The Problem Mr. Kurz Lies Not in the President, but in Yourself

Official Optimism

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 1, 2005; 11:00 AM

I had no idea things were going so well in Iraq.

In listening to President Bush's speech yesterday, it sounded like the Iraqi forces are ready to take over in a few hours.

Perhaps it is a coincidence that just as the post-Murtha debate on a U.S. pullout is starting to turn, the president finds so much to praise in the performance of Iraqi forces--despite all the negative reports we've had about their struggle. Bush even took on the official military estimate that only one battalion was combat ready--by saying you didn't need to be fully ready to be effective.

Some would call that moving the goal posts.

Is this the beginning of an exit strategy? Two weeks after Scott McClellan likened Jack Murtha to Michael Moore, everyone seems to agree it would be a good thing if Iraqi troops would assume more of the burden so that sizable numbers of American troops could come home. The main difference seems to be over the wisdom, or lack thereof, of setting a timetable. But if the administration is determined to accelerate the Iraqization of the war, and with the '06 elections looming, a precise timetable may not matter as much.

Bush obviously made a nod toward the appearance of bipartisanship by quoting Joe Lieberman. I briefly wondered whether the Democrats would try to find common ground with Bush or dismiss the Annapolis speech as so much presidential spin.

Moments later, Harry Reid provided the answer, saying Bush "recycled his tired rhetoric of `stay the course' and once again missed an opportunity to lay out a real strategy for success in Iraq that will bring our troops safely home."

And Reid's strategy is . . . ?

[Moving to how this is being covered]

"Moving to deflect criticism of the war in Iraq and lay out new conditions that would allow the departure of U.S. troops, President Bush said today he would settle for "nothing less than complete victory" there, and defined that success as creating an Iraq in which Iraqis could live in peace protected by their own security forces," reports the Los Angeles Times .

"The political calculation behind President Bush's speech in Annapolis on Wednesday is that Washington, not Baghdad, is the battlefront that will decide the ultimate outcome of the war in Iraq, but that Mr. Bush's decisions do not have to be driven by fears of heavy Republican losses in the 2006 midterm elections," says the New York Times analysis.

"At a time of increasing Democratic attacks on Mr. Bush's handling of the war and a drop in public support for the conflict, Mr. Bush's political advisers assert that they can still hold Congress next year. By their reasoning, there will be only 35 to 40 competitive seats in the House of Representatives, and at this point they see no evidence that the war will be the determining factor in those races. While there may be Democratic gains in the Senate, both parties doubt that the Republicans will lose control.

"In any case, the advisers say, Mr. Bush is adamantly committed to holding tough in Iraq, even if it means disregarding the domestic political repercussions and pressure from his own party."

Says the Philadelphia Inquirer : "American critics of President Bush's conduct of the Iraq war heard words of concession yesterday from the commander in chief: Mistakes have been made, and al-Qaeda is 'the smallest' faction of the insurgency.

"But Bush again declined to specify when, and by what criteria, the Iraqis might become capable of defending themselves. After a sufficient and unspecified number of Iraqi troops are trained, he said, 'we will be able to reduce troops in Iraq without losing our ability to defeat the terrorists' - but he said only that 'this will take time and patience.'

"As a result, he may have failed to calm the increasingly restive lawmakers on Capitol Hill . . . Republicans up for reelection in 2006 will continue to fret about a potential voter backlash against the GOP."

Roger Simon is unimpressed:
"I don't know how many times President Bush can announce a 'major' speech on the Iraq war that turns out not to be major, but he seems to be going for a record.
"Wednesday's 'major' speech at the Naval Academy was so un-major, only CBS carried it live among the big broadcast networks. ABC decided that 'Live with Regis and Kelly' was more important than live with George Bush. ABC may have been right.

"The president spoke yet again in front of an all-military audience, which the White House believes guarantees him a sympathetic crowd. But he does this so often, it is beginning to look as if the president is afraid to present his views to anybody but soldiers in uniform and fat cats at fundraisers.

"Since the president is trying to win over the American people, what would be so wrong with allowing a broader cross-section of the American people into one of his speeches? Would they not clap loudly enough every time the president pauses?"

Perhaps if Mr. Kurtz talked to more of the troops returning from Iraq, he would not be so surprised. If you are basing your opinion of what is happening in Iraq solely on "all the negative reports we've had about their struggle," then you are getting a decidedly one-sided view (the ani-war view) of what is going on in Iraq. Most of those reporting over there are journalists for major the news-services, virtually all of which have an anti-war agenda. As for what the rest of the MSM are saying...who cares. People need to spend a little time on their computers and the internet and get their news from various sources, rather than the few that have the money to take it on air or to a major newspaper.

Full Story: News Flash: MSM Against War...Yawn

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below