Bush tells the enemy to just wait us out

September 12, 2007

Following up on an item from this morning, the White House has indicated that the president will announce tomorrow night his intention to withdraw up to 30,000 U.S. troops from Iraq by next summer. He’s making the announcement because he has to, but he’s characterizing it as some kind of breakthrough success for his Iraq policy.

I’m curious, though, whether the president and his supporters realize whether this is stepping on some of their cherished talking points.

For example, a few weeks ago, when Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) argued that that the president should bring home 5,000 troops by Christmas. Freedom’s Watch’s Bradley Blakeman went on national television to accuse the senator of “hurt[ing] the cause of freedom.”

Didn’t Warner understand that talking about a modest withdrawal sends a signal to the enemy that they can just wait us out? Lay low until some troops head home and then wreak havoc?

Like most of Freedom’s Watch’s assertions, this was pretty silly, of course, but it does raise an opportunity to turn the right’s talking points around — if Bush is announcing that 30,000 troops are coming home next summer, is he signaling a timetable to “enemies of freedom”?

Sure, I don’t think so, but given what we’ve heard from the right for the last few years, isn’t that their argument?

TP pulled together some noteworthy quotes on the subject.

* “Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq.” [Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman, 7/16/07]

* “I believe artificial timetables of withdrawal would be a mistake…. I will strongly reject an artificial timetable withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job.” [Bush, 4/23/07]

* “[I]f they [Congress] send him a bill with limitations on his ability to function as commander-in-chief or restrictions on the troops or with a withdrawal date that in effect would tell our enemies we’re going to quit, he will veto it.” [Cheney, 4/5/07]

* “Why would you say to the enemy, you know, here’s a timetable, just go ahead and wait us out? It doesn’t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you’re — you’re conceding too much to the enemy.” [Bush, 6/24/05]

Now, just to be clear, all of this is intended to be snarky. I want a withdrawal. I don’t believe that announcing a timetable for bringing U.S. troops home “emboldens” our enemies.

The point is, the right-wing talking points seem to have a selective applicability, don’t they?

They won’t withdraw. They’ll be redeployed to the Iraq-Iran border. Time for another one!

  • I’m sure their contention will be that Bush’s timetable is not artificial because he’s “listening to the commanders on the ground” (the ones he didn’t fire for saying shit he didn’t want to hear).

    Americans know who screwed the pooch and which party he’s from. They know who to fire next year for giving us George W Bush.

  • IOKIYAAB

    It’s O. K. If You Are A Bush (Or Bushie).

    Sorry, Sen. Warner, disobedience to The Great Father is not acceptable. Only the Chosen One has the divine inspiration to invalidate previous positions. God speaks to him, you know.

    This is not cult-like. Not at all. No similarity in the smallest degree, no sir.

  • The point is, the right-wing talking points seem to have a selective applicability, don’t they?

    Does the phrase “Sieg Heil” answer your question? The fuhrer doesn’t have to be consistant.

    (Man- I’m getting too worked up today. Sorry about that outburse of evil haik in the last post. I gotta take a break.)

  • Well, when someone else talks timetables and troop withdrawals, it is helping our enemies.

    But when the Burning Bush speaks, you know that He speaks only what his Father has told Him, and His words are pure and without blemish. For He is George Bush, the Holy One, whose Will shall not be questioned.

  • Don’t make me laugh. If the insurgency were to “lay low” for as little as a week, Bush – tastefully dressed in one of his peacock psuedo-uniforms – would declare the end of all combat operations in Iraq, while standing on the wing of Air Force One as it made a low-and-slow pass over The Mall. This would be shortly followed by the establishment in Iraq of Camp Exxon and Camp Chevron, in anticipation of the oil law being passed.

  • Ah, but Bush is taking a carrot-and-stick approach. Stop misbehaving for a while, and we’ll reward you with a withdrawal. Misbehave, and we’ll continue to bring the hammer down. Liberals should be all for an incentive-based approach, right? Of course,he’ll define “misbehaving” in whatever way is politically expedient for him, as he always does. And he isn’t going to mention that, unless he has their time in-theater extended yet again, we’ll have to bring more troops home anyway.

    Naturally, this is entirely different than expressing the hope that we’ll be able to bring some troops home soon. That just helps the enemy.

  • When US Senators talk about troop withdrawal, the terrorists listen and are emboldened. When Bush speaks… Who’s gonna pay him any mind? The terrorists will never hear about it and won’t be emboldened, or encouraged to wait us out. They’ll just keep killing one another and won’t even notice we’re gone, see? Clever, clever, boy, that Georgy-porgy.

  • Is it possible that any reduction in violence during the Surge is partly, if not mostly, due to the very fact that the Surge, by definition, is temporary? In other words, they’re already waiting us out. Those crickets you hear (in between car bombs) are the bad guys maxin’ & relaxin’ until the Surge goes away, as it inevitably must.

    • Comments are closed.