Pres. Bush, VP Dick Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld spent the better part of two weeks before the 9-11 commemorations seeking to redefine the Iraq War. The line was that bin Laden was like Hitler, that "victory" was the only alternative in Iraq, and that opposition to the war was morally confused at best, vaguely treasonous at worst.
On Sept. 12, Bush's opponents began to strike back, led not by the ineffective Democrats, but by traditional and moderately conservative Republicans and military figures. Democratic leaders like Harry Reid were too busy being offended and outraged to do anything meaningful. However, President Bush's image had barely faded from tv screens when Pentagon officials leaked a report by a Marine intelligence officer claiming that Anbar province was "lost" to the American cause and that al-Qaeda was now the most important political force in Western Iraq. The next day, Marine Maj. General Zilmer dug the knife in deeper by claiming that troop levels in Anbar were fine unless the military actually wanted to defeat the insurgents.
So much for staying the course.
The counter-offensive then spread to the Senate where John McCain mobilized opposition to Bush's plan for military tribunals by producing a letter from former Joint Chiefs Chair John Vessey claiming that Bush was undermining "the moral basis which has generally guided our conduct in war throughout our history." Heavy stuff.
By today, the Republican rebellion had generated enough steam that Bush went to Capital Hill in person. But McCain had another ace up his sleeve, a supportive letter from a figure who has far more credibility than President Bush, Colin Powell.
Whichever side can move opinion among moderates and traditional conservatives will have a good shot at winning elections in 2006 and 2008. The events of the last couple of days indicate that the Bush administration may have already lost that game even if the Democrats have yet to find the stadium.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment