Politics Extra: Tomorrow's political notebook today

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Tomorrow's political notebook today

Nearly a year ago, freshman Rep. Jean Schmidt caused an uproar in the U.S. House when she called Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a Marine Corps veteran of Vietnam, a coward in a floor speech.

Saturday, Murtha, a harsh critic of the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq, comes to Cincinnati for some pay-back.

The Pennsylvania Democrat will attend a 12:30 p.m. rally with supporters of Schmidt’s Democratic opponent, Victoria Wulsin of Indian Hill, at the IBEW Hall in East Walnut Hills. In the afternoon, Murtha will join Wulsin at a fundraiser at a private home in Cincinnati.

Last November, after Murtha made headlines by suggesting that it was time for the U.S. to begin pulling back troops from Iraq, Schmidt took the House floor and, quoting a conversation she had that day with State Rep. Danny Bubp, a Marine Corps reserve officer, delivered a message to Murtha: “Cowards cut and run, Marines never do.’’

Bedlam ensued on the House floor, where personal attacks against fellow members are against the rules. Schmidt ended up being the butt of a Saturday Night Live TV skit.

This summer, Murtha sent a fundraising letter to Democrats in 2nd Congressional District, urging them to contribute to Wulsin’s campaign.

Matt Perrin of the Schmidt re-election campaign said bringing Murtha to the 2nd District is “an odd choice.’’

“I don’t think she is going to win any votes bringing John Murtha here,’’ Perrin said. “His opinions on Iraq don’t match the opinions of the people of the district.’’

DeWine ad scrutinized

The Army is reviewing the appearance of a soldier in uniform in a TV ad by Ohio Sen. Mike DeWine.

The soldier wears Army fatigues with “Larkin” on the name tag and stands silently for about two seconds in front of an American flag with what appears to be his wife and two young daughters.

“He fought for increased benefits for military families,” the ad’s announcer says of DeWine as the family is shown.

Unlike still photos of soldiers in combat earlier in the ad, this soldier appears to have been filmed specifically for the ad.

Defense Department instructions prohibit members of the armed forces from wearing their uniform while participating in partisan political activity, said department spokesman Maj. Stewart Upton.

“I have forwarded this matter over to the Army Public Affairs for review and possible comment/action,” Upton said in an e-mail. “All military personnel, including National Guard and reserve forces, are prohibited from wearing military uniforms at political campaign or election events.”

Army spokesman Paul Boyce said he had received the inquiry and lawyers would review it.
The issue was first reported Tuesday by the liberal political blog Talking Points Memo. DeWine, a two-term Republican, is in a close race with Democrat Sherrod Brown.

DeWine spokesman Brian Seitchik declined to give information about the soldier, except that he is a real soldier, not an actor. He said the appearance did not violate military regulations.

“Soldiers have been shown in political ads forever,” Seitchik said. “This soldier was not asked to do an endorsement and did not do one.”

11 Comments:

at 5:24 AM, October 12, 2006

Anonymous said...

Dear Jean Schmidt,

Let me make sure that I understand your position on the war in Iraq. If I'm not mistaken, you believe that Congressman John Murtha's position on the war in Iraq does not reflect the opinions of most of the people who live in our Congressional District. I disagree. And I am in a position to do that for two reasons.

First, I've met thousands of people (Democrats, Republicans and Independents) who live in our district and many of them have shared their opinions with me. Many of the people that I've met disagree with you.

Secondly, Jack Murtha is the voice and the face of the American soldier in the US House of Representatives. More than 20 years ago, I lived in a small town in Southwestern Pennsylvania and Jack Murtha was my Congressman. He was once opposed in a primary election by a liberal lawyer from his district because many of his views were thought to be too conservative for his district. Jack Murtha, in that primary, fought and barely won the most impressive victory of his political life.

During his tenure in the US House of Representatives, he has gained the respect of Democrats AND Republicans, not only in the House of Representatives and the Senate, but also in the White House. Jack Murtha is a man who fought for his nation and received the Bronze Star, TWO Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Medallion of Gallantry. He is an American hero and he has put his life on the line for people like you and me many, many times. Jack Murtha is a Congressman who never saw a defense program or weapon that he didn't like. He has been an open and vocal advocate of the protection of every American soldier time and time again. This is a man who visits soldiers in VA hospitals and who visits soldier's graves in Arlington Cemetery in his spare time. When Marine Colonel, John P. Murtha says that it is time to change the course in Iraq, then it is time to change the course in Iraq.

I work in healthcare and learned many years ago that you listen to the experts before jumping to conclusions and making erroneous decisions. There is no person in the United States House of Representatives who is more of an expert on military affairs and protecting the lives of American soldiers than Marine Colonel John P. Murtha.

Today, October 12th, 2006, there are nearly 140,000 American soldiers in Iraq. The White House, yesterday projected that American troop levels will be sustained there until at least 2010. At that rate, at least 2,500 more American soldiers will lose their lives in this conflict before it is even projected to be over. And honestly, I believe that this is a conservative projection. Is this a price that America is willing to pay to sustain a war effort that was poorly planned, has been under-manned, and has no end in sight? Every American soldier who loses his life on the battlefields of Iraq will leave people that he or she loves behind. On Sundays in every church in our district the priest or reverend or minister prays for the safe return of our soldiers. I say that it's about time that the United States Congress gets some sense knocked into itself and starts to resolve this conflict instead of hiding behind comments like the one you made in your debate against Paul Hackett in Adams County last year. That was when you said, and I quote you, "if we don't fight the terrorists on their shores than we will have to fight them on ours". This is nothing more than political rhetoric, fuel for campaigns. It has nothing to do with solutions or protecting the lives of every American soldier. Jean, the amount of energy that has been placed into effective homeland security is inadequate. Not even local police departments and fire departments in our district have enough funding. Murderers have walked into schools and killed innocent children throughout our country in recent weeks. Hospitals do not have adequate funding to serve as the first stop for people to turn to in the event of a bio-terrorism attack. (At the same time that YOU are allowing Medicare and Medicaid to literally be given away to the insurance companies of the United States of America). If there was ever a time to change the US Congress, it is right now.

Jean Schmidt, many years ago, Jack Murtha was my Congressman. I voted for Jack Murtha and Jean Schmidt, you are no Jack Murtha.

To the people of the 2nd Congressional District of Ohio, I have one thing to say... "Let's send a message to Washington. Let's tell the politicians in Washington to quit playing politics with the lives of American soldiers and let's start solving the problems that we have in America (and the world) today".

Jim Parker, Former Democratic Candidate for US Congress
Souther Ohio - 2nd District - 2005 & 2006

at 6:14 AM, October 12, 2006

Anonymous said...

Jim Parker, the Democratic Party is lucky to have people like you in it. Excellent message!

at 11:18 AM, October 12, 2006

Anonymous said...

you, mr. parker, are a nutjob. Your views, along with dr. vicky's are exactly why you won't win. your ideas don't work and don't match the views of the majority of Ohio's 2nd district.

at 12:33 PM, October 12, 2006

Anonymous said...

MAYBE VICKIE COULD GET SADDAM H. FREED FOR A FUND RAISER IN INDIAN HILL FOR HER!!!
THAT WOULD REALLY GET HER LOTS OF VOTES!!!

at 12:39 PM, October 12, 2006

Anonymous said...

you, mr. parker, are a nutjob

Name calling. I expected no less from one of Schmidt's supporters.

at 1:05 PM, October 12, 2006

Anonymous said...

Man, wouldn't that be nice. We could sure use Saddam Hussein running Iraq right now.

at 4:27 PM, October 12, 2006

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:05,

That is exactly why we need to elect someone like John Cranley to Congress.

If Democrats get the majority, they will defund the war. Our troops will leave Iraq and have to negotiate terms of surrender. Certainly, bringing back Saddam will be part of that. He is the only one who can unify Iraq.

at 7:20 PM, October 12, 2006

Anonymous said...

Looks like James Baker agrees with Murtha. So perhaps the ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments of "Stay and Die" supporters really don't reflect reality, rather they reflect the unreality of the 24/7 far right media empires.

http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=41371

Baker's Panel Rules Out Iraq Victory
BY ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
October 12, 2006
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/41371

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

WASHINGTON — A commission formed to assess the Iraq war and recommend a new course has ruled out the prospect of victory for America, according to draft policy options shared with The New York Sun by commission officials.

Currently, the 10-member commission — headed by a secretary of state for President George H.W. Bush, James Baker — is considering two option papers, "Stability First" and "Redeploy and Contain," both of which rule out any prospect of making Iraq a stable democracy in the near term.

More telling, however, is the ruling out of two options last month. One advocated minor fixes to the current war plan but kept intact the long-term vision of democracy in Iraq with regular elections. The second proposed that coalition forces focus their attacks only on Al Qaeda and not the wider insurgency.

Instead, the commission is headed toward presenting President Bush with two clear policy choices that contradict his rhetoric of establishing democracy in Iraq. The more palatable of the two choices for the White House, "Stability First," argues that the military should focus on stabilizing Baghdad while the American Embassy should work toward political accommodation with insurgents. The goal of nurturing a democracy in Iraq is dropped.

The option papers, which sources inside the commission have stressed are still being amended and revised as the panel wraps up its work, give a clearer picture of what Mr. Baker meant in recent interviews when he called for a course adjustment.

They also shed light on what is at stake in the coming 2 1/2 months for the Iraqi government. The "Redeploy and Contain" option calls for the phased withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq, though the working groups have yet to say when and where those troops will go. The document, read over the telephone to the Sun, says America should "make clear to allies and others that U.S. redeployment does not reduce determination to attack terrorists wherever they are." It also says America's top priority should be minimizing American casualties in Iraq.

Both Mr. Baker and his Democratic co-commissioner, Lee Hamilton, have said for nearly a month that the coming weeks and months are crucial for the elected body in Baghdad. More recently, Mr. Baker has said he is leaning against counseling the president to withdraw from Iraq.

Mr. Bush yesterday spoke approvingly of his father's old campaign manager and top diplomat, saying he looked forward to seeing "what Jimmy Baker and Lee Hamilton have to say about getting the job done."

The president also said he was not averse to changing tactics. But he repeated that the strategic goal in Iraq is to build "a country which can defend itself, sustain itself, and govern itself." He added, "The strategic goal is to help this young democracy succeed in a world in which extremists are trying to intimidate rational people in order to topple moderate governments and to extend the caliphate."

But the president's strategic goal is at odds with the opinion of Mr. Baker's expert working groups, which dismiss the notion of victory in Iraq. The "Stability First" paper says, "The United States should aim for stability particularly in Baghdad and political accommodation in Iraq rather than victory."

Mr. Baker in recent days has subtly been sounding out this theme with interviewers. On PBS's "Charlie Rose Show," Mr. Baker was careful to say he believed the jury was still out on whether Iraq was a success or a failure. But he also hastened to distinguish between a Middle East that was "democratic" and one that was merely "representative."

"If we are able to promote representative, representative government, not necessarily democracy, in a number of nations in the Middle East and bring more freedom to the people of that part of the world, it will have been a success," he said.

That distinction is crucial, according to one member of the expert working groups. "Baker wants to believe that Sunni dictators in Sunni majority states are representative," the group member, who requested anonymity, said.

Both option papers would compel America to open dialogue with Syria and Iran, two rogue states that Iraqi leaders and American military commanders say are providing arms and funds to Iraq's insurgents. "Stabilizing Iraq will be impossible without greater cooperation from Iran and Syria," the "Stability First" paper says.

The option also calls on America to solicit aid and support from the European Union and the United Nations, though both bodies in the past have spurned requests for significant aid for Iraq.

Because of the politically explosive topic of the Baker commission, the panel has agreed not to release its findings until after the November 7 elections. The commission, formally known as the Iraq Study Group, was created by Congress in legislation sponsored by Rep. Frank Wolf, a Republican of Virginia and close confidant of Mr. Bush's. Mr. Baker has said he will likely present the panel's findings in December.

Okay Stay and Die crew, what say you now?

at 7:24 PM, October 12, 2006

Anonymous said...

Hey Rick does that mean that your 54 year old body is serving in Iraq? How about your sons?

at 6:54 AM, October 13, 2006

Anonymous said...

To the individual who chose to anonomously and publicly insult me. You are entitled to your opinion and have every right to express it. That's one of the founding principles in this country. Just like Jean Schmidt called Jack Murtha a coward. Lots of name calling going on these days.

However, let me explain something to you. I am not running for any elective office. And, I am not a member of Doctor Wulsin's political campaign team. I am just a person who lives in our Congressional District who sees so clearly that we are in desperate need of a change in this country. And, in just a few days, you will see that I am not alone in my opinion.

I hope that Doctor Wulsin does win in 2006 because I know that she will never rubber stamp any decision in the United States House of Representatives, no matter who tries to force her to do so. She will always represent all people who live and raise their families in Ohio. And she will never place the life of an American soldier in harm's way unless it is an only and last resort.

To imply that Dr. Wulsin, or myself, or anybody would ever want to see Saddam Hussein restored to power is absolutely ridiculuous. Another groundless insult...

Now friend, I want you to think about some things. More American citizens have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan than the number of people who died in four plane crashes and the collapse of buildings on September 11th. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with September 11th. Saddam Hussein did not have any nuclear weapons. (Remember, the ONLY reason that we invaded Iraq was "to get the weapons". Those were the President's words.) And now, after the deaths and injuries of thousands upon thousands of American soldiers, Iraq has become a training ground for future terrorists.

I have met friends and families of fallen and injured soldiers. I have stood with my wife and children at the crash site of Flight 93. I have been to chapels where the American dead have been honored. September 11th was a terrible day in history. The pain that of that one day is terrible and tragic event in American history. Until you have stood where I have stood and seen what I have seen, do not ever imply that I am a person who does not believe in my country again.

And as for Congressman Murtha, his opinion is shared by generals on the ground in Iraq and defense experts who are at the highest levels of our government. He is not alone. Just like the American soldiers who were with him on that hill in a foreign land were not alone so many years ago when he nearly lost his life while guaranteeing the safety of his fellow soldiers.

Not every Democrat can be labeled a liberal. That is what makes the Democratic Party strong. Their is strength in our diversity.

Jim Parker
Former Democratic Candidate for US Congress
Southern Ohio - 2nd District - 2005 & 2006

at 11:29 AM, October 14, 2006

Anonymous said...

Americans in 2000 may have thought foreign policy experience not terribly germain, however the article below hightlights just one example of why foreign policy and military experience should be the norm, not the exception in our elected leaders.

A CONVERSATION WITH JOHN KERRY INTERVIEW BY BOB WOODWARD

Sunday, October 15, 2006; B04

In the months before the 2004 presidential election, The Washington Post's Bob Woodward sought to interview Sen. John F. Kerry, the Democratic nominee, about how he might have conducted foreign policy in the 18 months between Sept. 11, 2001, and the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. For his book "Plan of Attack," Woodward had interviewed President Bush on how and why he made decisions during that same period. Woodward gave the Kerry campaign a list of 22 questions based on Bush's actions, asking how Kerry would have responded at each key decision point if he had been president. Kerry declined the interview at the time. More than a year later, on March 7, Kerry agreed to be interviewed by Woodward and answer the 22 questions. Below is an edited version of their two-hour conversation .

ON PLANNING FOR WAR

John Kerry: Let me start at the beginning, because if I were president and we had been attacked as we were attacked on 9/11, I would have, first of all, created a kind of war cabinet similar to what other presidents have done historically, going back to Roosevelt and others. . . .

Now, you may have an executive committee within that . . . like President Kennedy did. But your war cabinet itself needs to be especially plugged in . . . so the right questions are on the table and the right questions are asked and the right discussion takes place. I mean, if you go back and look at Eisenhower, Eisenhower is smart in that he played less than fully briefed, so to speak, and he would let the staff fight it out in front of him and not let on what he believed or where he wanted to go. I think it's particularly important presidentially not to indicate your policy right up front unless there's such a clarity to it. For instance, in response to 9/11, there's clarity. We've got to go kill al-Qaeda. . . . In fact, I would have thought about starting that war differently.

Bob Woodward: In what way?

I believe that during that particular period of time you knew that they [the Taliban and al-Qaeda] had bad habits. They didn't believe that we would necessarily invade. . . . That is an enormous advantage with which to begin any planning. So they are running around in caravans, which we can see from technical means. They're talking on cellphones, which we can follow with technical means. It gave us time to put assets on the ground.

There are all kinds of things that we could have done with respect to pinpointing their whereabouts.

This is after 9/11?

Absolutely. And my instincts would have been much more inclined to have used feint as subterfuge to indicate you might be doing one thing when you're really doing another. . . . I would have been inclined to have used a greater covert effort to put the pressure on Osama bin Laden, at which point I would have been prepared to move major track divisions into position, whether it's the 101st, the 10th Mountain Division, 82nd Airborne, etc.

. . . Now, I know we had SEALs at Tora Bora. And they wanted to go. I mean, who wouldn't have wanted to go get Osama bin Laden?

[T]he bottom line is there wasn't even a sufficient strategy to do that. I would have guaranteed there was. Period.

What would you have said to your central commander, who's the guy on the ground, about planning for an Iraq war?

First of all, I would have had enough people around who understand and define to me adequately the nature of the threat that we now face. . . . And that requires a pretty extensive outreach effort which includes, in my judgment, not just the Joint Chiefs of Staff and your national security adviser and your intelligence director, but it really includes. . . . President George Herbert Walker Bush, President Jimmy Carter, President Bill Clinton, you know, President Ford, Brent Scowcroft, Zbig Brzezinski, Jim Baker, George Shultz. I mean, you start running the list. I would have had all of those people to some evening sessions, sat up there in the Yellow Room and sat around and said, "What are we facing here? What are the challenges? What's the most important thing we do? How do we win?" Once you define the war on terror, then you can really understand what you've got to do. I think these guys rushed to a definition of the war, saw it the way they wanted to see it, clouded by ideology, and then went out and made people do things accordingly. . . .

It's incomprehensible to me. I mean look -- go back to that period. On that November 21st date [Nov. 21, 2001, when Bush first asked Rumsfeld to look at the war plan for an attack on Iraq], we had not yet fought Tora Bora. . . . We were deep in Afghanistan with an enormous priority to kill al-Qaeda. And we also had a very tentative Pakistan that was fragile, which was a country with nuclear weapons, which we were just moving to the place of sort of participation with America. . . . So my instinct, absent evidence of intelligence, would not have been to ask the secretary of defense for war plans on Iraq. I would have said, "Do we have sufficient troops on the ground to trap Osama bin Laden?" . . . It would not have moved me to take the eye off of Osama bin Laden and the fundamental goal, which was destroying al-Qaeda. . . .

You would have gone to Bush's father, even?

Oh, absolutely. You kidding? I would have said, "Come down here and spend the evening at the White House. Let's talk. I want to talk to you. Tell me about your decision. Tell me all the things that went through your head when you were thinking about going into Iraq and you made the decision finally not to go."

In August '02, Powell asked for a two-hour dinner alone with Bush. Condi Rice is there and he says, "The consequences have not been fully examined and if you invade . . . 'you break it, you own it.'" What would you have done at that moment, if you were president?

If I were president and my secretary of state came to me and said, "Mr. President, you're on a bad track," I would slow the baby down and find out if I was on a bad track. Or I'd fire my secretary of state. . . . I mean, if a guy with Colin Powell's credentials who's been chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who'd risen up through service to other presidents, who's been to war, and who is your chosen secretary of state, came to me and said that, I'd say, "Okay. What do we need to do? Where are we? What are the downsides? What haven't we done?"

ON THE "AXIS OF EVIL"

Do you think that the idea of lumping North Korea, Iran and Iraq together is, from a policy point of view, possible or wise, as Bush did in his 2002 State of the Union?

No, it's neither wise nor possible because they are different challenges, different cultures, different historical backgrounds to those challenges. And in the case of the Middle East, we really had an opportunity post-9/11. This is what I think was so important. This is what I saw staring us in the face as I went through 2004 . . . a remarkable opportunity to reconnect to the post-9/11 goodwill of the world, which in my judgment this administration squandered. And that goodwill was perhaps one of our greatest assets. Had we taken that goodwill and built it into a larger strategic concept -- I mean, you can go back to Woodrow Wilson. . . . And then you go to Roosevelt. You go to Kennedy . . . and Eisenhower. They all had a larger strategic concept, which -- this is important -- had the ability to bring the world to our side.

Bush thought this was a strategic concept.

This was an ideological concept, not a strategic concept. . . .

I mean, this is what I would have wanted in first discussions. What are we up against? What is this all about? Did these guys just attack us because this is part of Osama bin Laden's strategy for a greater caliphate in the Middle East, or are they attacking us for other reasons? . . . And it seems to me that the transformational aspects of it require a much more massive kind of public diplomacy, global cooperation on religious issues as well as on economic issues and human rights and other issues, as it did the barrel of a gun. These guys could only see it in the context of the military piece.

ON POSTWAR PLANNING

[I]t wasn't really until three months before the war starts that Bush got involved in aftermath planning. And the question is, when do you start, even if you're contemplating war, which clearly they are, when do you start the ball rolling on aftermath?

Day One. And that is not a Monday morning quarterback comment. That is such a fundamental prerequisite to the concept of contemplating going to war, particularly where you are going to occupy another country. One of the first questions, I'd sit there with a bunch of people at the table, I'd say, "Okay, assuming we go into Iraq, what happens after?" Nobody ever doubted this was going to be short and we were going to win. So we knew we were going to win, so once we're in Baghdad, what happens? Who's going to run the country? Will there be electricity? What are the war plans? Can we protect the pipelines on the oil? What's the ability to make sure people have food? Are you going to guard the ammo dump so you make sure there isn't looting?

Remember when Rumsfeld said, "Oh, looting happens."

"Stuff happens."

I was stunned by that. And I said they're going to rue the day that they allowed this stuff to get out of control because they sent a message, "No control." And our kids were being blown up by the very weapons that they didn't even think about securing on the way in. There should have been an elaborate -- in fact it was an elaborate plan and they chose to ignore it. Colin Powell and the State Department had a fairly elaborate plan and I've talked to people who are involved in the making of it.

ON DONALD RUMSFELD

In November-December '02, Rumsfeld's making major force deployments to the area but he says we can't do a big one because it will tell the world diplomacy is over. And he said, "We're sending these forces and they're going to be in top fighting shape for about two or three months but then it will start to degrade." Your reaction?

One of incredulity that a president would even allow that argument to be persuasive and that a secretary of defense would make it in the first place. And shame on all of them for that. That is insulting to Americans and to all of us, the notion that you have to send people to war simply because you put them there. This is just, you know, it was their rush to war.

And then when Rumsfeld in January started telling the president, "You're losing your options." And you know, you get to a point where we're asking our allies, particularly the Saudis, to make commitments and it's not feasible to back off.

Well, you could always back off it if you haven't committed the troops and there's a reason to back off. I mean, if you don't have intelligence to go to war and you go to war for weapons of mass destruction, you damn well can say, "I'm not giving the order to fire." What is the shame in going back and saying, "We have new intelligence that indicates something different and I intend as president to exercise my responsibility to the world and to our troops to make sure we've exhausted that."

Do you get in a bind, though, where to credibly threaten force you have to deploy all kinds of troops and then once you've deployed them you get into --

The purpose of the deployment of the troops is to get the weapons of mass destruction under control. If at the last moment something indicates to you either there aren't weapons of mass destruction or you have a way to get them under control, you don't use the troops and you don't have to. I mean, those are the tough judgments. Look, what are you going to do? "Oh, gee. We're locked in. We don't have sufficient evidence but I'm going to send this kid from Illinois to die anyway?"

ON DOUBTS

Can a president afford to have doubt in a time of war?

Well, you better have your doubts before the war. And you better explore every doubt before the war. But once you've committed, you better not have a doubt. You better know what you're doing and you better be committed to winning and do everything in your power to do that.

Do you think they had a process of doubt?

No. Clearly they didn't, and that's a reflection of the president.

But Bush says, when I asked him earlier, I said, "You never get everyone to agree on the use of force."

I'm not looking for everybody's agreement. You're never going to get everybody to agree.

What are you looking for?

What I'm looking for is the broadest possible vetting and examination. And let the debate take place in front of me and I'll make my judgment. But nobody will have any doubt that every question was asked. Nobody will have any doubt that the alternative theories were examined, that history was examined, that culture was examined, religion was understood, that the dynamics of the region were explored, that people who've lived there have been inquired of. When I get to that decision I can explain it and there's only one rationale, not a whole bunch of shifting rationales. That's the way you take a nation to war.

ON HISTORY'S VERDICT

I asked Bush in December '03, "How do you think history's going to judge your war?" And that's when he said, "We don't know. We won't know. We'll all be dead."

I think history nowadays judges things much more rapidly, number one. And number two, certain things lend themselves to pretty rapid judgment. Vietnam is an example of that. . . . And history is going to judge this very, very, very rapidly, I think.

And severely?

I think history is going to be very, very tough on not just the way the war has been managed, but on the way in which the decision to go to war was carried out. It's going to be a low moment . . . in the presidency in history.

Disturbingly we now know from Woodward's third book on the Bush administration is that candidate Bush in 1997 stated He had no foreign policy opinions.

One of the more troubling subplots running through "State of Denial" involves Prince Bandar, the longtime Saudi ambassador to the United States. By Woodward's account, when then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush decided to run for president, his worried father enlisted Bandar, an old family friend, to tutor the son on foreign policy. When Bandar arrived in Austin, the younger Bush blithely observed that although he had lots of ideas about domestic policies, he didn't have a clue about foreign affairs. The Saudi took him under his wing, but Bush proved a trying pupil, who addressed his mentor as "asshole" and "smart aleck." At one point, the younger Bush peevishly demanded to know why he needed "to care about North Korea." Bandar pointed out that, if he became president, he would have 35,000 American troops sitting on the demilitarized zone.

Later, Bandar bullied the president into endorsing a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by threatening a total cutoff of Saudi support for U.S. policies. (Bush may never have played poker, but Bandar obviously has.) In another instance, the Saudi prince demanded — and, worse, obtained — two CIA officials to accompany him on a wild goose chase to Pakistan, where he hoped to kill bin Laden. During a meeting in the Oval Office, according to Woodward, Bush personally thanked Bandar because the Saudis had flooded the world oil market and kept prices down in the run-up to the 2004 general election.

Previous Posts

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Tomorrow's political notebook today

11 Comments: