It sounds like it’ll happen tomorrow. Read this.
SO: Will GOPers who accused Democrats of undercutting troops still insist that announcing a withdrawal timetable way in advance is — as they and administration officials suggested — encouraging the enemy to just hold out and kill as many Americans as possible until the timetable or announced staged withdrawal occurs? Or will the values and priorities expressed with so much passion and rage a few weeks ago by GWB’s defenders vanish into thin air because Bush now proclaims great progress and the beginning of troop withdrawals?
Even so, how will any announcement like that eradicate the fears expressed earlier about tipping off the enemy…letting the enemy just hold out and kill as many Americans as possible?
If this is indeed the speech that’ll come tomorrow, then this magazine’s site will be interesting — particularly anything written by Bill Kristol.
On the other hand, slipping polls….John Murtha’s statement…a growing chorus of critics in both parties…Seymour Hersh suggesting the President will almost never change course on a personal belief no matter what argument is thrown at him…A speech starting the process of withdrawal might certainly start to nudge some perception problems aside. And perhaps create some new ones, as well…
UPDATE: President George W. Bush’s comments today indicate he may be saying “We won” and pull them out. Just look at these comments, realizing that there is widespread informed speculation that he’ll announce the beginnings of a withdrawal tomorrow:
President Bush said Tuesday a U.S. military pullout from Iraq would be a terrible mistake, beginning a new push defending his embattled war policy. His Pentagon chief said, “Quitting is not an exit strategy.”
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said of the Iraqis, “They know that they’re the ones that are going to have to grab that country. And it’s time.”
The administration is under pressure to convince increasingly skeptical Americans that the president’s strategy for Iraq is headed in the right direction. The president is to give a speech on the subject Wednesday at the Naval Academy.
The unrelenting violence that continues to claim American lives has contributed to a drop in Bush’s popularity, to its lowest level yet, and to growing doubts about the war. It also has led to a debate in Congress about when the 160,000 U.S. troops there should begin to come home.
The GOP-controlled Senate voted 79-19 this month to urge the president to outline a strategy for “the successful completion of the mission.” Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., attracted attention with his call for a withdrawal within six months.
The administration has responded by counseling patience while also signaling it is planning for a way out. Bush, speaking to reporters from El Paso, Texas, rejected any immediate withdrawal in unusually personal terms.
“I want to defeat the terrorists. And I want our troops to come home,” the president said. “But I don’t want them to come home without having achieved victory.”
So, if he declares victory but diplomats and military officials from other nations, news media sources etc… say the situation there is far from qualifying as a victory, how will the American public react?
Will we be faced with a situation where if critics of the war, or even supporters who have tough questions and feel we need to stay or even add more troops, advocate a different approach or timetable they’re accused as wanting to “cut and run” or as undercutting the troops (translation: being less than patriotic) while the President basically yanks them out?
If you read this, it’s basically Bush saying: “I WILL BE THE ONE who says when there is victory.” So if in fact he, Rumsfeld and others make that assertion, it should then be confirmable via media and other reports that the U.S. has come close to victory. What happens if a withdrawal begins and there is significant bloodshed?
Are we in for another “Mission Accomplished?”
And, if so, has the mission truly been accomplished? (It all depends on what the mission of “mission” is…)
BOTTOM LINE: The war is an albatross around Bush’s neck and polls show that support for it has sagged — and is sagging. Does he truly “stay the course” or does he fudge and proclaim he’s “staying the course” as he switches course, attacking those who don’t belong to his party for seeking to switch course?
BOTTOM LINE QUESTION: If he decides to start to start a pullout, or at least a partial disengagement, can he do it in a way that unifies and heals the U.S. or will this be one more polarizing event?