One told Mr. Bush that voters back home favored a withdrawal even if it meant the war was judged a loss.But really, have we lost? We went to clear the place of WMD. Seeing none there, Mission Accomplished.
We went to topple a dictator. Saddam dead, Mission Accomplished.
There were several byproducts of the Iraq conflagration that could also point to the Mission being finished: Vote taken, parlement elected. That they refuse to be a puppet to the W, Rove and Co. should not be an indication that we have lost. Mission Accomplished.
If these and many other missions have been accomplished, why are we still there? Might we not, if we continue on the current course, actually increase rather than decrease the possiblity that we "win" in Iraq? Where's the harm in pulling out our troops?
If you believe the president, we are killing them there, so we don't have to kill them here. That's a broad hypothetical that has yet to be proven. What say you Mr. president?
If you're worried about Iran, then it's really important that people understand the consequences of us leaving before the job is done. I am deeply concerned about what would happen in the Middle East should America's credibility be diminished as a result of us not keeping our word, as a result of us abandoning millions of people who are anxious to live in a stable, secure, free society. I worry about the signal it would send to al Qaeda. As I told you earlier, and as David Petraeus said -- let me put it in his words -- al Qaeda is public enemy number one in Iraq. Al Qaeda also should be viewed as public enemy number one in America.In addition to flogging the Nine Eleven Monkey one more time, we see that W and his Rovian cronies are again baiting and switching us on Iraq. The new bait is Iran, and a healthy dose of fear.
And why do I say that? Well, al Qaeda attacked us once and killed thousands of citizens on our soil. I believe they want to attack us again. I believe failure in Iraq would only embolden al Qaeda further. I know that vacuums in the Middle East are likely to be filled by radicals and extremists, who, at the very minimum, would share a common enemy, the United States, and some of our strongest allies.
And so it's vital we succeed. The debate in Washington is, how fast can we withdraw, amongst some. The debate ought to be, what do we need to do to make sure that we not only don't fail, but succeed.
But really, should we accept such a broad hypothetical proposition from an administration that suggests they don't talk about hypotehicals (numerous references to that effect such as this: "MR. SNOW: And the point is we -- again, I'm not going to entertain hypotheticals, except in this way"...read, it's to our political gain)? And this from the man who swore up and down and would have over a stack of bibles that there were WMD in Iraq? Well, this proves once again that just becuase the President says something doesn't make it true or possible. In fact, it could be less plausible.
The fact of the matter is that our reputation is not doing too well over there even as we stay the course. Afterall, why did W hire that woman (I do apologgize that I have forgetten her name, but to be sure she was another crony from Texas) to improve our image with Arabic Nations?
Is the President listening to his constituents? Clearly not. He's fabricating his own audiance and consistently portends when he likes as it serves his political gain. But what choice does the man who suggests he's president have? The alternative is to say he was wrong, and then be chargible for perpetrating war on a undeserving target...which eventually would be punishible at The Hague.
But let's have a look at least at what the President's Spokesmodel is saying the president is thinking on this. Tony?
Q What does it tell the administration when the former head of the Republican campaign committee goes on the air and says that in this meeting, the sense of the meeting was people saying, my constituents are saying they don't care if we lose this war, they just want out?Really, OBL as a flowerchild? Where is he by the way? Reaping a whirlwind? That Tony the Snow job has a flair for the hyperbole, no? Indeed, that's some wild speculation and a mighty fine hypothetical...straight from the man who doesn't engage in such...unless it's to his political advantage. Oh, yeah. That's right. I forgot. It's okay for them to do it, but for us, hypotheticals are a no-no.
MR. SNOW: Well, again, I think -- take a look, and I've been talking about what the polls are saying -- Americans do care, and the President does care. Still walking that tightrope, because I'm not going to respond even to stated quotes in the papers. It's important to realize -- the Americans really do understand, and the President does always make it clear, it is not a -- you don't walk away and suddenly peace breaks out. As I said the other day, you walk away, bin Laden doesn't become a flower child. You walk away, and as the Baker-Hamilton commission said, as the National Intelligence Estimate said, virtually every other careful study has said, you reap the whirlwind. So what you have to do is to make sure that as a matter of national security, you do it right. And that's why the efforts are on doing it right.
I suspect if you said to people, would you be happy if you -- the Baghdad security plan, or whatever, that stuff worked, the answer would be yes. As Helen says, who could say no to that? And so the focal point of administration efforts is, the whole aim is to make sure that we're doing the right thing, so that we move towards success.