or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Politics
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| Bush's last chance? |
Itsdb |
01/02/07 |
In more al-AP analysis...
DEB RIECHMANN
Associated Press
CRAWFORD, Texas - Whatever the reasons for President Bush's lengthy deliberations on a new Iraq policy, they undoubtedly will serve two political purposes: Letting the grim milestone of 3,000 U.S. deaths in Iraq and the potential backlash from Saddam Hussein's execution pass before the public hears his new ideas.
The execution of Saddam by his countrymen would help legitimize the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Yet, if it incites more bloodshed, it would remind Americans that the situation is "grave and deteriorating," as the recent Iraq Study Group concluded.
The American public has grown weary of the war and even though past wars have seen vastly higher casualties, a U.S. death toll topping 3,000 - which is approaching - would shine a spotlight on the human toll of U.S. involvement.
For now, Bush has been able to fend off calls for withdrawal of U.S. troops. Yet if the situation in Iraq doesn't improve - and quickly - those calls could begin to drown out whatever new ideas he puts forth in the early weeks of the new year.
Americans are a patient lot and likely will give Bush the time and backing he needs to take another shot at getting a U.S. policy in Iraq that works. And the new Democratically led Congress, which convenes on Jan. 4, probably won't block the commander in chief if he decides to briefly increase troop levels.
"It is likely his last chance, however," said analyst Jon Alterman. "Republicans and Democrats alike will be looking for early signs that the president's policy isn't working, in which case they will quickly head for the exits. My sense is that this is taking a long time because they know it's their last shot."
Dan Bartlett, counselor to the president, said Friday that neither the approaching 3,000th U.S. death in Iraq nor Saddam's execution is "dictating when" Bush's speech will be delivered. Those two events, though, will influence its reception by the American people.
When Saddam was pulled from his hiding spot in a spider hole in December 2003, public opinion shifted in Bush's favor. But the former Iraqi leader's execution likely would have less inclination to sway public opinion now because Americans' views have hardened as the war has intensified.
The White House viewed Saddam's execution as an "important milestone in the Iraqi people's efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law."
Still, skeptics of the president's policy can argue that remains mired in violent turmoil. And those opposed to a surge in U.S. troops will use the 3,000th death as a reason to continue opposing one.
"I think there was a time when the death of Saddam Hussein would have given Bush the kind of political capital he needs to call for an increase in troops and an expansion of the military effort there, but I think we're past that time," said Julian Zelizer, a political historian at Boston University.
Bush is expected to deliver his speech - laying out his plan to improve security, assist the Iraqis in reaching a political reconciliation between warring sects and help with reconstruction - before his State of the Union address on Jan. 23.
The president, who has been at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, this week, spent a windy, rainy Friday talking about Iraq on the phone with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and took time to ponder discussions he had on Thursday with Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Military historian Frederick Kagan at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, said Bush's speech - whenever it occurs - will overwhelm any event in Iraq.
"We've reached a critical moment. The president is clearly contemplating a strategy that will be very different from what he has been doing," said Kagan, who is advocating a large surge in U.S. forces in Iraq. "That message is going to dominate the discussion. The American people want to know whether we're going to win this war, and they're going to listen very carefully to whatever the president says."
Whether he likes it or not, the president's legacy is hinged to Iraq. Poor progress there helped sweep Democrats into power in both the House and the Senate in November's midterm elections. If the United States continues to be mired in a violent Iraq, the chances for Democrats to capture the White House in 2008 brighten as well.
Bush's approval for handling Iraq was at 27 percent in early December, according to AP-Ipsos polling - his lowest approval rating yet in this area. Seventy-one percent disapproved of how he was managing the war. Moreover, almost two-thirds, or 63 percent, doubt that a stable, democratic government will be established in Iraq. That's up from 54 percent who felt that way in June.
At this juncture, some political analysts think the timing of Bush's Iraqi speech is irrelevant. They say he has just one roll of the dice left on Iraq, and if his strategy does not help stabilize things there, it will be quickly overtaken by events.
After the seemingly thousands of times I've heard or read that Bush "rushed to war" or "failed to plan," it sure seemed curious to me that this al-AP writer would open her analysis with "Whatever the reasons for President Bush's lengthy deliberations." Why the rush now?
Are the twin political purposes of "Letting the grim milestone of 3,000 U.S. deaths in Iraq and the potential backlash from Saddam Hussein's execution pass before the public hears his new ideas" behind the 'delay?'
Is all of this irrelevent since the left isn't kidding around and is going to fight those Democrats for not getting us out of Iraq already? |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
