The headline on the A1 story in The Washington Post:
Bush Says Iraq Pullout Would Be “A Disaster”
Isn’t that what it is now?
“If you think it’s bad now, imagine what Iraq would look like if the United States leaves before this government can defend itself and sustain itself,” he said.
…”If we[withdraw], there will be horrific sectarian cleansing in the mixed areas, particularly in Baghdad, and civil war,” [former ambassador Peter Galbraith] said. “If we stay the course, there will be horrific sectarian cleansing in Baghdad, and civil war.”
Ah, but then we get into that old definition of a “civil war.” Last week I ridiculed the debate. But it turns out I wasn’t far off.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld argued that Iraq would not have civil war until the Confederates attack Fort Sumter. “It seems to me that it is not a classic civil war at this stage,” Professor Rumsfeld argued. “It certainly isn’t like our civil war.”
No, so to help us keep things straight in our mind, let’s ask Sen. George Allen if he could lend his confederate flag to one side in the conflict. Then we’ll know who to root for — and who he’ll root for.
Footnote: From today’s stories in The Post, it’s clear we have achieved a nexus.
Several prominent Democrats rejected Bush’s call for staying the course in Iraq, saying the problem there is not a lack of will but lack of a winning strategy (emphasis added).
…ABC News’s Martha Raddatz was not satisfied [with Bush’s defense of the war]. “The violence has gotten worse in certain areas,” she reminded him. “Is it not time for a new strategy?” (emphasis added)
When the press and one political party ask the same question, it’s safe to say the other political party is in deep doo-doo, as W’s father might say..