[ Posted Wednesday, August 1st, 2007 – 04:11 UTC ]
But just because we've alienated both the Sunnis and the Shi'ites in Iraq, that doesn't mean we can't also upset the apple cart of our only success story in the country to date: the Kurds in the north of the country.
We have long succored the Kurds. The Kurdish region in Iraq is about the only place American soldiers can walk around without fear of imminent attack from the native populace. We have cultivated this relationship for a long time, and it is paying off dividends in many ways.
President Bush isn't going to back down, either. Even if a delegation from the Republican National Committee, with leading Republicans from the House and Senate, and even the ghost of Ronald Reagan marched down to the White House to "lay down the law" -- in other words, to tell him: "Mr. President, we will let you destroy your presidential legacy, but we will not allow you to destroy the entire national Republican party" -- even then, I just don't see Bush and Cheney backing down. Nixon, remember, did resign when faced with such a delegation from his own party, but I doubt Bush and Cheney will follow his example.
As I write this, the United States Senate is many hours into a remarkable all-night session debating how to end the Iraq war. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has called this marathon session to highlight the Republicans' obstructionism on putting together a reasonable plan to end the slaughter of U.S. troops in Iraq. Republicans, of course, decried the all-nighter as merely a political stunt.
They're right. It is just a political stunt. But it's a doozy!
But they're going to be drawing out this immense stonewalling during an election year. Republicans are already despondent over their chances next year, and the prospect of this issue coming up over and over and over again (as it works its way through the courts) next year would absolutely terrify them.
In large part, this is due to the fact that every single story will draw the inevitable conclusion that Bush is trying to "out-Nixon" Nixon. Just what Republican candidates don't want to see, while trying to win elections!
I have to say, after seeing all his position papers, I agree with those people who would like to believe in the whole Obama dream, but are still waiting for some meat to be put on the bare bones -- what will the Obama dream actually be defined as? Count me among the many who are still waiting for the answer to that question.
On Iraq, Edwards supports the immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 U.S. troops (down to 100,000) and then the complete withdrawal of all troops within 12 to 18 months. This may be a little timid, as the public clamor for withdrawal is growing. And it is true that Edwards holds no office currently, so he is free to say whatever he thinks about Iraq without having to back his stances up by voting for one bill or another. But you have to give Edwards some credit -- of all the people running who voted for the Iraq war in the first place, Edwards was the first one (by about a year) to come out and admit he had made a mistake.
Whereas in commuting Mr. Libby’s sentence, President Bush has finally and unalterably breached any remaining shred of trust that he had left with the American people and rewarded political loyalty while flouting the rule of law: Now, therefore let be it —
Resolved, That the United States Congress does hereby censure George W. Bush, President of the United States, and does condemn his decision to commute the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison, his unconscionable abuse of his authority with regard to the deceitful chain of events concerning the falsifying intelligence on Iraqi nuclear capabilities and the exaggeration of the threat posed by Iraq, his involvement in the clear political retaliation against former Ambassador and Ms. Wilson, and his decision to reward the perjury of Mr. Libby, which effectively protected President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other Administration officials from further scrutiny.
But, as I said, whatever the political price eventually is should not matter. Because some leadership is needed here. And that's what leadership is -- doing the right thing, while convincing enough of your opponents that it is the right thing... and then absolutely refusing to back down.
This war needs to end. If the Democrats don't do it in September, then they will be no better than the Republicans who led us into this war, and have enabled Bush ever since. Poll numbers show this, and Democrats know it. Enough Republicans need to be enticed or scared into crossing the aisle, in order to force Bush to get the troops out. Once again, here is what it will take: 60 to 70 in the House; 17 or 18 in the Senate. Once those numbers are reached, Bush's opinion ceases to be relevant.
General Petraeus, the officer in charge of our military presence in Iraq, is scheduled to report to Congress in mid-September on how the surge is doing. After he does so, Democrats are going to find themselves holding a winning hand for ending the war in Iraq -- as more and more Republicans start voting with them. But how they play their cards is going to be important in determining exactly how the war should be ended, how fast it will happen, and how many troops will be left in Iraq.
Now, there are many ideas on how to end the war from the Democratic side, and in September the party is going to have to hammer out a strategy for how to proceed -- and they'll need both a detailed strategy for the military withdrawal, and also a legislative strategy for how exactly to go about enacting the end of the war.
Congressional vagaries and loopholes mean there are countless ways the Democrats could manage to end the war in September. There is simply no way to cover every contingency here, or even predict exactly which path such legislation could take. Having said that, there are several tactics which are currently being discussed among Democratic leaders. Here are the major options as I see them now:
