Novak Says Bush Wants to Flip-Flop Again on Iraq:
Robert Novak's Monday Chicago Sun-Times column, "Quick Exit From Iraq Is Likely," would make Mickey Mouse proud. Novak is claiming that Team Bush is eager to bail out of Iraq following reelection, as if the administration's unwavering commitment to the war turns out to be as phony as Saddam's massive stockpiles of WMD.
"Whether Bush or Kerry is elected, the president or president-elect will have to sit down immediately with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The military will tell the election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war. That leaves three realistic options: Increase overall U.S. military strength to reinforce Iraq, stay with the present strength to continue the war, or get out.
"Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials. An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser. According to my sources, all would opt for a withdrawal."
On Tuesday, White House communications director Dan Bartlett shot the claim down: "There is no truth to that story. The President and his team are committed to getting the job done."
Bear in mind that Novak did have the high-level sources to help the Bush White House take down CIA operative Valerie Plame over the Iraq-Niger uranium scandal. But why would the Bush camp want to leak this loony tune about fast withdrawal? Some election watchers have already speculated that it's a cheap ad buy of sorts -- a way to hedge in favor of unsettled swing voters who are increasingly skeptical of Bush's war. (Even if there isn't an ounce of truth to the claim.) That theory is certainly bolstered by the utterly bizarre, if not incoherent rationale Novak alleges is behind this astonishing and heretofore untold Bush plan:
"Without U.S. troops, the civil war cited as the worst-case outcome by the recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate would be a reality. It would then take a resolute president to stand aside while Iraqis battle it out. The end product would be an imperfect Iraq, probably dominated by Shia Muslims seeking revenge over long oppression by the Sunni-controlled Baathist Party. The Kurds would remain in their current semi-autonomous state. Iraq would not be divided, reassuring neighboring countries -- especially Turkey -- that are apprehensive about ethnically divided nations.
"This messy new Iraq is viewed by Bush officials as vastly preferable to Saddam's police state, threatening its neighbors and the West. In private, some officials believe the mistake was not in toppling Saddam but in staying there for nation building after the dictator was deposed."
Novak might want to double-check his analysis with Frank Gaffney. The Washington Times columnist and president of the Center for Security Policy is ripping into Kerry for all talk of bailing out of the quagmire in Iraq.
"The Democratic candidate has evidently decided to run against the conflict in Iraq by arguing it is even more fouled up than the last war that became hugely unpopular, Vietnam. He is betting (not unreasonably) the situation on the ground there will get uglier in the next six weeks...
"The United States could -- and did -- walk away from many of its friends and allies in Southeast Asia. The result was pretty awful for them, but of no grave strategic consequence for us. It is the height of irresponsibility to think a similar prospect awaits us if the United States once again follows John Kerry and abandons Iraq to its fate. Turning the Iraqis over to the tender mercies of Saddam Hussein's loyalists, Saudi- or Iranian-backed Islamists and/or foreign fighters of other stripes will not simply ensure their country remains a festering sore in the Middle East. It is certain to subject us to a vastly intensified war by emboldened terrorist enemies with global reach."
We distort, you decide
Online watchdog Media Matters for America notes that at least one right-wing cable news reporter peddled bald-faced lies about Kerry's speech on Monday. Though Kerry used no such language in his speech, Fox News Channel chief political correspondent "Campaign" Carl Cameron claimed that Kerry called President Bush a "warmonger" who wants "a perpetual state of war." From the Sept. 20 edition of Fox's "Studio B With Shepard Smith":
"CAMERON: This is a very bold attack from Senator Kerry today. He basically said today that if President Bush is reelected, there will be more war, and he will continue to make these mistakes that Senator Kerry says he's made in the Iraq war, and he suggested there will be continued wars elsewhere on the planet. In effect, saying -- John Kerry accusing George W. Bush of being a warmonger who wants a perpetual state of war around the world. Big stuff." |
