One of the enduring rhetorical devices used by supporters of the president’s Iraq policy is that every development, no matter how discouraging, is great news. Violence is up? That means the dead-enders know their time is running out. Violence is down? That means our policy is working. No news is bad news. Every catastrophe is evidence of success.
The ongoing negotiations over a long-term security agreement between the Bush administration and Iraqi officials, though, are tough to spin. Joe Lieberman is giving it a try anyway.
Dan Froomkin summarized recent developments nicely:
President Bush’s brashest attempt to lock in his Iraq policy beyond his presidency, like so many other Bush initiatives in the region, appears to be backfiring spectacularly.
Secret negotiations between U.S. and Iraqi officials over a multi-year security agreement aren’t so secret anymore. Details have been dribbling out over the last several days…. And the American demands seem to be infuriating Iraqi lawmakers, some of whom are even threatening to kick out U.S. troops entirely.
The Bush administration’s demands are almost comical. Based on what the president wants, the U.S. would have 58 permanent bases in Iraq, control of Iraqi air space, authority to cross Iraqi borders for military operations, and contractor immunity. Iraqis are so outraged, U.S. allies in the Maliki government are talking about throwing us out of their country.
One would have to be a fool to consider these positive developments. Or, one would have to be Joe Lieberman, who described these developments as “a sign of our success in Iraq.”
When Iraqis are happy, it’s good news. When Iraqis are outraged, it’s good news. When officials want us to stay, it’s good news. When they want us to leave, it’s good news. I’ll give Bush’s buddies credit for one thing: they’re remarkably consistent. No matter what the question, the answer is always the same.
I’m not sure how Lieberman defines “success,” but this isn’t it.
“The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq,” said Sami al-Askari, a senior Shiite politician on parliament’s foreign relations committee who is close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. “If we can’t reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say, ‘Goodbye, U.S. troops. We don’t need you here anymore.’ ” […]
In Iraq, the willingness to consider calling for the departure of American troops represents a major shift for members of the U.S.-backed government. Maliki this week visited Iran, where Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, urged him to reject any long-term security arrangements with the United States.
And speaking of Lieberman, yesterday’s edition of TPMtv was especially good, talking about Lieberman’s future in the Democratic caucus and as a committee chairman. The buzz I’ve been hearing from some of my DC contacts is very much in line with what Josh noted: