It’s Timetable Time
By Dan FroomkinIt’s a bit late and somewhat immaterial at this point, but it’s still worth observing that President Bush today did something he said he’d never do: Agree to a firm timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. Peter Graff writes for Reuters: "Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari and U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker signed a long-awaited accord on Monday requiring Washington to withdraw its forces within three years.
"The signing ceremony put a formal end to months of negotiations over the pact on the future of the U.S. presence, which the Iraqi government approved on Sunday. The pact must still be passed in the Iraqi parliament, but the government is confident it will achieve this by the end of the month"…
"The main focus for Iraqis is the pact at last committing the United States to withdraw a force that now numbers about 150,000 by Dec. 31, 2011, a firm date that reflects the growing confidence of Iraq’s government as violence has eased. Iraqi leaders consider the date to be a major negotiating victory after the administration of outgoing President George W. Bush long vowed not to accept a firm timetable"…
"Under the deal, U.S. troops will leave the streets of Iraqi towns and villages by the middle of next year and leave Iraq altogether by the end of 2011. The deal also provides for Iraqi courts try U.S. soldiers for serious crimes committed while off duty, but only under very tight conditions."
By contrast, here’s what Bush had to say in May 2007: "I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure – and that would be irresponsible."
Mary Beth Sheridan writes in The Washington Post: "The Iraqi government spokesman portrayed the pact as closing the book on the occupation that began with the US-led invasion in 2003. The total withdrawal will be completed by December 31, 2011. This is not governed by circumstances on the ground,’ the spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, told Iraqi reporters, pointedly rejecting the more conditional language that the U.S. government had sought in the accord…
-
Pre-emptive War
-
Unilateral Military Action
-
Military Strength beyond Equal
-
Evangelical American Democracy
So I expect that Bush is not "backing down" or changing his mind. He’s doing what he can do to perpetuate his Pre-emptive War on Iraq in the hopes that it will vindicate his legacy, whether it benefits us or not. Dog owners will understand this metaphor: "He’s peeing on every bush" to the bitter end…
One more example of peeing on every bush, Bush (sic !!) is now said to be taking care of his political appointees in the DoJ by moving them into career job slots. Which means that it will be hard to get rid of them and also leave fewer career slots to be filled with good people by Obama’s team.
All his outward ploy of a “smooth transition,” he’s doing everything he can to foul the water he leaves behind. Just more of his usual tactics: say you’re doing one thing but undermine it at the same time.
It’s these tactics that I think will undo Obama’s patience with the Bush/Cheney legacy. It’s not a matter of partisan politics when the Republicans are equally as fed up as the Dems are with these two.
“They were elected to serve the people.” I no longer even believe they were elected. I think they stole both elections.