I'm not sure, but it is a fascinating question. I'm betting Hersh is right and he stays the course, being as arrogant with the moderates in his own party as he was with the Democrats. And I think most of them will go down with him; it's too late to throw him overboard. I'll definitely be watching.
--Rick Taylor
Posted by Rick Taylor at November 27, 2005 11:47 PMI hope Seymour's wrong about how crazy Bush is, but I don't believe for a second that there will be anything more than token troop reductions before the elections. And the Iraq situation will get worse.
I see two scenarios.
The Democrats stnad to retake both Houses. Faced with a catastrophe in Iraq, when the new Congress convenes they will force the war to an end, by whatever means available (e.g., cut off funding).
But the second scenario may gum up the works: Cheney will be forced to resign before the election. Bush will appoint his successor. At best, the Republican leadership may be able to influence Bush's choice. In any case, the Democrats will be be facing a Hobson's choice: Confirm a new VP who may then stand a good chance of being elected in 2008, or stall/fillibuster, leaving a vacuum of leadership in a crisis.
Posted by Libby Sosume at November 28, 2005 12:36 AMMost GOP incumbents will likely hold off ditching Dubya until after the spring Congressional session. They'll be hoping that most folks will forget their votes during that session before the summer recess. Oh, they'll be real righteous about voting against Administration proposals in the run up to the elections in the fall 2006, but they'll have committed the nation to the cataract by their votes on spending and taxes in the spring. Basically, they'll want to have it both ways.
Posted by PrahaPartizan at November 28, 2005 04:12 AMThe problem is that we still have a voting system that's unverifiable. If you chuck the notion that the Democrats can win back either side of Congress, Dubya's sitting pretty until 2008, and possibily longer.
The only saving grace would be if fraud is committed on such a level in 2006 that's undeniable and easily prosecutable. I have my doubts that the national attention span could sustain the effort required of real voting & election reform. After all, we're fighting just to keep New Orleans in the public eye 120 days after the disaster.
Posted by idiosynchronic at November 28, 2005 04:18 AMDeclare pretend victory, pretend to retreat -- the US cannot leave those permanent military bases, all that oil, and dreams of a rearranged map in the Middle East.
George W Bush is not stupid. Molly Ivins says he 'loves politics, hates governing.' He simply appears stupid because what he cares about, we don't, and vice-versa. He's great at playing groups and individuals off against one another, but seems to have little interest in actual policies or their larger impact on people.
As with all thing Bush this is all about appearances and illusions. Watch the smoke and mirrors campaign. This group of people LIES with impugnity and no one holds them accountable for the lies. I mean really just who is going to actually dispute it when a Bushco spokesman/woman sez we have drawn down x numbers of troops, or x number of Iraqi's have been trained. Or even if it is disputed they get away with it, the democrats and others don't say or do anything about it. Even the few times they come before congress under oathe and lie (Abu Ghraib) nothing ever happens to those that do. Yes and just who is checking how many sorties have been flown and how many tons of bombs have been dropped to date? There has been little if any oversight to date (by the congress and media here) and the little oversight that is done is controlled by Republicans who are more than willing to cover up all things gone bad. If Hurricane Katrina taught us anything the media if it has access and cameras in a 30 second video can totally annihalate the delusional rose colored talking points of a Bush spokesman with a true dose of reality. But that doesn't happen in Iraq unfortunately.
I say Hersh is probably correct. Too much money is at stake here for the greedy military industrial complex owners that make up Bush's cabinet and party. There will be (as another poster said) a token draw-down, most likely exaggerated and heralded in a series of photo op by Bushco...but the majority of troops will be staying. You don't plan to build 13 permanent bases if you're leaving the country. Btw, has there been any oversight of that construction?
Sorry for the long post...but watch what they do, don't listen to what they say.
And lastly, after reading Hersh's article about how upset many military leaders in this country are, you wonder if there would ever be a military coup in this country?
Posted by emal at November 28, 2005 04:56 AMBush is—or at least has been—politically clever, but it may just be the judicious application of hammer blows by a guy who hasn't confronted any non-nail situations. The American public's appetite for thoughtless jingoism, though prodigious, is probably not limitless; if Bush is to get back in step, he will have to change course.
Up until now, Bush has dared naysayers to change course in games of political chicken, and has reaped his rewards by appearing less timid. The Dems have already changed course this time; can Bush play this game differently than what he knows? We shall see.
Posted by dj moonbat at November 28, 2005 05:12 AMI don't think people's view of a former President's legacy takes into consideration how many seats he lost for his party in mid-term elections. Legacies are based on different criteria mostly. Bush won't care about his party's losses next year, or any other year going forward. That's not what he'll be remembered for.
Posted by matthew at November 28, 2005 05:20 AMI think Bush's hand will be forced here. The military is increasingly concerned about the impact Iraq is having on its overall readiness, and wants significant troop reductions. If that means fudging the facts about progress in Iraq to convince Bush that his "course" is working well enough to signficantly reduce the number of troops in Iraq, that will happen.
Posted by p.lukasiak at November 28, 2005 06:06 AMWhat excellent posts/thoughts!
And what a blessing to be free of trollery for once.
I, too, cannot believe that Bushco can abandon those dreams of permanent bases "protecting" the oil fields. No way.
Posted by euzoius at November 28, 2005 06:09 AMIf this generation's David Halberstam writes the definitive history of the Iraq War, I suspect we'll learn that the reasons were varied and different groups had different primary reasons. But I believe the Rove/Bush side of it saw one thing in light of what happened after 9/11 -- a guaranteed way to keep Bush's rating high and ensure his re-election. Remember, as little as three years ago, they were talking about perpetual war -- one cakewalk after another into Syria, Iran, who knows where.
Now all that has turned to shit. So the Bush/Rove view, I suspect, is still political -- what's best for Bush politically. And what's best for Bush is to ensure success in congressional elections next year and to not appear to be weighed down in a Lyndon Johnson-like quagmire. Thus, an exit strategy.
However, I think they can have their cake and eat it too. They can appear to withdraw without really withdrawing. They can pull a Nixon like withdrawal -- pulling out some or even most troops but stepping up bombing-- and stay there as long as politically necessary.
Steve, I guess I don't buy the messianic view of Bush. I've never bought that mission from God stuff about him anyway. That was just food for the red state rubes. Arrogant, uninformed, insulated. Sure. But always political. In fact, political above all else.
And I think a withdrawal strategy even as outlined by Biden will garner the right kinds of headlines to lull the public into feeling better about the war and getting the press to drool about how he has bounced back.
I remember the Nixon era. As the draft became a lottery, as fewer Americans were sent to Vietnam, and as the air war intensified, I think the public themselves became pretty much "pacified," if you will. Nixon didn't win a super landslide in the election of '72 for nothing.
Posted by Phil from New York at November 28, 2005 06:35 AMIf my heating bills this winter are as high as they say they're going to be, and my Republican neighbors bills go up as much, I think northern Republicans may be forcing Bush to walk the plank by spring. Unless they find some way to blame it on the Democrats.
Posted by NealB at November 28, 2005 07:38 AMLet's think about this. Bush has always been a failure because he doesn't care about other people's reality, in fact he may not even be aware. It's slowly sinking in, though, that he's got to do something Bold, again - anything BOLD! But new wars are out, another 911 would make him look bad and that whole Social Security/taxes thing has to wait till post-2006. What's a beleagured guy to do? Bingo! Blame it on someone else! Let Cheney go back to Halliburton and take all the blame with him. Bush can take over all Cheney's Big Time operation and do things they way he's always wanted to! And bring in Condi as VP 'cuz she's good at doing whatever he asks and she can run it and it'll piss off Hitlery, too. This plan is Bold!
Of course, I'm the guy who said Bush wouldn't make it 24 hours after his first inauguration so Cheney could take his rightful place as President Big Time, all while blaming the unfortunate incident on tree-hugging whacko feminazi liberals. Guess he didn't plan on the shrub getting so uppity. But Dick, maybe it's not too late - you do control the Secret Service by now, don't you?
You may be assuming Bush has too much control of any of this. It is always the unpredictables that end up steering things. If Rove is indicted, that leaves Bush without direction and we are back with Katrina-Brownie style Bush, who is vulnerable. If not, we get pit bull Bush who smears all enemies with religious vigor and admits no errors. Both scenarios also assume that Iraq remains a steady stream as it has been. That could take a wild turn and overturn everything. There are also the unknown Iran- North Korea wildcards, and the EU anger over the secret prisons and Falluja, the AlJazeera bombing, more Jordan-style blowback attacks, Abramhoff investigations, British support collapsing, etc. They can talk about withdrawal now to placate the masses, but until it happens I wouldn't start celebrating.
Posted by coal_train at November 28, 2005 03:08 PM