on in Congress will be portrayed in the mainstream media as tentativeness and uneasiness about confronting Bush.
Congress is in a tough situation. You have a President willing to hold troops hostage, use the threat of making them less safe by not agreeing to his policy, and use the 30% that still support him in order to keep enough Congressional Republicans in line to essentially stymie any possible serious discussion of real alternatives outside of what he proposes.
In this game of chicken there is no negotiating. The Democrats are screwed if they think they can obtain “compromise” here. Bush has nothing to lose. Face it, he doesn’t give a shit.
The vast majority of the public agrees with them that we have to get out as soon as possible. But none of that matters here. The normal, logical and rational rules do not apply.
Bush has nothing to lose. Face it, he doesn’t give a shit.
I really agree with these two statements Mike. I think that’s what makes this situation different from anything we’ve ever seen before. He’s oblivious to any pressure or feedback from outside his “bubble.”
And that’s why I don’t think any budget plan for Iraq will ever work. Even if it did, I definitely wouldn’t trust these yahoos to be able to come even close to the difficult negotiations that would be necessary for the implementation and aftermath of an exit strategy.
That leaves me agreeing with where Booman has been all along. Our only hope is if the Republicans would work with us to get BOTH Bush and Cheney out of office. I’d like to see the Dems working on that instead of this endless nowheresvile of the war funding debacle. And yes, I know I’m dreaming. But still… that’s the only thing I see as any possible solution.
HIGHER GAS PRICES! Yes, you heard me correctly.
I see conservatives everyday who are hard core supporters of Bush and the repubs on most issues related to worker’s rights, terrorism and the war in Iraq. However, there is one area that just about nobody supports Bush and the Repubs on and that area is gas prices!! Every single conservative I have talked to thinks that oil men running this country is responsible for the huge gas price increase, especially because of the accompanying huge increase in oil company profits. I would go so fare as to predict that many of these hard core repubs will vote democratic or not vote if gas prices stay where they are now or especially if they go higher. Therefore, maybe some more gas price pain short term may be worth it to absolutely assure the end of Repub rule. Then the Dems will have to come through on this subject, but that is a topic for another day!
Resignation under the threat of impeachment would be only possible if the remaining Repubs see it as the only way to get a realistic chance of winning the 2008 elections. Bush as advised by Rove will never be convinced that a resignation could improve his legacy, and can never be convinced that his legacy is already set as the all time worst (which it is). Thus a resignation can only happen if Bush/Rove totally lose their grip on the Repub party. I cannot see that happening in the short amount of time left as Bush stalls to run out the clock.
It is more likely that the Repubs running for President will write the 2008 election off and then try to pin the Iraq mess on the Dem president. The only one who cannot go along with this is McCain – he’s too old and blowing the current Repub party apart may represent his last, best chance at the Presidency. Plus this will expose many Repubs in the Congress to chancy 2008 elections. They will be the primary agitators for Repub leadership change (and thus the most likely to push impeachment if Bush’s numbers get bad enough.)
I remain amazed at just how low Bush/Rove is willing to take the Repub numbers and don’t think that even these astonishing low numbers have reached the tipping point for the Congress Repubs. They are willing to take these low numbers as long as Congress numbers remain low too. We will see single digit numbers and a public polling a majority for impeachment before Congress acts. The only flip side to to this is that Bush/Rove and the Repubs are so throughly discredited with being strong on defense that the next major terrorist attack on our country will no longer work in their favor.
The Dems in Congress must continue to fight hard to withdraw us from Iraq. That’s why they were voted into office. They must being willing to start pushing impeachment as the only means to reign in a rogue President. They have to vocally and forcefully put impeachment on the table as their only remaining viable option. They are moving that way, just too slow to ensure they will be able to impeach before the 2008 campaigns start up. Unless impeachment becomes a campaign issue, Congress will just the Bush run out the clock.