POLITICS: Republicans Criticize Bush 'Mistakes' on Iraq

In a surprising move key members of the Republican party have gone on record criticizing President Bush on Iraq. Citing numerous mistakes and "incompetence" they have called for the launching of a ground offensive to quell the insurgents. In particular, the Senators felt that Bush should be more open with the American public about the problems Iraq. This comes on the heals of a recently disclosed CIA report that painted a gloomy picture. Sen. John McCain indicated that "We made serious mistakes" by our failure to prevent looting, not securing the borders, and allowing insurgents to dig in and establish strongholds.



Senator McCain has indicated that a ground offensive is needed to clear out such hot areas like Falluja. He further indicated that unless the insurgents are quelled, he agreed with other lawmakers that elections would be pointless. Senator Joe Biden, a Democrat, has stated the President has delayed the offensive so as not to hurt his presidential campaign. John Kerry has also recently stepped up attacks on the President over Iraq. While criticism of a President from within his party may be rare, it is almost unheard of to do so during a tight presidential campaign. This may underscore the critical nature of what is at stake in Iraq .

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
TOP STORY: Bush Warns of Worsening Violence in Iraq, Afghanistan
ABUSE CRISIS: 9 Billion Dollars in Iraqi Oil Revenue Missing

[edit on 19-9-2004 by FredT]

Discussing this very issue on increasing criticsim of Bush on Iraq (including Republicans), here's a patented Novak bombshell (IMHO) from Capital Gang yesterday.

CNN Transcript (Guest Rep. House Majority Whip Roy Blunt )
BOB NOVAK, CAPITAL GANG: Well, let me say that the business of not leveling with the people and not telling the truth -- that is the Democratic spin right now. In every speech, he didn't level on Medicare, he didn't level on so-and-so. That's the talking points. They didn't level with the American -- you're going to -- they think that's going to work. It may work. The Democrats think it's going to -- it may not.

SHIELDS: Is it true?

NOVAK: No. No, let me tell you what I think about -- about this -- I think there's a lot of blather from both candidates on Iraq. I think that Kerry is completely incoherent on Iraq. He goes in several ways. I think that President Bush is putting out a best-case scenario. I think whoever is elected is going to have to pull out of Iraq. I don't think there's any doubt...

SHIELDS: So it is a disaster.

NOVAK: It isn't a disaster because I think that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was, in the long run, a good thing and a valuable thing. I just believe that this is a very problematical country, and they're going to have -- I think you got to let them try to find their own solution in time. I think they're going to have a successful election, and they're going to have a government. And try to hope they do the best they can. We can't stay there forever, though.

SHIELDS: Margaret Carlson, we got 2,500 attacks on Americans a month now. That's four times as many as we had last spring, before the turnover. And we've got 35 Iraqi cities or provinces that are under control of the terrorists and insurgents. I mean...

MARGARET CARLSON, CAPITAL GANG: And Americans can't go in there. And I think the administration is trying to avoid places like Fallujah because if he goes there before the election, it's going to make the war look like much more of a disaster than it already does.

Bob, I'm glad to hear you acknowledge this. Everything...

NOVAK: What did I acknowledge?

CARLSON: That we're going to have to...

NOVAK: Did I use the word "disaster"?

CARLSON: ... pull out of Iraq because we're not going to get out of there what the president intended. We're just not going to...

NOVAK: Well, you're making -- you're making a partisan thing out of it, so don't attribute it to me!

Let me repeat the bombshell:

NOVAK: I think whoever is elected is going to have to pull out of Iraq. I don't think there's any doubt...

Say what you will about Bob (and I often do), he has big ears and is frequently utilized to float fundamental policy (shifts and all).

It's all relevant because they were discussing the latest Republican criticism on President Bush when "withdrawl" came up. And the House Majority Whip Roy Blunt was flanking Novak's left during this exchange and didn't say so much as "boo." The three other commentators noticed the comment (obviously), but were so eager to make politics out of it they missed the big picture.

We get signals from W (any President really) alot of ways. Perhaps the least reliable of which for this President has been in his direct public addresses. Now Bush did come out and say expect things to get worse, like you linked FredT. And we could just say the naysayers in the President's party are doing a bit of CYA to not be on the wrong side of an issue (or new President) come their next campaign.

But I think more is happening, and nothing like I've ever speculated before. I've been of the opinion Bush or Rumsfeld or whoever is in charge here has merely been backing down to the insurgents lately and giving up cities because he wants to keep Iraq out of the news until after the election.

But increasingly, the groundwork may be being made from within his own party and media operatives to do something even more drastic.

Pull out of Iraq.

The Novak assertion that it matter not who is President adds a political component, I haven't quite grasped though. In the alternate scenarios of each candidate in office...

If President Bush pulls out, I'd would be hard for his tried and true "Republican no matter what" backers to be upset (despite 4 years of supporting cowboy nation building). I mean they just don't turn on Bush easily. And it would be equally as hard for liberals to criticise the action of withdrawl, though Bush certainly for flip flopping, but what else is new? The bi-partisan suport then would render a Bush retreat as "a dignified withdrawl" having attained at least one of the stated "honorable" goals of removing Saddam.

Of course in the reverse, if President Kerry were to pull out, the same people that would support Bush doing so would take up arms to the White House. That's just the partisan angle of it.

Disinfo or not from front line RNC voices, it's all quite mullable.

Something's up FredT. What's going on with your people on the right?

Setting us up for an "honorable failure" perhaps?

"Setting us up for an "honorable failure" perhaps?"

How can removing a tyrant who endorsed the torture and killings of countless innocents (women in rape chambers and children murdered) be a failure in any sense of the word. Isn't this what our policemen and women try to do every day (on a less gruesome scale admittedly)? Are they failures too? Spin this any way you want to politically, this man and his group of merrymen were evil to the core and needed to be stopped. We had the ability, and we stopped them. Are we the world policemen? No. Are there financial benefits to liberating Iraq? Yes. Do we have problems here at home that desperately need attention? Yes. We are a superpower and with great power comes great responsibility. I grieve for those who have died in this fight, but I believe in the fight nonetheless.

Sadly, what has since transpired has proven that as soon as you remove one lunatic, there are 100 set to take his place. So what now? Do we quit? Do we keep killing them until WW3 erupts? I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. We will NEVER win the ideology war with the middle east. The best we can hope for is to remove those who pose a threat and let the innocents (who outnumber the idiots) try to make their way in the world. Someone mentioned in another thread regarding the Russian democracy that it will not mirror ours. I think this applies to Iraq as well. In time, I hope, they will find a way to stand up to these thugs and make a government and life for themselves that suits them that poses no threat to any other friendly nation.

It can never be considered a failure to have another ally in the middle east.

Originally posted by OpenMinded
Sadly, what has since transpired has proven that as soon as you remove one lunatic, there are 100 set to take his place. So what now? Do we quit? Do we keep killing them until WW3 erupts? I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. We will NEVER win the ideology war with the middle east. The best we can hope for is to remove those who pose a threat and let the innocents (who outnumber the idiots) try to make their way in the world. Someone mentioned in another thread regarding the Russian democracy that it will not mirror ours. I think this applies to Iraq as well. In time, I hope, they will find a way to stand up to these thugs and make a government and life for themselves that suits them that poses no threat to any other friendly nation.

I think we agree and you just don't know it yet. You're right, it will not be a "failure" but an "honorable" restructuring of stated goals (again) from the democratization of Iraq to "We'll, at least we got Saddam" when we do eventually give up and pull out.

Leaving, as you said...room for the next idiot to come along. What we don't want though is a religious fundamentalist in charge. They tend to not make good US allies. So who will it be? How does someone "stand up to these thugs (we're fighting now) and make a government and life for themselves that suits them that poses no threat to any other friendly nation."

Here's an idea. How about a secular "dictator" unanimously elected in their own style of elections (not ours) that knows how to handle the fundamentalists, keeps the looming civil war at bay, does our bidding on command to counter the really scary nuclear threats like Iran, and above all else, one that we can confirmably keep from attaining WMD's. Wouldn't that be perfect?

It can never be considered a failure to have another ally in the middle east.

Right, because these things always work out so well.

"Bring 'em on!"

"I'm a war president! I call the shots! I don't look at the details!"

LMAO

We can't pull out of Iraq - guess why? Civil war. And guess who will control that country if we do, a neighbor with $470b annual economy that can more than afford to directly aid Iraq's Shiite majority. Oh yeah... Iran.

Tehran control of Baghdad. Stick that in your pipe and think about it. Not good.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Tehran control of Baghdad. Stick that in your pipe and think about it. Not good.

Yeah, I think they are finally realizing how bad they screwed up the entire power balance in the Middle East.

Let's rid the Middle East of the the secularist power that hates fundies!

That's why we're having to ally with lovely little countries like Syria now.

US and Syria discuss Military Cooperation

You know if God really told Bush to strike and do all this, God's an idiot.

RANT: That's really, really funny, considering the 4th ID came about a hair's breath from invading Syria a little more than one year ago.

But hey, this is what we get when we have an administration made of guys who skipped all the lessons of 'Nam by getting deferments.

Powell, I hope God forgives you for dropping the ball. You had to have known this would develop.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Powell, I hope God forgives you for dropping the ball. You had to have known this would develop.

Remember the "You break it, you bought it comment" that Powell made way back when before this whole mess started? Well, it's broken and we certainly bought it. He must be biting his tongue trying to control his "I told you so's."

We can't go back in time and "break" Iraq in a better way. I think that no one disagrees with the fact that Saddam had to go at some point. Doing it before Al Qaeda was under control--bad timing. Doing it without any idea of how to rebuild the country after we tore it down--bad planning. Doing it unilaterally without international support--just plain bad.

Powell pushed for more planning and U.N. support before storming Saddam's castle gates, but one man pushing against a wall of Neoconservative close-mindedness doesn't go very far. I think that he did all that he could, but these guys were dead set on Iraq from Day 1 and if I may borrow a phrase from the 9/11 report, their lack of imagination prevented them from seeing any other scenario than that the upset of the balance of power would be good for Israel, good for the military industrial complex, good for influencing the election, and good for proving to everyone that PNAC works. Doesn't matter that polticos since 1993 had been telling the Neo-cons that it they were out of touch with reality.

taibunsuu, you brought up Bush's options in another thread and because the balance of power in the Middle East is now disrupted, perhaps the only option that will yield a viable solution is for other countries to take part in stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq. The prospect of throwing more US troops at the situation is not very popular at home, especially when these troops are going to be there for a very long time and they might be (cough) needed elsewhere. I think that this may be as devastating to the future Republican political prospects as a rapid pull out. As the situation deteriorates, I think other interested countries will be compelled to become involved to protect their own interests because of the risk of civil war. I don't think that we will see a happy union of international cooperation brought together by Bush's newly-acquired diplomatic skills--I think that it will be a coalition of the reluctant.

I was thinking about why other Republicans were starting to go negative on Iraq and Bush's upcoming U.N. speech, and perhaps this may be an extension of the fear factor strategy. Diplomacy isn't going to work so why not compel the international community into becoming involved by planting the not-so-subliminal messages that the whole situation may devolve rapidly because the U.S. really is losing control. Bush could maintain his cover of guarded optimism at home and claim victory in getting the global community to pitch in, but it really would be fear-mongering on a global scale.

You know one of the reasons that bush sr. lost the elections was because his own party turned their back on him at least that was the rumor, and he did not even invaded Iraq.

Just because he took our country with UN back up to liberate Kuwait.

I wounder if history will repeat itself.

From a rogue comment on Capital Gang Saturday...

Originally posted by RANT

Let me repeat the bombshell:

NOVAK: I think whoever is elected is going to have to pull out of Iraq. I don't think there's any doubt...

Say what you will about Bob (and I often do), he has big ears and is frequently utilized to float fundamental policy (shifts and all).

To today's column in which he acknowledge's a "terrible blow to the neoconservative's dream"...

Bob Novak: Quick Exit From Iraq is Likely

Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go.

I wonder which policy makers feel this way?

Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials. An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser. According to my sources, all would opt for a withdrawal.

I'd say they'd know.

So what does this mean about Bush's continued assurance of Iraqi elections, democratization and stabilization? Will Iraq really be okay?

Getting out now would not end expensive U.S. reconstruction of Iraq, and certainly would not stop the fighting. Without U.S. troops, the civil war cited as the worst-case outcome by the recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate would be a reality. It would then take a resolute president to stand aside while Iraqis battle it out.

The end product would be an imperfect Iraq, probably dominated by Shia Muslims seeking revenge over long oppression by the Sunni-controlled Baathist Party. The Kurds would remain in their current semi-autonomous state. Iraq would not be divided, reassuring neighboring countries -- especially Turkey -- that are apprehensive about ethnically divided nations.

That's not good Bob. Did we accomplish anything?

This messy new Iraq is viewed by Bush officials as vastly preferable to Saddam's police state, threatening its neighbors and the West. In private, some officials believe the mistake was not in toppling Saddam but in staying there for nation building after the dictator was deposed.

Friends, they call a leak like this a test balloon. They are trying to figure out how to position an "honorable failure" short of stated objectives.

And perhaps most importantly... I was right.

So the Republican's criticizing Bush's Iraq talk now, are merely ahead of the curve. Bush is looking for another option to a draft after the election. A withdrawl.

Yes Rant you were right,

quote:
This messy new Iraq is viewed by Bush officials as vastly preferable to Saddam's police state, threatening its neighbors and the West. In private, some officials believe the mistake was not in toppling Saddam but in staying there for nation building after the dictator was deposed.

So a mess in iraq is better than Sadam, I see how well our nation is running with this type of mentality about another nation, we are really in trouble we have being run by idiots.

Originally posted by marg6043
So a mess in iraq is better than Sadam, I see how well our nation is running with this type of mentality about another nation, we are really in trouble we have being run by idiots.

Oh, I see, so Saddam was good in your opinion huh Marg?

These people are not in power with Saddam as dictator and left unchecked to do whatever they want. If they were it would become another Sudan, where the government is committing mass killings on non-Muslim blacks and anyone that is non-Muslim. With Saddam it would have been worse since everyone should know by now that he was harboring and helping terrorists among other things. Saddam had shown many times that he didn't care about the international community and he would attack whoever he wanted to.

Is it better that Saddam is gone and he is not there to attack en mass other people or to help terrorists against the US or other countries? Hell yes.

Originally posted by Muaddib
These people are not in power with Saddam as dictator and left unchecked to do whatever they want. Saddam had shown many times that he didn't care about the international community and he would attack whoever he wanted to.

This crap revisionist history of saying Saddam was an immediate threat is not allowed, sorry. Neither is the "unchecked" fairy tale. Just how "checked" was Saddam? the US & UK flew way over a quarter million bombing sorties over Iraq since 1991!!!! They dropped several thousands pounds of bombs on Iraq during that time.
All of this done without any International Community support or UN authorization.

No Fly Zone? What No Fly Zone?

How many times were the US or UK bombed or attack in terrorist fashion by Iraqi forces during that time?