Bush in Crawford is under siege by Cindy Sheehan and has trouble to keep a balanced life. Rove and now Ashcroft are in ever deeper trouble.
The administration is lowering expectations on Iraq:
"We set out to establish a democracy, but we’re slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," said another U.S. official [..] "That process is being repeated all over."
Cognitive dissonance hamstrings the leadership.
In the population there has been a change in sentiment since the last election. Bush is on record low poll numbers, so is support for the Iraq war. Nearly 60 percent of
Americans now oppose the war, according to recent polling. Sixty-three
percent want US troops brought home within the next year. The media tide is turning.
This should be the very best moment for an opposition party to take a real lead and call for an end of this expensive adventure and win a significant lead for the next election.
No more flip-flopping like Kerry between being pro-war and anti-war; a call for international consent before going to war; no to a preemptive doctrine that has proven to be catastrophic.
But no, the Democrats leadership has decided to prepare for the next election by courting the arguments they think would have won the last one. The Boston Globe
writes:
After months of internal debate and closed-door discussions, Democrats have begun to develop a more aggressive foreign policy that focuses heavily on threats they say are being neglected by the Bush administration, while avoiding taking a contentious stance on Iraq.
…
Even Democrats who have been associated with liberal positions on international affairs are calling for more troops in uniform, proposing that threats of force be used to stop nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North Korea, and pressing for potential military intervention to ease famine and oppression around the world.
…
[Their report] calls for the United States to engage in more direct negotiations with Iran and North Korea, and for the talks to be reinforced with military pressure, including ”the possibility of repeated and unwarned strikes."
Democrats to Bush: "ATTACK IRAN!"
Bush: "Dear Americans, the Dems asked me to bomb Iran. The planes are on their way. If this goes wrong it’s Clinton’s fault."
To win in 2006 with a concept more hawkish than the Republicans is as stupid as it gets. The people need an alternative.
As Atrios pointed out: If you want bases in Iraq with some 30,000 troops living there, you will need another 100,000 troops to protect these bases plus the ever endangered logistic tail to fill the mercenaries luxury demands.
To stay in Iraq and to demand an attack on Iran in a situation where Iran controls your lines of communication is lunatic. The Strategic Class wants exactly that.
It probably could have helped during the last election (though I doubt this), but it will definitely not help in the next one.
