1+1=2
Newsbusters has an excerpt and a video up of Stephanopoulos’s interview with Bush. There is quite some criticism coming from the Right regarding ABC’s ‘summary’ of what Bush said regarding Iraq-Vietnam: “Bush Accepts Iraq-Vietnam Comparison” reads the headline of the article about this at ABCNews.
However, that is not what I found to be the most interesting part of it all. From the exchange:
George Stephanopoulos: “You’ve used some pretty tough rhetoric. You said this election is ‘a choice between Republicans and Democrats who want to wave the white flag of surrender in the war on terror.’ Can you name a Democrat who wants to ‘wave the white flag of surrender’?â€?
President George W. Bush, referring to Senator John Kerry: “I can name a Democrat who said there ought to be a date certain from which to withdraw from Iraq, whether or not we’ve achieved a victory or not-â€?
Stephanopoulos: “That’s surrender?â€?
Bush: “Yeah it is, if you pull the troops out before the job is done. Absolutely George.�
Stephanopoulos: “So you don’t think that’s questioning their patriotism when you say that?â€?
Bush: “No, I know it’s not questioning their patriotism. I think it’s questioning their judgment.”
George Stephanopoulos can question Bush all he wants on this issue, but 1+1 is and will always be 2. Setting a date to withdraw, withdraw if victory has not been achieved… that is surrender. There is no other way of saying it. Well, there are of course other ways of saying it, but that does not make Bush’s words any less true.
That being said, Bush links it to the entire war on terrorism which is of course inaccurate: it is about Iraq, not about the entire war on terrorism. So, when people criticize Bush in that regard, they are right.
Back to Iraq, yes, Senator John Kerry is calling on Bush to surrender. He does not use these exact words, but it is the absolute result of his plans regarding Iraq.
And to those who believe that the war in Iraq is lost as it is and that, therefore, withdrawal is necessary / the only logical thing to do, I would say: just say it like that, admit that you believe that the war is lost and stop acting as if you are not calling for surrender when, in fact, you are calling for it.
Now, this does not mean that those calling for an immediate withdrawal, or at least a withdrawal ‘before the job is done’ as Bush likes to say, are lacking a sense of ‘patriotism’ or, whatever, it could – for instance – simply mean that they believe that this particular battle has been lost. That does not mean that they want to ‘surrender’ in the entire war on terrorism, but only in this particular battle and / or that they – for instance – believe that the battle should be fought in a different manner.
65 Responses to “1+1=2”
MvdG, CS, Cosmoetica-
I understand what you are saying about half-hearted war. But would you really have been willing to kill every Iraqi to get Saddam out? How do you think that would have affected our standing in world opinion? We went in basically without international support, on evidence of WMD’s that was highly suspect. Saddam was in a weakened state-the 1998 bombings had done a lot of damage to his ability to threaten us, so had the years of sanctions. Most analysts agree that the real threat was al queda and the Taliban who sheltered them. Do you really think all out war would have been justified in that situation? Who would have been left alive to live in the Democratic state we wanted to build there?
If we wanted all out war-why not go all out against the real threat to our security?
CS: I don’t know either but what is really tragic, I think, is that we’ve postponed the tough decision making on it for so long that it may now be lost even if it wasn’t inevitable before. I know some people think it was a lost cause to begin with, but I’m not of that opinion
Agreed, I think there was an opportunity to make Iraq a free country, but it does seem the time has passed to make the changes to achieve that goal. Now is the time to look at the facts, with OUT political spin, and make a strategy to stabalize Iraq so we can leave.
Kim
At least what I was trying to say, is that all out war would be against our basic beliefs. However, all out war (unrestricted warfare) would be the only possible strategy to produce a stable Iraq. Since it is against our principles to conduct that kind of war, then our only strategy would be to leave, while hopefully, still protecting the Kurds.
CFPete: “Cosmo
Why in God’s name would you want to do something as politically divisive as impeaching Bush. He only has over a year left in office. If your goal is to divide the country more than it already is, then by all means impeach him.” Because it’s the right thing to do, as was impeaching Nixon.
MVDG: “cfpete I agree with you on this: they should absolutely not impeach Bush. I am quite sure that the Democrats will sign their own death sentence when they do.” And that’s a bad thing? Get reid of the Ds and Rs and we’ll all be better.
Rambie: “Yes, he made mistakes in the execution of the war, that’s not an impeachable offense.” Depends on if evidence exists that he knew Saddam was not behind 9/11 and had no WMDs- if so, he’s a war criminal.
Kim: ‘understand what you are saying about half-hearted war. But would you really have been willing to kill every Iraqi to get Saddam out?’ No, that’s the point.
‘If we wanted all out war-why not go all out against the real threat to our security?’ Exactly- if all of our Iraqi forces were put into Afghanistan we’d prob have OBL by now.
cfPete: ‘However, all out war (unrestricted warfare) would be the only possible strategy to produce a stable Iraq. Since it is against our principles to conduct that kind of war, then our only strategy would be to leave, while hopefully, still protecting the Kurds.’ BINGO!
Most military anaylysts dispute that (and most people who aren’t partisan Democrats). The terrain is such that there is no way to put enough troops on the ground to search every cave and crevice. The only way to get OBL is for someone to give him up, and the trouble is, that isn’t going to happen.
I will grant you though, that Afghanistan would probably be in much better shape had we continued a more strident effort there; I just don’t blame the inability to get OBL himself on Iraq.
Those same experts told us WMDs were in Iraq. Recall that military experts botched the Bay Of Pigs, the Iran Hostage rescue, and many other smaler missions. And I did say ‘prob’, not def.
Uh, OK, I think you’re conflating military experts with intelligence experts, but whatever.
Cosmo
I have one question.
Do you also want to impeach Cheney?
CS- Intelligence experts are part of the military indistrial complex. This is like a strangler claiming that he is innocent because his pinkies were really not into murder.
cfpete: If he knew and covered it up, yes. Look, Clinton was impeached and the grossest thing was hearing about a fat intern swallowing his come- or spitting it out on her dress. Even Nixon’s folly with Watergate did not get anyone killed.
9/11 was wholly preventable had Bush, Cheney, and Condo been doing their jobs, and now we’ve basically doubled that death toll with this folly in Iraq.
3k dead vs two leaders who lied and led us into war? Furthermore, althoguh it’ll never happen, whoever is next President should extradite Bush and Cheney if they are ever brought before an international War Crimes tribunal.
If we do not turn over our own warmongers we cannot expect others to obey international law- even though I think it’s mostly a joke.
CS said “I don’t know either but what is really tragic, I think, is that we’ve postponed the tough decision making on it for so long that it may now be lost even if it wasn’t inevitable before. I know some people think it was a lost cause to begin with, but I’m not of that opinion.”.
My opinion is that if it had been done correctly from the beginning we could have accomplished the goals the Bush administration now says they have. Doing it correctly would have meant far more boots on the ground in the beginning, paying attention to what the Iraqis wanted and would respect (Like guarding the national treasure that is their museum as well as we did the oil ministry.), not dismantling their army and security forces completely and working a heck of a lot harder to restore infrastructure than we have. Also, giving reconstruction contracts on the basis of competence instead of Republicanism would have been good.
But its too late now. As I said in an earlier post, when Maliki has to cave in to al Sadr and release a man who’s been involved in conspiracy to murder and kidnap I just don’t think there’s any hope and things have gone too far down the drain to recover.
Jim S. I totally agree. I didn’t believe that Iraq was the biggest threat to our security, and am quite angry about the way prewar intelligence was manipulated , but once they decided to do it, there was no excuse for not having a plan for the occupation. We owed that much, at least, to the Iraqis. Now there is no way out that won’t be expensive, traumatic and bloody for us and for them. This debacle may be even worse than Vietnam.
‘This debacle may be even worse than Vietnam.’
In the long run. Let’s not forget that anywhere from 5-10 million Viets diied in the war, not to mention the Cambodians and others. Iraq is not that bad….yet.
Looking at the picture again, isn’t that a gay pride flag behind GWB? Where was that picture taken?
I wasn’t 100% there yesterday with the release but with today’s development of Sadr taking Amarah, I do think it’s over. If Maliki hasn’t already been told that the one condition of continued US troop support is that he shut down the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias, then that message certainly needs to be delivered immediately. I always assumed that this was being said behind closed doors even though the public message was that we would stay till the end no matter what; I see I may have made the classic error of assuming too much. It makes absolutely no sense for the US troops to stay if Maliki is just going to cave, and I guess the only silver lining from a purely US nationalistic standpoint is the face saving exit route that this allows; we simply can’t help people if they don’t want to help themselves.
PING:
TITLE: Surrendering Iraq?
BLOG NAME: Thoughts in the Daedalnexus
Yesterday, I read an interesting post over on The Moderate Voice about how retreating from Iraq is a surrender. The post, and the myriad comments to it, got me