July 25, 2007
Bush to Maliki: Help Me Help You (A.B. Stoddard)
Don't miss the New York Times piece about President Bush and his video huddles with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, where the two men speak of their faith in God, and presumably Bush's faith in Maliki, as he gently tries to prod the man into actually doing what Bush sent tens of thousands of additional troops to Iraq this year to help Maliki accomplish. There is something terribly poignant about Bush hunkered in the bunker of the newly refurbished White House Situation Room urging Maliki to send a message to the region that will help him with his Sunni neighbors — and that will help Bush here at home.
At home Bush could start listening to pained and strained people in his party still defending the war and taking a beating for it. Maybe this could happen on video. But Manu Raju's story in our paper today — that even conservative leaders Grover Norquist and David Keene are urging Bush to articulate that at some point the troops are "leaving" Iraq — sums it up. The story stated that Norquist said if Bush changes nothing it will allow Democrats to charge the strategy isn't working, which resonates with the public.
And then there are those Republican senators who had begun to leave the reservation on Iraq but who stuck by Bush during the Senate all-nighter both parties agreed was a stunt to pacify the pacifists, or assuage the anti-war left, but move no votes. What did they get? Bush changed the standards for benchmarks and Pentagon officials announced they would need an additional 45 days to assess progress in Iraq. Republicans can't wait to go home and tell that to the voters in the hot month of August.
If Bush doesn't throw these Republicans a bone, like he does for Maliki, he could find that Republicans beat Maliki to it, as more defections could ultimately move enough votes. If that happens I imagine it will be hard to get Maliki to answer the video phone.
***
ASK A.B. — Please join me for my weekly Q & A video posts by sending useful, interesting and entertaining questions to askab@thehill.com. We want to talk politics and have a few laughs. Spare us the offensive, unGoogleable, unthinkable or otherwise useless. I look forward to hearing from all of you, often.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 6 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
The only Republicans who came close to abandoning Bush were the one's with the least Republican voting record. "Weak", "Moderate", "Wavering", "Cowards", "RINOS", whatever you want to call them. The hard-line Republicans have to stick with Bush, their base will eat them alive if they abandon him and they will lose to a Democratic challenger. There aren't enough RINOs to make withdrawal filibuster-proof.
There is something pathetic about Bush and Maliki talking about their common faith in God, as it's not the same God by any meaningful definition. I know a lot about the substantive theological differences in this case, for an atheist. It is genuine on the part of Bush, however, because Bush is truly confused, so it's not much of a bone he is throwing. Since Bush does not believe in the timelines for withdrawal, he would be acting in a dishonest fashion if he were to start throwing those kinds of bones, and it will also be the beginning of the end for his cause. Murtha today started one more of his "Machiaveli after a severe brain injury" fishing expeditions to undermine Bush claiming Bush's support twice removed, and he will seize on any sign of weakness. Hence, there won't be any bones. Tony Snow will once again deny any discussions involving surrender.
This is the nature of the situation (from an AP article today):
"Meanwhile, Iraq's ambassador to Washington, Samir Sumaidaie, told reporters Wednesday that he is making a case in Congress and elsewhere for extending the troop increase, despite the shifting political climate.
"Iraqi leaders are acutely aware of the political debate in Washington, that there is the possibility of a change in policy" and a reduction in U.S. troops, Sumaidaie said. "I think it is fair to say they are very concerned about that. Iraqi forces are not yet capable of holding the fort on their own."
Comment by Igor R. — July 25, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
This is why it's important to continue the fight:
"Odierno, the commander in Iraq, was asked last week whether he saw any evidence that the terrorist organization there was trying to leverage its capabilities for attacks outside the country, including in the United States."
"What I know is there is clearly a relationship between al-Qaida in Iraq and al-Qaida leadership in Pakistan or Afghanistan or wherever they are," he told Pentagon reporters. "Al-Qaida in Iraq, I think, is struggling as — with its mission here in Iraq, and currently I think it'd be very difficult for them to export any violence outside of Iraq."
Still, he added, al-Qaida is attempting to create a training area in Iraq, and that's "the biggest threat out of al-Qaida in Iraq."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070725/ap_on_re_mi_ea/al_qaida_in_iraq
Comment by Igor R. — July 25, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
A.B.
If the "blood bath" in Philadelphia (among African-American urban gangs) is completely out of control, how can the same Democrats (who control the police and government of Philadelphia) demand "instant peace" in Iraq, when they can't keep their own black citizens (not in prison) from killing each other? If these "LIBERALS" don't give a rat's ass about black people in America killing each other, than why are they so outraged that American "volunteer" soldiers are dying in the streets of Iraq fighting "absolute evil"?
Comment by David Erlichman — July 25, 2007 @ 8:37 pm
I'll give you a good idea how any convesation between BunnyPants and Maliki goes;
Maliki to Bush: "my people know what you're trying to do."
Bush to Maliki: "if you want our protection and security you will deliver to us the hydrocarbon concessions."
Maliki to Bush: "80% royalty is too high a price to pay for you to take our oil".
Bush to maliki: "you're my whore, as you need my security to live another day. Now go talk to your parliament".
Comment by Chris in NM — July 25, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
AB, 3 percent of the insurgents are Al Qaeda. The 97 percent who are not do not want us to steal their oil. Why, AB do you not factor that in your statements? Your continuing misstatements are shameful talking points. If I were an Iraq guy fighting, it would be no different than the tea party in Boston harbor. Of course, I do not condone the methods of these fighters, but they have the moral authority and we do not. We are fighting an unjust war to steal oil. That was the PNAC wish and that is what we have. And Bush allowed 9/11 to get us into this blatant imperialism. Do you really have to sell your soul to corporate interests AB? I don't for one second believe that you believe what you say. Why don't you comment on your motivations for saying what you say?
And what do you know about 9/11 and about PNAC that the public should know?
Comment by Gary Anderson — July 25, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
Considering their actions, the majority of Congressional Republicans don't deserve a comfortable vacation, and they certainly aren't going to get one. I'm sure I'm not the only one disturbed that Mr. Bush and Mr. Maliki have been discussing what superstitions they believe in when there are so many problems to deal with here in reality, but at least there seems to be more Republicans urging Mr. Bush to at least recognize reality.
Comment by Derek D. — July 26, 2007 @ 11:21 am