For all the talk about Kerry supporting a “defeat and retreat” approach, it was Bush who suggested yesterday that “the world would be better off if we did leave.”
The Washington Post’s estimable Dan Froomkin noted that Bush was in Derry, N.H., yesterday, and offered one of the crystal-clear sentiments that proves that this president says what he means and means what he says.
“These people are trying to shake the will of the Iraqi citizens, and they want us to leave. That’s what they want us to do.
And I think the world would be better off if we did leave — if we didn’t — if we left, the world would be worse. The world is better off with us not leaving. It’s a mistake to pull out.” (emphasis added)
I’m glad Bush was able to straighten this out for us.
In fact, Bush’s bizarre remarks remind me that Bob Novak reported yesterday that there’s a growing consensus that Bush would pull our forces out of Iraq next year, whether it was a wise move or not.
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.
This prospective policy is based on Iraq’s national elections in late January, but not predicated on ending the insurgency or reaching a national political settlement. Getting out of Iraq would end the neoconservative dream of building democracy in the Arab world. The United States would be content having saved the world from Saddam Hussein’s quest for weapons of mass destruction.
I didn’t really buy Novak’s “scoop,” but then again, hearing Bush say that the world might be “better off” if we cut and run makes the story a little less clear.