Is McCain preparing to bolt on Iraq?
Tell me this didn't catch my eye in that big NYTimes article.
Do you think they'd be worrying about McCain flipping if the rumors weren't already floating in the Washington air?
The Republicans that are stepping away from the Bush plan appear to using some combination of two excuses to justify their change in position.
1) It's the Iraqis fault for not holding up their end.
2) It's the Dems, "certain elements in Washington," "politics in Washington,"etc.
It is absolutely necessary for the fleeing Republicans to find someone to blame because it vitiates their earlier mistake in supporting Bush's policy. The construction being, "My previous support was correct and would have succeeded if only X hadn't spoiled it."
(Interesting that no one's blaming the American people anymore, "failing US support." I think that says alot about the depth and the demographic breadth of the anti-war feelings. They can't even blame the hippies without touching their own base.)
Later: The McCain campaign says there will be no "radical departures" as he returns from Iraq.
“Everyone’s particularly worried about what happens when McCain gets back from Iraq,” one (White House) official said, a reference to the latest trip to Baghdad by Senator John McCain, who has been a stalwart supporter of the “surge” strategy. Mr. McCain’s travels, and his political troubles in the race for the Republican nomination for president, have fueled speculation that he may declare the Iraqi government incapable of the kind of political accommodations that the crackdown on violence was supposed to permit.
Do you think they'd be worrying about McCain flipping if the rumors weren't already floating in the Washington air?
The Republicans that are stepping away from the Bush plan appear to using some combination of two excuses to justify their change in position.
1) It's the Iraqis fault for not holding up their end.
2) It's the Dems, "certain elements in Washington," "politics in Washington,"etc.
It is absolutely necessary for the fleeing Republicans to find someone to blame because it vitiates their earlier mistake in supporting Bush's policy. The construction being, "My previous support was correct and would have succeeded if only X hadn't spoiled it."
(Interesting that no one's blaming the American people anymore, "failing US support." I think that says alot about the depth and the demographic breadth of the anti-war feelings. They can't even blame the hippies without touching their own base.)
Later: The McCain campaign says there will be no "radical departures" as he returns from Iraq.
posted by mikevotes at
5:43 AM
2 Comments:
The warmongers in the GOP are now using qualifiers like "no PRECIPITOUS withdrawal" or "no RADICAL withdrawal." Which of course is exactly what Murtha and other Dems have been saying all along. (Some Dems have been talking complete and quick redeployment, but that's not the majority line.)
Were going to see a Congressional sea change in Iraq strategy. All were talking about is timeframe, but certainly a major redeployment and strategy shift will be the order of the day in Congress over the next 12 mo. It should be interesting to see the GOP prez candidates dance their soft shoe sidestep as they deny ever being behind the President and his escalation plan.
By
-epm, at 5:03 PM
Well, those qualifiers are an effort to claim withdrawal as their own. They utilize that minority position as a strawman to show themselves as center.
And, I'm still not fully convinced that we're over the dam in the Senate. We're close, but as the alternatives are all over the place, the Repubs can claim to be against Bush, support some minority measure then shoot down the Dem plan.
There needs to be a way for them to come over without appearing to have lost to the Dems. Some kinda way that saves their pride. Maybe a bill with 5 Dem sponsors and 5 repub sponsors.
By
mikevotes, at 6:05 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home