"All that is old and already formed can continue to live only if it allows within itself the conditions of a new beginning."
Kevblog Archives
Aggrieved--But Not
Feeling ResponsiblePosted 10:19 p.m., April 13, 2004;
Updated 8:13 a.m., April 14, 2004
It was a subdued and vaguely disheveled President Bush who addressed the nation tonight to argue in favor of his wartime policies in Iraq. It was also a president exuding little of the swagger, machismo and out-of-place jocularity of recent appearances. And it was a president perhaps a bit rattled, showing a bit more than the usual tendency toward stumble-tongued, deer-in-the-headlights malapropism.
"This has been tough weeks in that country," he said. The violence, he announced, has been "insticated" by three groups--some remnants of Saddam's regime, Islamic militants in Fallujah and terrorists from outside Iraq. The president also announced he has two secretaries of state, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld. (Rumsfeld, of course, is really the secretary of defense.)
Much of what the president had to say tonight was familiar, including his insistence on tying the horror of 9/11 to the fading, delusional, romance writer that was Saddam Hussein by the end of his dictatorship. "Iraq will either be a peaceful democratic country, or it will again be a source of violence, a haven for terror and a threat to America and to the world." Hey, when the consultants tell you a message is working, why change it?
However, new events like riots in the south and new characters such as the David Koresh-like Moqtada al-Sadr punctuated the president's remarks, gave them a topical edge. "They want to run us out of Iraq and destroy the hopes of a democratic people," the president said. "The violence we have seen has been a power grab by these extreme and ruthless elements. It's not a civil war. It's not a popular uprising. Most of Iraq is relatively stable."
No matter what is your attitude toward this president, we can root for him to be right. Just as we can acknowledge that it was good to hear him abandoning the neocon line that the war and occupation can be manned by a skeleton crew of soldiers, and indicate he will call up more troops as the generals ask for them--though of course that same thought also brings the unsettling notion of "quagmire" to mind. It is encouraging to hear the president make at least some concession to reality. Too bad reality is so messy--according to NBC tonight, part of the increased military commitment will be accomplished by forcing 20,000 U.S. troops due to rotate out of the country to remain where they are.
"I fully understand the consequences of what we're doing," Bush said. "We're changing the world. And the world will be better off and America will be more secure as a result of the actions we are taking."
It Ain't That Bad?
Such bravado may be reassuring to some, but there is no question that this is a time when the American public is beginnning to doubt this president. And he gambled in some ways with his own standing tonight. For instance, the president's intimation that the situation in Iraq is better than it is being made to appear in the media might work to pacify the dittohead crowd, but as the former U.N. ambassador Dick Holbrooke said on Pat Buchanan's MSNBC program tonight, it is a risky play for the president to try to put off Americans' reactions with the usual media-baiting.
Maybe it's not a civil war right now -- largely because the Shiites and Sunnis can unite in their hatred toward America and their insistence that we leave. And maybe the explosion of much of Iraq's geography last week did not represent a "popular uprising." But maybe it did. And maybe the president needs to be more forthcoming, instead of angling each and every incident for peak political affect.
Which brings me to the president's choice to pass up--twice--opportunities to stand before the American people and take his share of responsibility for what happened on Sept. 11. Is it Bush's fault? No, not entirely, not even largely. Could he have prevented it? Probably not. But it is absolutely clear to any thinking person paying any attention to the 9/11 commission that more could have been done and that more action and attention from everyone from the president on down, in the months before the attacks, might have had some impact on the terrorist plot.
Admitting as much would only make the president and his administration more human. And they're not exactly iconic as it is.
John Kennedy took responsibility--personally--for the Bay of Pigs. His standing rose in the public's perception. Janet Reno took personal responsibility for the Oklahoma City bombing (though she continued to be a hated figure by the far right). But instead of taking the opportunity to issue a Richard Clarke-like apology, Bush chose to act like the John Wayne character in the movie "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon."
"Never apologize," the Duke said over and over in that movie. "It's a sign of weakness." Were he portraying this president, Duke might've had to add, "Never admit you're wrong."
Incredibly Grieved
Do you feel any personal responsibility for what happened on 9/11, asked New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller.
"I feel incredibly grieved when I meet with the family members," Bush said, sidestepping the question. "There are some things I wished we would have done when I look back. I mean, hindsight is easy." With that, Bush changed the subject to the Patriot Act and its value in fostering cooperation between the FBI and CIA.
Another reporter, NBC's David Gregory, pointedly asked Bush if it would be a fair criticism to say he never admits when he makes a mistake--whether it be about weapons of mass destruction, 9/11, or post-war planning. Bush answered as though he heard a distinctly different question. "As I mentioned, the country wasn't on war footing, and yet we're at war," Bush said. "That's just a reality, Dave."
But the most unsettling thing about tonight's speech is that the president--by means of omission--acknowledged he has no real plan for turning over power to the Iraqis on June 30, a date he again tonight insisted upon, on grounds that the Iraqis will never trust us again if we blow the deadline. There might be truth in that. There is also truth that June 30 was a date picked for its electioneering value.
But think of how this plays. The president insists power will be handed over June 30. He insists that an election will be held in Iraq no later than late January to elect an assembly that can fashion a permanent constitution, and that a permanent constitution will be written and ratified by 2005.
Sounds good. But doesn't that leave a six-month void, between June and January, during which there will be no one in power? The president said tonight that U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi is now "figuring out the nature of the entity we will be handing sovereignty over" to. Or, not?
Hopefully Brahimi knows what he's doing, because six months is plenty of time for Iraq to spin completely out of control. One wonders: Is the de facto plan simply to have the U.S. military rule in lieu of a sitting government for the entire last half of 2004? Could our military even do that? If not the military, who?
These questions deserve credible answers, and well before June 30. Which would mean, roughly, now.
Copyright 2004, by Kevin Featherly
