Remember, these are the guys whose strength is foreign policy
There’s a real gem of a quote hidden deep in the New York Times’ coverage of the administration’s unsuccessful efforts at the U.N.
“There’s a recognition this has not been our finest diplomatic hour,” one senior White House official told the newspaper.
You can say that again. These guys are looking more and more like the gang that can’t shoot straight.
Going over the morning’s papers, one notices just how embarrassingly incoherent the administration’s foreign policy is. Virtually every statement on Iraq offered in the last week from an administration official, from the president on down, has been countered by a different and contradictory statement from a different official a few days later.
During the president’s prime time press conference last week, for example, Bush was asked whether he’d call for a U.N. vote on a resolution authorizing an attack on Iraq, even if he didn’t have the votes. Bush bravely announced that he would. “No matter what the whip count is, we’re calling for the vote,” Bush said, adding, “[Y]ou bet. It’s time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam.”
Well, that commitment didn’t last long. With the resolution apparently doomed to fail, the White House has indicated it might pull the resolution and take military action with no vote at all.
And speaking of the resolution failing, earlier this week Secretary of State Colin Powell announced there is “a strong chance” that the U.S. would persuade a majority of the U.N. Security Council to vote in favor of authorizing an attack against Iraq. Four days later, we learn that Powell’s confident optimism was wrong, and the U.S. hasn’t persuaded anyone.
Yesterday, the White House’s Keystone Kops routine kicked into high gear. The New York Times reported that the White House scurried yesterday to arrange for a “war caucus” in Europe with England’s Tony Blair and Spain’s Jose Maria. Then, realizing that Bush’s unpopularity across the pond could make things worse for everyone — especially Blair — the “scramble to make arrangements was ended as abruptly.” A few hours later, shifting gears again, the summit was back on, after U.S. officials realized the Security Council truly had no intention of supporting Bush’s new resolution.
Unfortunately, that’s not all. For weeks, the administration has insisted that delay would be disastrous. We can’t give UNMOVIC inspectors more time; we’ve got to act now, they’ve argued. We’ve got 250,000 troops standing by, a brutal Iraqi summer coming up, and a dangerous dictator who can build an arsenal if we delay, we’ve heard. At Bush’s press conference last week, he was asked if he’d consider delaying an invasion so as to give officials more time to “build more support within the members of the Security Council.” Bush wouldn’t hear of it. “A little bit more time?” Bush asked incredulously. “Saddam Hussein has had 12 years to disarm. He is deceiving people.”
Now, some officials are backpedaling on this point as well. The Washington Post reported today that Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the nation’s second-highest ranking military officer, told a group of defense experts that “a delay of a month or more in invading Iraq can be handled by the U.S. military and would not increase U.S. casualties.” Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey agreed with the assessment, and according to one scholar at the briefing, so did Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
So, to review, we’re calling for a vote even if we’ll lose, except we’re not calling for a vote because we are going to lose. We’ll probably have the votes to get a majority, except we’re definitely not going to get the votes for a majority. We’re sending Bush to a summit, no we’re not, yes we are. And we’ve got to start the war without delay, except a delay really wouldn’t be a big deal.
As legendary baseball manager Casey Stengel once asked, “Can’t anybody here play this game?”