Distressed American

With more Republicans wanting a significant drawdown in US forces, Stay the coursers Rudy and Mitt are hiding from their own Iraq policies. Honest and strong leadership? Not in my book.


Moment of Truth. - TIME

Moment of Truth.

Next time you listen to Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani, the two announced Republican front runners for 2008, try playing this game: count how many times they use some variation of Sept. 11, terrorism or jihad. Then count how many times they utter the word Iraq. When Romney gave a foreign policy speech at Yeshiva University in April, the score was 19 to 3. In an address at the Citadel in May, Giuliani's score was 35 to 2.

Here's what is happening: Republican voters, the folks Romney and Giuliani need to win over, want their party's nominee to be as tough as nails in the war on terrorism. And they don't want him to bash President George W. Bush on Iraq, because, well, that's what Democrats do. But--and this is where things get tricky--they don't exactly want him to support Bush's Iraq policy either. Recent polls suggest that while most Republicans oppose a complete withdrawal from Iraq, they'd prefer a smaller U.S. presence, ensconced in bases far from Iraq's bloody cities, training Iraqis to do the fighting. In short, they want what the Baker-Hamilton commission proposed last fall--exactly the position Bush rejected when he ordered the surge.

Luckily for Giuliani and Romney, most Republicans don't associate them with the surge, as they do John McCain. Most either don't know what the GOP front runners think or think they agree with them and support a Baker-Hamilton-style drawdown. In a July Hotline poll, only 17% of Republicans knew that Giuliani opposes any troop withdrawal from Iraq, and only 12% knew that Romney did. For both men, that's good news. They don't want to be identified with a policy that's unpopular even among Republicans, let alone the rest of America. But they don't want a high-profile break with Bush either, because most Republicans still like the guy and figure that publicly opposing him means jumping into bed with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Romney and Giuliani's solution: when asked about Iraq, they talk about terrorism. Writing in Foreign Affairs, Romney argued that "whether or not the current 'surge' in troop levels in Iraq succeeds," the U.S. faces "challenges that go far beyond any single nation or conflict." Giuliani told Fox News's Sean Hannity, "Whether Iraq turns out successfully ... we're still going to be at war." Romney and Giuliani also bash the Democrats as defeatists who don't recognize the jihadist threat and who want us to leave Iraq with our tail between our legs. In this way, they emphasize their antiterrorism toughness while keeping their Iraq views fuzzy. This gives them room to embrace a significant troop withdrawal next year once they have their party's nomination in hand.

So far, the strategy has worked beautifully. But there's a problem. One way Romney and Giuliani have evaded clear answers on the surge is by delaying the question until September, when General David Petraeus will report on its progress. Now September is here. Petraeus will probably oppose any immediate troop withdrawal, deferring any drawdown until next spring. Bush and most conservative pundits will demand that the surge continue into 2008. And Romney and Giuliani will find it harder to bob and weave. The press, which has given both men an easy ride on the issue, may start turning the screws. With luck, so will McCain, who has paid a heavy price for his Iraq candor. Even the White House could get into the act. From the President's perspective, after all, Romney and Giuliani haven't exactly been profiles in courage: they've let Democrats punch the stuffing out of his Iraq policy without offering much of a defense.

So, what will Romney and Giuliani do if forced to finally come clean? They'll back the surge. Romney is running as the conservative candidate, so he can't alienate Iraq hard-liners. Neither can Giuliani, given his tough-on-terrorism persona. But once they back the surge, they'll get a taste of what McCain has been experiencing all year. The more they're defined by support for the war, the more Bush's unpopularity will become their own, especially among independents, the people who have turned against McCain en masse. Backing the surge will instantly weaken them in the general election, because if they do eventually pivot in favor of some withdrawal, it will look like a flip-flop.

The best thing for Romney and Giuliani would be for the White House and Congress to halt the surge and agree on a phased withdrawal. Then they could go back to talking about 9/11 while Iraq recedes as a partisan issue. But that's not likely to happen, because when it comes to Iraq, Bush is ignoring the polls. Romney and Giuliani should try it sometime.

Advertising

TurnBackTheClock

It amazes me that there are so many people who actually still believe that Iraq is about the war on terror. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, had no WMD's, and Saddam was not involved at all with Al Qaeda. Those are simple facts, yet many people still don't understand, that by invading a country, and causes the deaths of so many civilians, especially women and children, that the US is actually causinf terrorism to grow. Hasn't anyone ever thought that when that little boy or boys, who watched their innocent fathers get killed in this mess, might grow up hating the US for it and want some payback one day? Wake up people!

The Political situation in America = The light at the end of the tunnel has just gone out.

Distressed American

Could not agree more. Linking Saddam and 9/11 (they claim that they never tried but, we are not morons. We saw it in action ans still see the results) was one of the biggest and most deliberate lies of the war.

Now they have done nothing but create more people that want to kill us. Meanwhile, Osama and the boys got away in Afghanistan because they did not want to put enough troops into the real fight. They were holding them in reserve for the Iraq disaster then knew full well they were launching.

justoneman

A sarin gas shell was found in Iraq. Besides we know Saddam had WMDs. He did not comply with the destruction of them. Secondly, we went to war to enforce the surrender that Saddam entered into. Since the successful take over of Iraq, AQ has moved in. Things have changed in Iraq. Now we fight along side the Iraqi government. If the Iraqi government tell us to leave we will leave. The majority of Iraqis do not want us to leave. It is proven in a national poll taken in Iraq.

Distressed American

That has what to do with Rudy and Mitt hiding from the fact that the majority of Republicans want a troop drawdown?



LOL! Again with a single sarin gas shell from pre-1991 stocks!

Bushco said that there was 500 TONS of active and usable WMD stockpiled. Where the fuck is it JOM. Last time I asked that question you ducked. Will you answer it this time or will you keep ducking?

WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE 500 TON WMD STOCKPILES THAT WERE USED AS THE EXCUSE FOR THIS INVASION AND OCCUPATION???

justoneman

I did not answer you. I answered another poster.

mdmx96

What is there to duck? Our intelligence was wrong, just as most everybody else's. Saddam played a very dangerous game with that lie and he lost.

Freedom is not free when you bleed Red, White, and Blue.

I reject your reality and substitute my own ~MythBusters~

Their will be no peace in the Middle East until the Arabs love their children more than they hate the Jews. ~Golda Meir~

The Founders would be ashamed with us for what we are putting up with. ~Ron Paul~

Distressed American

So?

I asked YOU a question:

Bushco said that there was 500 TONS of active and usable WMD stockpiled. Where the fuck is it JOM. Last time I asked that question you ducked. Will you answer it this time or will you keep ducking?

WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE 500 TON WMD STOCKPILES THAT WERE USED AS THE EXCUSE FOR THIS INVASION AND OCCUPATION???

Distressed American

No. Our claims about the intel were lies.

The UN Weaponj inspectors told us over and over that there were no such stockpiles. Bushco KNEW that their intel was bad before the invasion. It was ground proofed by the professionals who said repeatedly that our info was flat wrong. They knew the intel was bogus. They kept pushing it anyway. They lied through their teeth.




Now, does anyone have anything to say about the OP?

Any comment on the fact that Mitt and Rudy are running scared of this issue because the majority of Republicans want a significant troop withdrawal and they fully back this failed "surge"???

mykcob4

That is SOOOOO neive. The shell was old and unservicable and actually was already acouted for by Scott Ritter's investigation. You are right AQ has moved in but they are not even a significant factor in the violence there. There is no real Iraqi government and hasn't been since we took over. The police departments are segmented and so is the military. The Iraqi government is a sham. All units are seperate and actually taking orders from religious and ethnic leaders. There are even factions within factions. A Sunnii unit goes in to supposedly secure an area, but actually they just carry out murder orders for their REAL leaders. A Shai unit goes in and does exactly the same thing. Meanwhile U.S. troops are caught in the middle not knowing the real allegence of the unit they are working with. The Iraqi government is a face that sucks money from the U.S. and no more. There is no leadership there and there is no intention of leadership there. Your poll statement means nothing. How was the poll conducted by whom and who was polled. Haven't you learned from history the nature of arab politics. Sir Lawrence explained over and over that Arabs are a fractured people whose only allegence is historically ethnic and tribal. They will lie to your face to get something or placate you. The only way to get them to work for you or with you is if they know they will get an immediate profit from it, otherwise you will never get cooperation. The intracies of tribal logic is convoluted. There are deep ingrained hatreds among the tribes. They are as complicated as neighbor vs. neighbor. The factions are as small as the lowliest religious tribal leader. Read what Kipling wrote about Afghanistan.