Liberal hawk [tag]Peter Beinart[/tag] has a fascinating item in the upcoming issue of The New Republic in which he notes what many of us have recognized for a very long time: the [tag]Bush[/tag] [tag]White House[/tag] will always put political gain above everything else. Even winning a [tag]war[/tag].
As Beinart sees it, conditions in [tag]Iraq[/tag] are still “desperate,” but several recent events have created an opportunity for the president. Bush could, Beinart argues, reach out to Dems, form a consensus approach to the war, and take a huge leap forward in helping to resolve the crisis.
Were he interested in such a deal, Bush would have invited top [tag]Democrats[/tag] into his office after the formation of Iraq’s new government and the death of Abu Musab Al Zarqawi and said something like this. “If you resist a withdrawal plan so the Iraqis can announce their own, I’ll bring you in on the negotiations. In fact, I’ll replace Donald [tag]Rumsfeld[/tag] with a secretary of defense that you trust — why don’t you suggest a few names. And, if you don’t demagogue this amnesty stuff, I’ll tell [tag]Karl Rove[/tag] and his henchmen to stop calling you cowardly defeatists. That might hurt me this November, since slandering Democrats is my best chance of luring [tag]Republicans[/tag] to the polls. But I’m more interested in winning Iraq than winning Ohio. And, to do that, I need your help.”
At this point, I had to stop reading temporarily because I could no longer see the page through the tears generated by my hysterical laughter. Honestly, Beinart’s imagination is more creative than mine could ever be — because I never could have created a scenario in which Bush reached out to Democrats like this.
There are elements of Beinart’s article with which I disagree, but his broader point is quite right — Bush considers the war just another political tool. It’s to be used to win elections, not to spread democracy or “liberate” anyone.
Indeed, Beinart seems mildly disappointed that Dems would demagogue the heck out of [tag]amnesty[/tag] for Iraqi insurgents, but seems to appreciate the fact that the party a) is only following Bush’s lead; and b) doesn’t have much of a choice politically.
Rove and company immediately wielded Zarqawi’s death as a partisan club, saying that, if Democrats had their way, he’d still be loose. Then the White House and congressional Republicans rigged a phony, vicious Iraq debate in Congress, which saw Republicans call the main Democratic Senate plan (which didn’t include a strict withdrawal timetable) “cut and jog” — only to announce days later that the Bush administration was considering something similar itself. All of which made Democrats trying to decide what was best for the country — as opposed to merely their party — look like chumps. Partisan acrimony, already stratospheric before the Iraq debate, is now even worse. And, among Democrats, the likely result will be greater demands for a public timetable for withdrawal and louder denunciations of amnesty for insurgents. (In Tennessee, Democratic Senate hopeful Harold Ford is already running ads on the subject.) It’s hard to serve the national interest when the president of the United States does not.
George “a uniter, not a divider” Bush has repeatedly been confronted with historic opportunities to govern with bi-partisan support and reach out to build consensus on national security and foreign policy issues. And he’s always done the exact opposite because he thought, usually correctly, that his party could capitalize on polarization. After 9/11 … creating the Department of Homeland Security … before the invasion of Iraq … throughout the war itself … domestic surveillance and the Patriot Act … in each instance, Bush has treated his domestic rivals as enemies. Even when he could strive for consensus, he declined — because [tag]consensus[/tag] isn’t part of the political strategy.
Naturally, with the war in Iraq in its fourth year, Bush sees no reason to change the game plan now. It’s sad, but it appears Bush knows no other way. As Beinart put it, “He acts less like the president than like the head of the Republican National Committee…. And, if we lose in Iraq, it will be a major reason why.”