IS BUSH SURRENDERING?

andrewsullivan.com ^ | Friday, May 24, 2002 | Andrew Sullivan

[ThePythonicCow]

IS BUSH SURRENDERING? Dreadful news today that the president may be wavering in his intent to destroy the Iraqi regime. If true, then those of us who have supported the war on terror need to revise our assessment of this president. He told the German press yesterday that there is no plan to invade on his desk. He said it almost proudly. His military leaders, in a sign of their determination to risk nothing and achieve nothing, are now leaking to the Washington Post that they have all but scotched a serious military option in Iraq. The arguments they are using sound like they might come from a Gore administration. After all that this president has said, after all that he has asked, a reversal on this central question would be nothing short of a staggering betrayal of trust, a reversal of will and determination. Of course, there should be no peremptory, rushed or botched war. Of course, all options should be examined. But the signs are unmistakable. This president, having begun as an improvement on his father, is showing signs that he could end up as something even worse. It's time he heard from his supporters that this is a critical matter on which there can be no compromise. If he balks, it will be worse than his father's betrayal on taxes. It will be a betrayal of the very security of the American people.

[rmmcdaniell]

And Bush has said Saddam WILL be dealt with.

I'm sorry, but I can't trust Bush's words anymore. He sold out Isreal and signed CFR after promising not to.

[ThePythonicCow]

I don't see why this should be laid at Bush's door when his top Generals ...

I agree - the liberals entrenced in our government, including now the military, make it difficult if not impossible to do much of what we'd like, or need. One of the things every President learns the hard way is the real limits on how much they can affect things, at least right away.

[tsomer]

"...Someone from State was sitting in on it and got the gist of the conference to Powell, and Powell decided to leak again... The Pentagon didn't leak this. State did."

Thanks for your reply. I'm surprised you think Powell is leaking, or directing someone underneath him to leak and undermine the president. That's damn near treasonous, seems to me. For this reason I'm finding it hard to swallow. My take on Powell is that, while he has been at odds often enough, he's always gone along. Could he be one leg of a "good cop bad cop" style approach?

My concerns about Iran, desires among Kurds for an autonomous state, and Islamist inroads to the more remote areas in question are still pestering me. These are the wild cards that need to be understood a little better, imho. Also, where are the Saudis in this? Seems we've gone to great pains to avoid the appearance of colonialist intentions over the last 10 years; we're not going to go in there without some sort of diplomatic fig leaf.