Republican Senator Gordon Smith rose in the Senate, Friday, and emotionally announced the following: "I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that any more."
News services reported that a number of Senators came up to Smith after his speech to say that they agreed with him.
Smith voted in favor of the war and has supported it ever since. However, he now says he never would have voted for it if he'd known that the intelligence information that Bush gave the public was inaccurate.
This is yet another indication of the sharp divisions that have developed between those who support the war, and those who support a negotiated end to the bloodshed.
On the one side there is George W. Bush, who continues to say that we will stand firm until his objective is accomplished. That objective, he says, is an Iraqi government which can sustain, govern and defend itself.
On the other side there are the members of the Baker-Hamilton bipartisan group, the majority of the American public, and just about everyone else in the world except Israel and Tony Blair.
Dissatisfaction with President Bush's handling of Iraq among the American public has climbed to an all time high of 71%, according to the latest AP-Ipson Poll released Friday. At the same time, only 27% of the respondents approved of the president's handling of the war, a new low.
Furthermore, only 9% expect the war to end in clear cut victory, compared with 87% who expect some sort of compromise settlement. Associated Press writer Nancy Benac pointed out that this parallels the public opinion about the Vietnam War in December, 1965, when a Gallup survey found that just 7% believed it would end in victory.
The latest AP-Ipson Poll was conducted as the Baker-Hamilton Report was being released on Wednesday.
The assessment offered by the Iraq report, begins with the statement that the situation is "grave and deteriorating." It goes on to make a number of recommendations, the key one being the need to begin negotiations.
President Bush was quick to reject this approach and insist that his objective is still to achieve a military victory. During his press conference, a British journalist asked the president if he really knew how bad it was over there. The president replied "It's bad."
But, if he is relying on the military to keep him up to date, does the president really know? The Baker-Hamilton Report presents the possibility that the military is distorting the facts. For example, on a day that the military said there were 60 incidents, the committee's investigation showed that there were actually 1,100.
Meanwhile, the relatively small percentage of the nation that is supporting Bush is making a big noise. In the process, the word "victory" is rapidly joining "patriotism" as what may now be the two most dangerous words in the American language. To be against continuing the battle for "victory" is to be a coward, according to the war hawks, and an unpatriotic one at that.
Since Wednesday, many howls of protest have echoed across the right wing of the political spectrum. The New York Post tabloid reacted to the Baker-Hamilton Report by referring to the esteemed committee members as "Surrender Monkeys." The Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation which also owns the Fox News Channel.
On the other side of the aisle, so to speak, former Vice President Al Gore told Matt Lauer on the Today Show on Thursday that the war in Iraq is "the worst strategic mistake in the entire history of the United States." He went on to say that it is worse than a civil war over there.
In the midst of the chaos that has consumed Iraq and that now seems to be developing in the United States, one can't help but wonder about the impact on the Bush family, and particularly on the relationship between Bush 41 and Bush 43.
There is no hard information that would shed a light on this matter, but there are a couple of situations to consider.
First, there is that emotional breakdown that Bush the senior experienced the other evening while giving a speech in Florida. It was reported that the source of his distress was not Jeb, who rose to comfort him, but George W.
Second, why is it that all of a sudden Bush 41's team, in the form of Gates and Baker, is riding into Washington on an apparent mission to save the day for Bush 43, in much the same way that Baker rode into Florida in 2000 to secure the election for him?
Only, in this instance, Bush is stubbornly resisting Baker's advice. So, what's up with that?
To me, it spells t-r-o-u-b-l-e at the ranch. In addition to losing the support of a large majority of the American people, Bush 43 may also be in the process of losing some support back home. If so, perhaps it will cause him to adopt a more realistic approach.
Meanwhile, the next chapter in this high level drama may well shift to the Pentagon.
Let there be no doubt that the new Secretary of Defense, Robert Michael Gates, is a product of the Bush 41 team. He was President George H. W. Bush's Director of Central Intelligence, and before becoming president of Texas A&M University, he was the interim dean of the George Bush (that's #41) School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M.
Not surprisingly, it has also been reported that he shares the same views, generally, as James Baker. In fact, he was a member of Baker's Iraq Study Group at the time of his appointment as Secretary of Defense.
Gates testified before Congress that he did not give up the best job he's ever had, just to come to Washington to essentially be a puppet.
Considering these details, it sounds as though Bush and Gates might be on a collision course.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 14
There is a most deep issue involved in what you are reporting. It lies below the surface of what REAL Democracy and REAL Leadership mean and imply. That issue has to do with the basic meanings of 'a government of, by and for' the people. At the most deep level we are presently in deliberations about the resposibilities that elected 'leaders' have in OUR CONSTITUTIONAL Democracy, such as I consider it to be.
WE THE PEOPLE elect a leader, who will, after a proper election, then assume that role taking the fullest account of the wiil and desires of the PEOPLE, WE THE PEOPLE. We do not elect leaders to exercize their own will exclusively. WE ARE NOT PUPPET PEOPLE. We are thinking, caring, hopefully conscious people who accept the limits placed upon us (e.g. like 4 years of the same person as President) with the expectation that our opinions will be sought out properly and that WE will be listened to and that our opinions will be carefully factored in by our legitimate leadership, especially when there are life and death and key resources involved in the decisions facing the governments, and to be paid for by WE THE PEOPLE. When our President wants to act almost exclusively on his own, without reference to OUR WISHES and INTENTS, he is not acting out his Constitutional Role as a leader of free persons, he is acting then like a DICTATOR.
And THAT is the 'most deep issue' that at present is lying below the surface in the activities and plans of the responsible leaders in our government and Bush's present postures. Our country and its futures are basically OURS, not exclusively HIS and THEIRS. Its time he and they listened and climbed away from perhaps erroneous 'faith' in his and their own images of 'reality'. AND its time that WE THE PEOPLE (especially in our CONGRESS) took note of the FACTS that suggest that the President's judgment is in conflict, and on a collision course with our CONSTITUTION, by not taking WE THE PEOPLE seriously.
Many 'faiths' exist among many (wise and other) persons in and outside of our United States that seriously challenge the wisdom of OUR President's WORLD and RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
Dick
Smith voted in favor of the war and has supported it ever since. However, he now says he never would have voted for it if he'd known that the intelligence information that Bush gave the public was inaccurate. Gee... isn't this what Kerry and Clinton (and others) have said many times, but people couldn't seem to 'get it'.
I remember back in the late 90s when W was first floated as a candidate thinking to myself, "That guy? What happened to Jeb?" Maybe 41 had the same thoughts, and now Jeb will never get a chance at the presidency.
I also think about W being a product of his class. This is not saying that all people from wealth privilege end up being completely out of touch, but some do. The song by the late, great Warren Zevon comes to mind -- "Splendid Isolation." W spent his most of his adult life being a screw-up. Most people don't just fall into Ivy League schools and oil companies. When most people get arrested for DWI, they have to go to court.
For 41, flying in the service meant floating in the Pacific Ocean after having his plane shot out of the sky in a desperate, one-sided battle. It was probably humbling and instructive as to what war is like for its participants. For 43, flying in the service was bars and barbecues -- none of that "do or die" stuff.
W says he's a "decider," which I now think means he doesn't assess facts, circumstances and consequences. Why should he? Until now, he's never had to.
They say the toughest thing for Bush was to quit drinking, which is no small feat. But I would guess it's alot easier to accomplish without having to live life like most people. It's easy to stay centered when everything appears black and white. Confronting gray reality isn't something 41 is about.
GW's self-excusing, incoherent responses, notably at the press conference you mention, suggests that he cannot comprehend the ISG report is perhaps his last, best opportunity to reverse policy with a measure of "political cover" for the disaster for which he bears responsibility.
I recall the days of Nixon and Kissinger , when I witnessed career professionals in the State Department and Foreign Service take early retirement when the pressure to concentrate power in the Executive frustrated their work.
There is the joke the Richard Nixon secretly willed his brain to Dick Cheney, who now keeps it on his desk and talks to it. Rumsfeld brought Cheney into the Nixon administration, and later faciliated him being made Ford's chief of staff. Cheney's obsession is similar to Nixon's : absolute power must be in the Executive. He failed in his attempt to become president, but he seems to control George Bush.
Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, writes in a New York Daily News opinion column: "Even if [the report's] recommendations are spot-on, even if the president accepted every detail, there is not the requisite diplomatic skill and expertise within this national leadership to pull it off."
"Not to mention that one of its key members, the vice president and his staff, are adamantly opposed to even making the effort. . . ."
"How to circumvent him and his minions? It seems an impossible undertaking. With 88 people working directly for him on his own personal staff -- an unprecedented number -- and others strategically placed throughout the federal bureaucracy, Cheney is a formidable force. Isolated by the president or not, he can still wreak havoc, for example, with any attempt to empower Secretary of State Rice to conduct meaningful diplomacy in the region."
"It's bad in Iraq. Does that help?" Bush snapped. Then he chuckled.
"Q: Why did it take others to say it before you've been willing to acknowledge for the world --
"PRESIDENT BUSH: In all due respect, I've been saying it a lot. I understand how tough it is. And I've been telling the American people how tough it is. And they know how tough it is. And the fundamental question is, do we have a plan to achieve our objective. Are we willing to change as the enemy has changed? And what the Baker-Hamilton study has done is it shows good ideas as to how to go forward. What our Pentagon is doing is figuring out ways to go forward, all aiming to achieve our objective.
"Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die . [ I'm sure they appreciated that!] I understand there's sectarian violence. I also understand that we're hunting down al-Qaeda on a regular basis and we're bringing them to justice. I understand how hard our troops are working. I know how brave the men and women who wear the uniform are, and therefore, they'll have the full support of this government. I understand what long deployments mean to wives and husbands, and mothers and fathers, particularly as we come into a holiday season. I understand. And I have made it abundantly clear how tough it is.
"I also believe we're going to succeed. I believe we'll prevail. Not only do I know how important it is to prevail, I believe we will prevail. I understand how hard it is to prevail. But I also want the American people to understand that if we were to fail -- and one way to assure failure is just to quit, is not to adjust, and say it's just not worth it -- if we were to fail, that failed policy will come to hurt generations of Americans in the future.
"And as I said in my opening statement, I believe we're in an ideological struggle between forces that are reasonable and want to live in peace, and radicals and extremists. And when you throw into the mix radical Shia and radical Sunni trying to gain power and topple moderate governments, with energy which they could use to blackmail Great Britain or America, or anybody else who doesn't kowtow to them, and a nuclear weapon in the hands of a government that is -- would be using that nuclear weapon to blackmail to achieve political objectives -- historians will look back and say, how come Bush and Blair couldn't see the threat? That's what they'll be asking. And I want to tell you, I see the threat and I believe it is up to our governments to help lead the forces of moderation to prevail. It's in our interests.
"And one of the things that has changed for American foreign policy is a threat overseas can now come home to hurt us, and September the 11th should be a wake-up call for the American people to understand what happens if there is violence and safe havens in a part of the world. And what happens is people can die here at home.
"So, no, I appreciate your question. As you can tell, I feel strongly about making sure you understand that I understand it's tough. But I want you to know, sir, that I believe we'll prevail. I know we have to adjust to prevail, but I wouldn't have our troops in harm's way if I didn't believe that, one, it was important, and, two, we'll succeed. Thank you."
Robinson later commented on Bush's response: "I've just been eyeballed long and hard by George Bush for suggesting he might be in denial re Iraq. The detail of his response was fascinating. In his answer, he mentioned 9/11, the danger that Iraq would become a safe haven for terrorists (as Afghanistan was), the nuclear threat (presumably he meant Iran), and oil. So it seems that while the president is on the back foot at home on Iraq, he tried to raise all the things that would encourage the American people to support him."
Bill Neely of ITV News asked ,
Q: Mr. President, the Iraq Study Group said that leaders must be candid and forthright with people. So let me test that. Are you capable of admitting your failures in the past, and perhaps much more importantly, are you capable of changing course, perhaps in the next few weeks?
"PRESIDENT BUSH: I think you're probably going to have to pay attention to my speech coming up here when I get all the recommendations in, and you can answer that question, yourself. I do know that we have not succeeded as fast as we wanted to succeed. I do understand that progress is not as rapid as I had hoped. And therefore, it makes sense to analyze the situation and to devise a set of tactics and strategies to achieve the objective that I have stated. . . .
If so, it may take an impeachment to neutralize this "Napoleon."
And, it's almost like fate that Cheney should also be in the picture at this time in history, quietly making the snowballs for W to throw.
It's difficult to see a solution to Bush's mess here, but one thing is clear as glass.....the present strategy isn't working.
The AP poll found that only 9% feel that a military victory is possible. Apparently that 9% portion is what is driving our national policy.
In his inept attempt to spread democracy abroad, it appears that Bush has eroded the very foundation of democracy at home.
Thanks for your sincere and perceptive comments. After reading them, I'm even more anxious to see how Gates handles the situation.
Speaking of the home front for GWB. It might be coming down to the Israeli's, Barney and Laura--and who knows about her. Maybe she'll give him a good talking to. Blair is obviously passionate about staying the course in Iraq, but doesn't really speak for the British public overall, anymore than Bush speaks for the majority of Americans.
Cheny and Gates go way back, at least ideologically re war--so I don't think Gates is going to collide with Bush, unless he's had an epiphany of some kind since the good old days. CNN is analyzing whether Bush will go with Baker policy or Rice policy. He doesn't "like" Baker [and probably feels intimidated and resentful towards him]; he and Rice are peas in a pod on middle east policy in general and Iraq in particlar, and Rice enables him.
As I write this, Ed Meese and Vernon Jordan are "explaining" the IGS report, Meese in particular emphasizing that they certainly didn't and do not recommend the U.S. give up any of its bargaining positions or principles away to Syria and Iran--you know what that means--absolutely nothing will happen--even though Meese hastens to add that Bush will of course consider the report and the report is not inconsistent with what the military will recommend. hem hem hem haw haw haw.
I think the collision will be between congress and GBW; Gates will say what he's supposed to say, as he already has, and hang out under his desk. I bet Pelosi and Waxman and Conyers are comparing notes.
In the meantime the various factions continue to go after each other and those who are too friendly with the Americans.
All the Baker/Establishment wants to do is prevent a spread of opposition in the region, protect the allies like Saudi Arabia, and restore our weakened influence . Our presence in the region is to be maintained, and if it takes many wars , we will have to fight them. The Establishment wants to restore the traditional balancing act of supporting Israel and the Arabs that George Bush violated .
The question is will the regional forces set in motion become stablized? The Saudi King's warning of the danger of three civil wars should be taken seriously.
The crazy thing is Bush doesn't understand any of this , won't allow real diplomacy and , so far, won't accept the "political cover" the ISG Report has provided him to cut the loss in Iraq.
Wake me when its over. Maybe, one day, we'll have an independent Middle East region, functioning as a power between the great powers of the West and Asia .
Interesting point, and how chilling for the senators and the process. I don't suppose they can just say "buzz off." And, I don't suppose it would be easy to have, say, a regular breakfast meeting at the DC Denny's; and, considering how Specter and McCain took their own "whuppin's real good" there probably wasn't much incentive to reconvene elsewhere anyhow.
"Wake me when its over. Maybe, one day, we'll have an independent Middle East region, functioning as a power between the great powers of the West and Asia . "
Maybe we will. Maureen Dowd summed it up well for our side of the equation. They gave him [the presidency] to play with, he broke it, and now someone else will have to fix it. Nancy Pelosi seems adamant that Impeachment is off the table and would that do any good anyway, unless we can go for "twofers." Perhaps Chavez will be one of the intermediaries, when we become "The Greater America's, as will the orange scarves in the Ukraine? Who'd have thunk it. Ironies abound.