Now The White House Jumps Aboard The "First For The Door" Train

by Steve

We opined here over a week ago that the Bush Administration would get a significant number of troops out of Iraq in 2006, for purely political reasons, and regardless of what became of Iraq as a result. We opined that the real reason that the White House unleashed its initially strong pushback against Democratic congressman John Murtha’s call for a troop withdrawal as early as practicable wasn’t because Dick Cheney was against any such move, but rather because Murtha got there first, before the White House could claim the “first for the door” maneuver themselves. And we opined that Cheney’s overriding hand on administration foreign policy, specifically the need to maintain a strong troop presence in Iraq over the next 3-5 years to protect the oil grab underway was giving way to more pressing political needs to keep the GOP from getting bludgeoned by voter concerns over Iraq in 2006.

It comes as no surprise to see that the White House in fact is rushing late last night to doff its engineer’s hat for the “first for the door” express that is leaving the station in a big hurry. Embracing a speech by Joe Biden of all people that follows a Senate policy statement calling for the White House to lay out benchmarks and report to Congress on its efforts to turn things over to the Iraqis in 2006, White House press spokesman Scott McClellan admitted late last night that the White House in fact had its own withdrawal plan and that they were glad that Biden was copying them.

Aside from the laughable notion that the Bush Administration would claim any such strategy existed before Murtha caught them off guard, and before the Senate pushed through its policy resolution, only to see Bush and Cheney denigrate such calls for withdrawal just days ago, I find it also a hoot (as Digby says) that the White House seems to be pumping up Biden as a major opposition foreign policy leader.

As we said a week ago, the administration will run for the door for purely political reasons next year, because losing either the House or Senate in 2006 would permanently blot the Bush legacy. Above all else, even Cheney’s concerns about Iraqi stability and oil plunder will not come in the way of maintaining whatever legacy Bush wants to claim, and (as Josh notes) Condi, and certainly Rove are singing in harmony to Bush about the need for political considerations to trump Cheney’s grand empire illusions.

We will get large numbers of troops out of Iraq next year, and Democrats need to point out the inconsistencies in Bush Administration statements on the subject, while also pointing out that despite this newfound “first for the door” strategy for purely political reasons, there still is no plan for stabilizing the country by pulling our troops back from the urban areas to seal the borders.