The Detroit Free Press is absolutely spot-on today in its analysis of how Bush’s Iraq policy is disintegrating.
While the Republicans were always 100% wrong in their hair-brained plans for Middle Eastern dominance, at least they used to stick with a clear and bullish message. However, in the President’s recent speeches on the topic, and especially his hour-long address, yesterday, things have suddenly become very vague.
Bush used to specilise in keeping it dead simple. His new oratorial ventures, floundering with nuanced policy definitions, surely signify that the end is nigh for his disastrous approach.
The Bush White House is known for staying on message, but its message on Iraq has grown a little murky.
President George W. Bush acknowledged as much Wednesday, when he used a hastily scheduled news conference to try to clear up some of the confusion.
“Stay the course” is no longer operative. “Timetables” are bad, but “benchmarks” are OK — as long as they don’t include deadlines. Our goals are “unchanging,” but our tactics are “flexible.” And we’re “winning,” unless we leave too soon, and there’s “tough fighting ahead. We should not expect a simple solution.”
Bush’s semantic tap dance highlights one of his toughest election-year challenges: how to show war-weary voters that he is confident and resolute, without giving the impression he is unrealistic and inflexible.
Comments 2
So what does this mean for the world then?
Posted 27 Oct 2006 at 8:15 am ¶Well, we’ve now witnessed one thing that it means for the world - Team Bush is losing its grip on American political power.
I guess this is going to mean a less bullish United States, and possibly a Democrat president on the way. I noted about a week ago that the US had acceded to the Iraqi PM’s demand that they abandon some inflammatory military checkpoints (or was it a military operation?) in Sadr City… I don’t think this would have happened a year or so ago, and certainly various journalists are speculating that this event was a marker for changing relationship between US and Iraqi politicians.
So what does all this mean for the world? - WHOA, big question.
What does it mean for Iraq? - Also a tough one, but if I was a gambling man I’d be laying a couple of bucks on phased withdrawal of US and UK troops, with ongoing simmering violence between various Iraqi groups for a good few years to come.
Posted 11 Nov 2006 at 12:45 pm ¶Post a Comment