Return to PS FAQs

US Politics 7/07 through 2008
Since June of 2007, what are the latest develpments in US Politics relating to Iraq? What are the Presidential candidates saying? What might change with President-elect Obama?
Also see "US Politics 11/06-6/07
And See US Politics 2009--

One should recall that in May 2007, President Bush vetoed a Congressional bill that would have called for some timelines for withdrawal. See many more details on spring 2007 US poliics.

In June of 2007, the U.S. Congress voted to give the President more funding for the war, the no serious strings attached. In general, candidates continued to speak about the war nearly every day, but Congress was waiting until September to make its next move.

Bush's signing statements were investigated by Congress in June. He reserved the right not to enforce laws. However, finding showed that the administration had not complied with the law in 30% of cases scrutinized. Commented Sen. Byrd, "Federal law is not some buffet line where the president can pick parts of some laws to follow and other to reject." Rep. Conyers added that the administration is "thumbing its nose at the law." The White House feels it has the right to decide how laws will be carred out and follow the Constitution. Bush has vetoed only two bills in six years.

Just before their August recess, Congress passed and the President signed a new law on August 5 to widen wiretapping. It quicly became very controversial. Americans could now have their email and phone calls checked without warrants and without a judge or court. The phone calls and email of Americans were only supposed to be monitored if they were with a suspect who was outside the US. The changes were more than even the administration had asked for. For a brief history of this issue, see "US Politics '06"

A federal judge struck down part of of the Patriot Act in early September and ordered the FBI to "stop its wide use of a warrentless tactic for obtaining e-mail and telephone date from private companies for counterinsurgency investigations. The law had been revised in 2005.

Spying came back to the news in early October, 2007, when a former Bush lawyer, Jack Goldsmith, said parts of the program were illegal. As Congress in mid-October considered changing the spying law they passed a few months ago, the Tribune urged Chicagoans to stay the course. Overall, "making the current law permanent is more sensible than excessive tinkering." The paper feels the after Democrats passed the bill, they suffered from "buyer's remorse."

Studs Terkel, the author and commentator who has been politically active since the 1920s, wrote a commentary in the October 29 (2007) Times. He relates wiretapping to other times in US history, usually during wars, that our rights have been limited and we have later come to regret the government actions. "In 1920, during my youth, I recall the Palmer raids in which more that 10,000 people were rounded up, most because they were members of particular labor unions or belonged to groups that advocated change in American domestic or foreign policy." In the 1950s during the McCarthy era "one's political beliefs again served as a rationale for government monitoring...I was among those blacklisted for my political beliefs. My crime? I had signed petitions. Lots of them" which were thought to be Communist-inspired." Terkel lost his ability to work on TV and radio "after refusing to say that I had been 'duped' into signing my name to those causes." During the 1960s and Vietnam there was more surveillance by the FBI but "then things changed" with the post-vietnam passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978. "The Bush administration, however, tore apart that carefully devised legal structure and social compact." Should phone companies today get a "get out of jail free card," the veteran author and commentator wonders. "It's impossible for Congress to know the motivations of these companies or to know how the government will use the private information received from them."

"Help Me Spy on Al Qaeda" titles the op-ed of National Intelligence Director, Michael McConnell (12/10/07, NYTimes). "The Protect America Act, enacted in August, has lived up to its name and objective: making the country safer while protecting the civil liberties of Americans." He urges Congress to "act again" because the act will expire on Feb. 1.

"Looking at America" was the New York Times end of the 2007 editorial, focusing partly on spying and the administration.

"The Fine Print", a leading Times editorial of late January 2008, suggests that one needs to read the footnotes with President Bush. In his State of the Union he promised to "bring the troops home as soon as it's safe to withdraw." Yet, the paper is concerned with the lack of sincerity due to signing statements. Hundreds of these "insidious documents" declared that "he has no intention of obeying a law that he had just signed. This is not just consitutional theory. Remember the detainee treatment act, which Mr. Bush signed and then proceeded to ignore, as he told CIA interrogators that they could go on mistreating detainees?...The first provision created a commission to determine how reliant the government is on contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, how much waste, fraud and abuse has occurred and what has been done to hold accountable those who are responsible. Congress authorized the commission to compel government officials to testify." The paper of record is also concerned about excessive protection for contractors like Blackwater. Bush also rejected a provision of the law against permanent military bases. "It is more evidence, as if any were needed that Mr. Bush never intended to end this war, and that he still views it as the prelude to an inceasing American military presence in Iraq."

"Secrets and Rights", the lead Times editorial (2/2/2008) opens, "President Bush' excesses in the name of fighting terrorism are legion. To avoid accountability, his administration has repeatedly sought early dismissal of lawsuits that might finally expose government misconduct, brandishing flimsy claims that going forward would put national security secret at risk. The court have been far too wiling to go along." The paper feels that since the Supreme Court has "abdicated its responsibility, Congress must now act. Too many laws have been violated, and too many Americans and others have been harmed under a phony claim of national security"

House Democrats let part of the wiretap law expire in late February. Barbs flew. Bush feared an atack on American soild would "make Sept. 11 pale in comparison." The White House wanted eavesdropping powers expanded the immunity given to phone companies. Little spying really changed.

Spying came back to the news in October 2008, with military eavesdroppers spying on intimate and personal phone calls. Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Rockefeller promised to investiage how intelligence could "routinely listen" in on private calls home from "American military officers, aid workers, and journalists" stationed in Iraq.

As the Bush administration entered its final month they continued to "Exit, Stonewalling," (1/4/09) according to the Times editorial. Secrecy, missing emails, and missing history seems to be one of the legacies of the past eight years. The piece opens, "True to its mania for secrecy, the Bush administration is leaving behind vast gaps in the most sensitive White House e-mail records, and with lawyers and public interest groups in hot pursuit of information that deserves to be part of the permanent historical record. E-mail messages that have gone suspiciously missing are estimated to number in the millions. These could illuminate some of the administration's darker moments, including the lead-up to the Iraq war, when intelligence was distorted, the destruction of videotapes of CIA torture interrogations, and the vindictive outing of the CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson...Historians and archivists are suing the administration." The leader of the group, Cheney, is "fighting to the last transfer of his records to the National Archives, as required by law." The editorial concludes, "History is truly the poorer for the Bush administration" Obama "must quickly undo the damage by ordering that records be shielded from political interference, by repairing the freedom-of-information process, and by ending the abuse of the classification process to cloak the truths of the presidency."

In other politics/individual rights stories, was "The T-shirt incident" JFK airport. An Iraqi-born legal resident of the US wore a t-shirt with Arabic. He was told to cover the shritt. Raed Jarrar was told by one federal ployee that this was like going to the bank in a shirt that said, "I am a robber." The shirt said in Arabic and English, "We will not be silent." Jarrar, a new immigrant, had been reading histories of discrimination and the civil rights movement. Though the airlines did not admit any wrongdoing, they have Jarrar $240,000 settlement after a lawsuit.

James Bamford's third comprehensive book on spying came out in December 2008, The Surveillance-Industrial Complex. At 395, it examines "The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the eavesdropping on America." The Times first broke the spying story back in 2005. The FISA law and wiretapping became huge political issues. Will any of these controversial issues be investigated under the new Obama administration?


Turning from spying to Presidential candidates, who had the best name recognition? In 2007 Clinton and Giuliani were both over 90%, with McCain, Edwards, and Obama all over 80%. Next came Mayor Bloomberg at 65%, who was considering a run for the presidency. McCain, by summer of 2007, seemed out of the race.

For earlier Obama, Clinton, and McCain ideas, see Politics late 2006 and early 2007

A critic of Sen. Harry Reid was pro-war columnist Charles Krauthammer (see much more at op-eds, pro-war FAQ). Critical of democrats and Maliki, but pleased with a "consensus" that the surge is bringing more security, were the highlights of his August 27 piece in the Tribune. Writes Krauthammer, "a reasoned debate has begun." He worries that "there will, of course, be the Harry Reids and those on the far left who will deny inconveniently reality. Reid will continue to call the surge a failure, as he has since even before it began....But the serious voices will prevail." Hillary Clinton even admitted that the surge "is working" in some ways. Krauthammer continues, "Our assumption that a national unity government is required to pacify the Sunni insurgency turned out to be false" as some of the allied against al Qaeda. We also "should have given up on al-Maliki long ago."

Return to Top

By early July Senator Pete Dominici became the third Republican in the week to criticize the Iraq policy. 6 Republicans had come out in support of the Iraq Study Group, thus implicitly supporting a withdrawal in the next few months. Said spokesman Tony Snow in mid-August, critics "refuse to contemplate victory." The tide might turn after influence Senator John Warner urged a withdrawal to begin. He announced in late August of a desire for 5000 troops home by Christmas to "show the Iraqi government that we mean business" and that the US military commitment is not open-ended.

In early August 2007, former NY governor Mario Cuomo urged Congress to assert its constitutional war powers. Writing commentary in the USA Today, Cuomo feels the problems of Iraq "might have been avoided in 2002" because Congress not the President has the power to declare war. Congress might have concluded that the war was not necessary. Today, Cuomo is urging a bipartisan effort on the war.

Also in early August the House approved legislation, in a close vote, to require active duty troops to get as much time at home as in Iraq. Democrats said the current policy was "straining the military, hurting morale and destabilizing military families." Republicans alleged Congressional meddling.

What does "withdraw" really mean? Would tens of thousands of US troops remain in the Green Zone and on at least four major US bases? Also see "US Troops Home in 2007/2008?" FAQ section. Even Edwards, Obama, and Clinton were trying to lower expectations and trying to have it both ways. One the one hand, Clinton said, "Our presence is not stopping" the killing of "thousands of people every month...We are not going to baby-sit a civil war...If this president does not end this war before he leaves office, when I am president I will." Yet, she and other were suggesting in August that leaving may take years. Edwards wants troops nearby in case of a full scale civil war which spills across borders. Logistically, military experts estimate a withdraw could take a year.

Obama feels that "preventing genocide is not a sufficient reason to stay" because otherwise, we would have troops now in Congo and Sudan. He adds, "It is time to bring our troops home because it has made us less safe." Back in October of 2002, Obama reminded Americans of his anti-war rally speech at Chicago's Federal Plaza. "I don't oppose all wars...I'm opposed to a dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principles but on politics...I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein...But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the US, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the lames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."

Dodd wants to begin redeployment immediately.

Bill Richardson proclaims, in contrast, "I have a one-point plan to get out of Iraq: Get out!" Also see "Troops Out '07?" FAQ.

Throughout July and August, 2007, Congress was slowly losing patience. Veteran Carl Levin said, "The President continues to call for patience, but the American people long ago lost patience with the failure of the Iraqi leaders" and do not want "the status quo without a plan." A retired US General Batiste did a TV commercial in which he said, "You didn't listen, Mr. President. You continue to pursue the failed strategy that is breaking our great Army and Marine Crops." Some Republicans were upset and felt it was "unconscionable" that Democrats wanted to vote for only a few months of funding at time. White House spokesman Tony Snow labeled it "bad management." Some Republicans were more critical of the President and the Maliki government.

Maybe in response, the White House plans, perhaps tentatively, to start a withdrawal in the spring of 2008, though much slower than opponents have demanded. Reported on the front page of the Times, it would include tens of thousands of troops remaining when Bush left office.

The much-anticipated Petraeus report was due in mid-September, likely September 15. By mid-August we were being told the report would be made on the anniversary of 9/11.

Chicago-area member of Congress Jan Schakowsky visited Iraq in late August and saw the bias in those she spoke with, because she cannot speak with regular Iraqis. "I call it the embassy PR tour." The liberal feels more convinced that the surge is a failure. A Republican who visited wants to "give the buildup more time."

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigned on August 27, 2007. Most in Congress had lost confidence in him, and he still might face charges of perjury in testimony to Congress.

The debate between the President and Congess heated up in late August. Reports from the NIE report and a GAO draft (from Congresses investigative arm) gave grim assessments of Iraqi national police. "More realism, less spin" urged the lead Times editorial of 8/31/07. The GAO is "a powerful fresh dose of nonpartisan realism" as the President "tires to spin people" into thinking significant or sufficient progress in being made. The NIE adds that the "country's leaders remain unable to govern effectively...The White House tried to discredit the ominous GAO assessment by saying the standards set by Congressional investigators were too high."

The final GAO report was somewhat more positive than the draft but showed virtually no political progress. Yet, there was still disagreement with the administration on issues such as consitutional reform, amnesty, militia disarmament, and reducing sectarian violence. Some Republicans want the data from August, not yet included in the GAO report, to be included. Patience is again urged. The light at the end of the tunnel is coming, in other words.

Return to Top

Senator Durbin feels that these reports are "a pretty consistent message of failure on the political front in Iraq." Responded the Commander in Chief, "Congress asked for this assessment [of Petraeus] and...should withhold judgment until they have heard it.

Sen. John McCain in a major late August, 2007 speech linked on his web site, feels that we cannot react to past mistakes "by embracing a course of action that will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal historical proportions, which will and I am as sure of this as I am of anything seriously endanger the county I have served all my adult life...This new battle plan is succeeding...To concede defeat now would strengthen al Qaeda, empower Iran and other hostile powers in the Middle EAst, unleash a full scale civil war in Iraq that could quite possibly provoke genocide there, and destabilize the entire region as neighboring powers come to the aid of their favored factions....As long as we have a chance to succeed we must try to succeed...As long as there is a prospect for not losing this war then we must not choose to lose it."

The President defended the status quo, of course, before the Petraeus report. "A free Iraq is within reach," claimed Bush on August 22, in a Times lead story. He urged Americans to "reject the allure of retreat." The commander in chief upped the ante by claiming a nuclear risk to the US if our forces left Iraq. He cited three main reasons for not withdrawing: the region would be unsettled, Al Qaeda would gain a safe haven, and Iran would be emboldened. Sounding like he did in the lead up to the Iraq war, the President said to a group of veterans, "A region already known for instability and violence" could be put "under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust...the civilized world...could be imperiled." Iran is providing weapons and training in Iraq, the President again alleged. The NIE concludes that this support is with the tacit approval of the Iraqi government. The President also urged "patience." We should not respond to "military progress by claiming that we have failed because Iraq's Parliament has yet to pass every law it said it would."

Responded Sen. Biden, "The president continues to suffer from the Katrina complex. That's when you ignore all the warnings, bad things happen, you continue to follow the same bad policy, and things get worse." Sen. Reid added that "most Americans and a bipartisan majority in Congress believe this strategy is not in our national interest and the time for a major change is now." In early September Reid reminded the Senate the many Republicans had asked to wait until September to judge the surge and to bring change. "It's September" and time to "responsibly end this war."

Speaking of nuclear issues, Obama spoke at Chicago's Depaul University and urge the eliminaton of all of the world's nuclear weapons. He feels that the Iraq war "has consumed American foreign policy to the detriment of its ability to address other threats facing the nation. Obama's speech comes after a January piece in the Wall Street Journal by Kissenter, George Shultz, and former Senator Sam Nunn, urging the same. Also see Obama's 2002 Chicago speech against the war.

For earlier Obama, Clinton, and McCain ideas, see Politics late 2006 and early 2007

Democrats tended to have similar views on Iraq, though Kucinich and Richardson were different. He wants all combat troops out and "all residuals." As Richardson wrote in a Post op-ed (9/8/07), "I want out now.", not a long process as in Vietnam. "Now", logistically, means 6-8 months, he explains. "We cannot win someone else's civil war." Reconciliation will occur only after we leave. The war "weakens us in the war against al Qaeda" and we can better focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan. The NM Governor adds, "If Congress fails to end this war, I will remove all troops without delay, and without hesitation, beginning on my first day in office."

Among Republicans, Senator Lugar wonders if Iraqis want to stay united. "Do Iraqis want to be Iraqis?" If not, "we have an awesome problem."

How will Congress vote in September 2007? Will some strings be attached to funding? Will funding be denied? Will the President veto another Iraq bill? In somewhat of a surprise, Sen. Durbin told the Tribune that though he had voted against the war, he would likely vote in favor of further funding of the war but would work to attach conditions. The Senator from Illinois, after a visit to Iraq, told the Chicago paper that "cliches won't solve the problems in Iraq...it is a tinderbox. They took me outside the Green Zone...it was like John McCain at an open market. Apache helicopters in every direction, armored personnel carriers, troops on every corner, stopping traffic everywhere to take me a distance of about 10 blocks. So to argue that if we left, it would be a dangerous situation is to ignore the obvious. It's already dangerous. It's already in the midst of a civil war." How to get out? Durbin pondered. "We made a mess getting into this war; we shouldn't make a mess getting out. There should be an orderly withdrawal." One option was to force the Pentagon to allow troops equal time at home as in combat, proposed by Sen. Jim Webb. Sec. Gates frowned on this idea.

Return to Top

President Bush visited Iraq on Labor Day, in an unannounced trip. Gates and Rice were also there. His only stop was a base of 10,000 soldiers in the Sunni Anbar region, "a model of progress." Analysts a year ago had concluded, "Anbar is lost." This was the President's third visit to Iraq, the first at Thanksgiving 2003, and the most recent in June 2006 when he came "to look Maliki in the eyes."

He focused on three positives that we will surely hear from Petraeus in the next week: security gains, sectarian reconciliation, and the possibility of troop withdrawal. In Iraq, Bush stressed that when the US begins to withdraw, it will be "from a positiion of strength and success, not from a position of fear and failure. To do otherwise would embolden our enemies and make it more likley that they would attacks us at home."

Responded Senator Reid, "Despite this massive PR operation, the American people are still demanding a new strategy." Military analyst Anothony Cordesman feels the reversal in Anbar has less to do with US strategy and more with local Sunni frustration with Al Qaeda extremism.

Barbara Lee, who voted against the war in the House, feels that it is "time for Congress to take a stand" against the war. Harold Myerson, in the Washington Post, wrote of "The Silenced Majority" of Americans who want the war to end. "But what do they matter?" he asks.

Bush changed how we should measure progress. Congress wants to focus on the lack of progress on the government in Baghdad, as Bush initiated a few months ago. However, the new gauge is US alliances with Sunni tribes. The President said while in Iraq, that these Sunnis "had made the decision that they don't want to live under Al Qaeda." One of their top leaders was murdered within days of meeting with President Bush. This is the fourth or fifth strategy unveiled, the front page Times reminded us. Why is the progress of the Iraqi government no longer a good measure of success? Some experts worry that Sunni loyalty may not be sustained.

Paul Krugman (9/7/07) suggested how we should examine the Petraeus testimony. Knowing that he'll assert that violence has been reduced, the Times columnist hopes that Democrats will remember. First, with "successful" ethnic cleansing in Baghdad, there are fewer Sunni and Shiites to be killed. Second, the general has a history of being overly optimistic when it is "politically convenient." Additionally, "the lesson of the past six years is that Republicans will accuse Democrats of being unpatriotic no matter what the Democrats do...Six or seven months from now it will be the same thing [debate] all over again...The administration will move the goal posts again, and the military will come up with new ways to cook the books and claim success." See much more on Krugman in "Columnists Against War" FAQ section

Frank Rich (9/9/07) is dubious of the administration's latest claims, based on history. Five years ago in the lead-up to war, the Times Sunday commentator recalls, came "epic propaganda onslaught of distorted intelligence, fake news, credulous and erroneous reporting by bona die journalists, presidential playacting and congressional fecklessness.. Much of it had been plotted the summer of 2002 by the ten-secret White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a small task force of administration bras charged with the Iraq con job. Today the spirit of WHIG lives." On benchmarks and Petraeus, what is surprising to Rich is "not that this White House makes stuff up, but that even after all the journalistic embarrassments in the run-up to the war its fictions can still infiltrate the real news." CBS's anchor Katie Couric, "channeling the president's bait-and-switch...never differentiated between the local group he calls "Al Qaeda in Iraq' and the Qaeda that attacked America on 9/11. Al Qaeda in Iraq, which didn't even exist on 9/11, may represent as little as 2 to 5 percent of the Sunni insurgency." Rich is upset over the private rhetoric, as when Bush told the Australian deputy prime minister, "We're kicking ass."

The PR battle geared up with advertisements from the left, such as MoveOn, and the right, such as Freedom's Watch. Freedom's Watch is spending $15 million in 20 states. The ads end with the tagline: "Victory is America's only choice." The central theme, according to the Times, is that "if America abandons Iraq, the sacrifice of those soldiers [we get to know in the ads] will have been in vain. In contrast, MoveOn wonders about keeping US soldiers "for an indefinite period of time--being attacked by an unidentifiable enemy--is wrong, immoral, and irresponsible...Support our troops. Bring them home."

Paul Bremer, US leader in Iraq in 2003-04, responded to critics over Labor Day 2007. The dismantling of the Iraqi Army in 2003, according to the front page of the Times, "is now widely regarded as a mistake that stoked rebellion among hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers and made it more difficult to reduce sectarian bloodshed and attacks by insurgents." Bremer said that he had discussions with Rumsfeld about the policy, and that the President was informed. "It was not a controversial decision" because the Iraqi Army "had disappeared." Bremer wants it to be known that he was not alone in making the now unpopular decision. However, Powell did not know ahead of time.

The New York Times editorial "Hiding Behind the General", anticipates Petraeus' appearance before Congress which "could be the most consequential testimony by a wartime commander in more than a generation. What the country desparately needs is an honest assessment of the war and a clear strategy for extricating American forces from the hopeless spiral of violence in Iraq...Mr. Bush, we fear, isn't looking for the truth, only for ways to confound the pubic, scare Democrats into dropping them demands for a sound exit strategy, and prolong the war until he leaves office...Mr. Bush, deeply unpopular with the American people, is counting on the general to restore credibility to his discredited Iraq policy," which echoes how Bush used a popular Sec. of State Powell in Feb. 2002 before the war began, to "play frontman...Mr. Bush cannot once again subcontract his responsibility. This is his war." The paper continues that if Bush "insists on listening only to those who agree with him, Congress and the public must weigh Gen. Petraeus's report against all data."

Petraeus was "grilled" by the House and Senate during the week of 9/11/07. He suggested reverting to pre-surge levels of 130,000 by July. As expected, he emphasized progress and patience, and warned against a quick pullout. Several Senate Republicans "expressed deep skepticism, frustration, and unease with the current path and little enthusiasm for leaving troops in the war-torn country indefinitely" (front page Tribune story). The General shared some of this frustration, saying, "The situation in Iraq remains complex, difficult, and sometimes downright frustrating." He believed the US is meeting its military objectives. It appeared that if the General's recommendations were followed, the US troops would remain, probably above 100,000, for years to come. Withdrawal would be up to the next President, who takes office in January 2009.

Appearing with the General was US Iraqi Ambassador Ryan Crocker. He was far from rosy, stating that he was "frustraed every day I am in Iraq."

Critics in the Senate included those from both parties:
--Lugar (R): "It is not enough for the administration to counsel patience until the next milestone or the next report." We need to "change the equation."
--Colemon (R): We should withdraw troops faster. "Americans want to see light at the end of [the] tunnel."
--Warner (R): Doubting national reconciliation, "That's what's been said at this table for a long time...And...it hasn't happened....Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress...do you feel that that is making America safer?" Replied Petraeus, "I don't know."
--Hagel (R): "Are we going to continue to invest American blood and treasure at the same rate we are doing now."

"General Betray Us?" was the headline of a Moveon ad. Moveon is a powerful, liberal, anti-war group. Guliani placed a counter ad in the Times. Sen. McCain called it "a McCarthyte attack on an American patriot." John Kerry called the original ad "over the top" but moveon executive director defended it because Petraues testimoney was "a betryal of trust" and he was "cooking the books." Some of the moveon assertions in the Times ad, the Times later reported, were over-simplified. The Senate voted to condemn the ad, for insulting the entire military. This lead Moveon to recruit more subscribers and funds. Did Petraeus tell the whole truth? Bush even got into the debate, condemning Democrats who did not vote to condemn Moveon.

It remained unclear, on the eve of the President's speech, whether these Senators would vote to risk a Presidential veto.

Among the supportive voices came from Trent Lott (R-MS) who felt the Democrats "seemed pretty shrill." Columnist Michael Gerson in the Washington Post describes "The Assault on Petraeus." Compared to six months ago, we are seeing progress "that seemed unimaginable." The Petraeus strategy has "reduced sectarian murders significantly."

To counter Moveon, Freedom's Watch began a $15 million campaign in August designed "to maintain Congressionnal support" for the troop increase. The front page Times story quoted the President of Freedom Watch, a former deputy assistant to President Bush: "If Hitler's warnings were heeded when he wrote Mein Kampf he could have been stopped. Ahmadinejad is giving all the same kind of warning signs to us, and the region--he wanted the destruction of the US and the destruction of Israel."

Editorials were varied. The Chicago Tribune emphasized that "yes, there's progress." (9/11/07). Petraeus' troops drawdown is "somewhat speedier than expected."

One Times article reminded readers that those internally displaced has doubled since the surge began. Shiite judges concede that up to 50% of detainees are innocent. They quote one tribal leader on the Iraqi government. "Its the government of nothing. No oil, No water. No electricity." The Times adds, "crippled by corruption and inefficiently, departments in many ministries are all but private fiefs...The loss of faith in the government has driven Iraqis to militias, tribes and nongovernment organizations" like Sadr's.

Return to Top

After Gen. Petraeus' report to Congress, President Bush announced his new September plan. On the eve of that speech, the Times printed an historical overview of polls showing the percent of Americans who "approve of the way Bush was handling the situation with Iraq.

The Commander in Chief hoped that a gradual, limited withdrawal would bring a divided country together. His prime time address, Sept. 13, was his eighth since the war began. He did not once use the word "withdraw." It included a mostly upbeat report: "The troops surge...is working" especially in Anbar where "local reconciliation" is taking place "from the bottom up." Good news stories don't make the headlines. Today in Baghdad "ordinary life is beginning to return." 5700 troops will come home by Christmas, not to be replaced. Current totals were 169,000, up from 160,000 for most of the past 2 months. "Return on success" will be the principle guiding future decisions. "A free Iraq will deny al Qaeda a safe haven" and help us against Iran.. "let us come together." Bush concluded the 18 minute speech: "Some say the gains we are making in Iraq come too late. They are mistaken. It is never too late to deal a blow to al Qaeda. It is never too late to advance freedom. And it is never too late to support our troops in a fight they can win."

Polls in October found asked about the effect of the troop increase:
--33%: making the situation better;
--13%: making the situation worse;
--41%: making no difference.

A November poll among voters in early primary states showed that the war is the #1 issue for Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire, but #3 or 4 among Republicans. National security and jobs were more important for these voters.

How much has Anbar changed? wondered a pollster.

In response to the President's plan, Obama's greatest applause line in Iowa was, "We need to begin to end this war, now." Added Edwards, "Our troops are policing a civil war." Other Democrats were frustrated with another "wait until..." promise being unfulfilled. Harry Reid feels the war is "endless and unlimitted...Once again the President failed to provide either a plan to successfully end the war or a convincing rationale to continue it." Said another Democrat (Salazar, CO), "The American military cannot secure the peace."

Republicans included Mitt Romney criticizing those like Obama who espouse a "Flee-in-the-face-of success strategy."

For earlier Obama, Clinton, and McCain ideas, see Politics late 2006 and early 2007

The Washington Post editorial felt the President's plan was "the least bad option."
See many more editorials.

Just a day after the President's speech the White House released "a decidedly mixed report" described the Times, concerning military and political progress, "and then in effect declared the report beside the point. Benchmarks, long the standard bearer of success, were downplayed. The Iraqi police are still sectarian, crack downs on Shiite militias are interfered with by the central government, and militias control many neighborhoods.

A war surtax was proposed in early October by Reps. Obey, Murtha, and McGovern. Said Obey, "If this war is important enough to fight, then it ought to be important enough to pay for." Funding currently comes in the form of increased deficits. Pelosi is against it. Rather, the House passed a bill, overwhelmingly, that would require the administration within 60 days to prepare a plan for a redeployment.

Who has the moral high ground on the war in October 2007? One op-ed piece (Times, 10/7/07) criticized the "liberal hawks" who "threw in their lot" in 2003 for "preventative war...For a while afterward, the president's liberal enablers fell silent. temporalily abashed by the complicity in the worst foreign policy error in American history. But gradually they are returning. And they are in a decidedly self-righteous mood. Yes, they concede, President Bush mess up his (our) war. But even if the war was a mistake, it was a brave and good mistake...For all its shortcomings, the Iraq war, we are now reminded, was 'justified'...by its impeccable moral credentials...This is a seductive tale."

General Sanchez strongly criticized the handling of the war in October 2007. His "sweeping indictment of 'a nightmare' were splashed on the front page of the Times (10/13/07). The comments seemed to be a belated response to Petraeus. Sanchez led US forces prior to Abu Ghraib and was criticized at the time for not recognizing or not acknowledging the growing insurgency. He was convinced that the US effort was failing the day after he took command in June, 2003. He admitted that some of the mistakes were his, such as a lack of a good stabilization plan. Sanchez added, "There has been a glaring and unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders" while civilian officials have been "derelict in their duties and guilty of a lust for power." The war plan was "catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic." The surge was labeled as "a desperate move." We have no wise strategy at present. Of the military who have criticized the war over the past years, Sanchez is the most senior. "The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat." Back in June he had said that the best the US could do was a stalemate. Though Sanchez retired in 2006, he is still a Pentagon consultant who trains active-duty generals. White House officials did not reply to the charges but appreciated his service.

Sanchez made the news again in late November, by supporting the Democratic legislation to have most troops out by the end of 2008.

See more on the challenges and violence during some of Sanchez years, 2003-2004

In the wake of Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize, Thomas Friedman looked out the unity Gore brought to the environmental issue, in contrast to President Bush (10/14/07). "Yet Mr. Bush, in his signature issue, never mobilized the country, never punished incompetence, never made the bad guys 'fight all of us.'"

In mid-October, it seemed that Iraq was less often on the front page of the Times and Tribune. Perhaps this was due to less action in Congress concerning the war. A day in late October when neither paper had Iraq on the front page was instead dominated by the raging fires of southern California.

Return to Top

Following the President's request for another $46 billion in emergency funds, (see Troops/Cost FAQ) Rep. David Obey is amazed that Bush "expects to be taken seriously when he says we cannot afford $20 billion in investments in education, health, law enforcement and science...but he doesn't blink an eye at asking to borrow $200 billion for a policy in Iraq that leaves us six months from now exactly where were were six months ago." Bush did not want Congress to "go home for the holidays while our troops are still waiting for the funds they need."

The lead Times editorial of October 25 encourages the Democrats to get tougher on spending for the war. The majority party has "failed repeatedly to end the Iraq war or to substantially change its course. Now they fact another test. Mr. Bush will try to ram his spending request through Congress before Christmas, using the impeding holiday to create a false sense of urgency. They must resist that, and to again to use their power of the purse to force the president to begin serious planning for a swift and orderly exit from Iraq. They cannot have it both ways--opposing the war and enabling Mr. Bush to keep it going full speed and full cost ahead."

Leading Democrats want to offer only some funding with a "goal" of pulling out most troops within a year. Some troops would be left for protecting diplomats counterterrorism and support for Iraqi troops. It is not clear how many troops this would require. Pelosi was reported to have privately remarked, "If you don't want that, Mr. President, you ain't getting nothing." Some strongly anti-war democrats oppose this funding. Pro-war Republicans counter, "As long as we're continuing to have success, as long as our soldiers are continuing to move out of harm's way and have Iraqis more out front, I think that the Congres..will not put these kin of handcuffs on our generals or on our troops (Rep. Boehner). Added Sen. McConnell, "While our troops are quelling violence and defeating terrorists in Baghdad and throughout Iraq, Democrats in Washington are trying to choke off funds for our troops in the field."

Though polls change and frontrunners often fall, the best prediction from most pundits in October 2007 was the the nominees would be Guliani and Clinton. Would one of them become the Howard Dean of 2008?

A growing majority of Americans grew increasingly frustrated with the Democrats inability to wind down the war. A vote to end the war was seen as the top issue 12 months ago in the November 2006 elections. Thousands took part in protests in 11 major US cities on October 27, the anniversary of the initial war vote of 2002.

NPR's Tom Bullock is also frustrated--and tired by the violence and lack of candor from politicians. He has been to Iraq dozens of times. Hear Bullocks' moving NPR piece from October 22, 2007.

Previously that fall, teens marched across the county for peace. Calling for an end to the war, they walked from San Francisco to DC, 3000 miles., arriving on 9/11. Ashley Casale, 19, and Michael Israel, 18, were reported on by the Tribune. They held a "march for peace" banner. While acknowledging that their march "might not have changed the course of the war or gained much of the nation's attention...they hoped...to galvanize the people they met along the way. The two walked about 25 miles every day, carrying 40 pound packs. See a video at chicagotribune.com/marchers.

President Bush is not frustrated but is optimistic about the results of the surge begun in January. Making his first detailed statement on the war in a few weeks, in early November the President took the rare step of offering body counts (killed and capture are 1500 per month since January. He added that while corruption is high the reconciliation is frustration at the national level, it is taking place at a local level. "Inflation has been cut in half. Electricity production in September reached its highest levels since the war began--and higher than it was under Saddam Hussein...Slowly but surely, the people of Iraq are reclaiming a normal society." Roadside bombs have been cut in half and US military deaths were at their lowest in 19 months.

Responded Sen. Harry Reid, "Our primary goals--political reconciliation--is still out of reach and Iraqi security forces have not met the responsibility." Bush wanted the surge to bring "breathing space" for Maliki and other politicians to compromise.

Impeachment came up again with Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. He officially proposed, in October and November, impeaching Vice President Cheney.

Former Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern ('72) joined the impeachment advocates. As he wrote in a Washington Post piece, "Why I Believe Bush Must Go. Nixon Was Bad. These Guys Are Worse." His reasons include: "They have repeatedly violated the Constition..lied to the American people time after time" and "violated international law." These are truly 'high crimes and misdemeanors.'" Though he realizes that impeachment is unlikely, "we must still urge Congress to act." Coincidently, Kucinich, having dropped out of the race for President the same week as the McGovern peace, has decided to take impeachment off the table in the House.

In the November/December political battles, a Republican proposal for an additional $70 billion was turned down. Rep. Murtha feels that "many Democrats were elected because they said this war ought to end." He will be seeking "goals or timelines." Responded Sen. Stevens, "It's just a policy ploy to try to end the war by starving the troops."

The House passed a limited funding bill, which allows for about $50 billion of the $200 billion the President wants. This would fund the war at least through mid-February. It mandates a beginning of withdrawal within 30 days of being enacted (that same week the military spoke of withdrawing some by Christmas, anyway). In addition, the bill sets the "goal" of having "most combat" troops out by December 2009. Troops left would be to focus on couterterrorism and training Iraqis. How many troops would this require? The bill would also specifically ban US military and CIA from waterboarding. The bill was expected to struggle in the Senate, and be vetoed by the President. The bill passed mostly along party lines without veto proof cushion. One Democratic leader reflects: "I think the American people see their government as not effecting the end they want and therefore they are frustrated and angry" (Rep. Hoyer). Responded White House Spokesman Dana Perino, "This is for political posturing and to appease radical groups."

The Times article describes the familiar political scene: "The fight over supplemental war spending is the latest rerun of a well-worn routine: Congressional Democrats, unable to force Mr. Bush to change course...push to vote on fruitless legislation to remind American that they want to end the war. The White House accuses the Democrats of undermining the troops, and Congressional Republicans express outrage of the House passes a bill."

As expected the Senate bill did not pass, though it had over 50 votes. Four Republicans crossed over. 60 are needed to break a filibuster by the minority. Defense Sec. Gates warned of shutting down military bases and laying off employees, warning which Democrats dismissed. Of those running for President, the only surprise vote was Sen. Dodd, who voted no because the bill "did not do enough" to compel a troop pullout. A few days later Democrats called these scare tactics which "needlessly frighten" military employees. Adds Rep. Obey, "If the president wants that $50 billion released, all he has to do is call the Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, and ask him to stop blocking it."

President Bush defended the troops as a way of supporting his funding request. His new offensive was to "give American troops what they need to succeed." The President added in late November, "The American people expect us to work togehter to supprot our troops. They do not want the government to create needless uncetainy for those defening our county, and uncertainy for their families. They do not want disputes in Wahsigonton [dithering, say others] to undermine our troops in Iraq, just as they're seeing clear signs of success." Replied Sen. Reid, "The presient demands more manoye to continue his faled war policy, yet he and his enablesrs in Congress ahve rejected our propsal for an additonla $50 billino provided they work with us ot change course in Iraq. He cannot have it both ways...We will continue to fight for a war stretgy worhty of their sacrrficces. Othe Democrats vowed, as they had for months, that there would be "no blank check."

The pattern of both sides was familiar.

Despite the Senate vote, the Times editorial page is pleased that the Democrats "find their voice." (11/17/07). The stubborn Iraqi central government is seen by that US commanders as a greater threat than al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents, or Iranian-backed militia. "It's far past time to begin a swift and orderly withdrawal of forces form Iraq' civil war and to focus on Afghanistan, where America's win over the Taliban and Al Qaeda is in danger of being reversed."

EJ Dionne, Post columnist, writes in mid-November of "Billions for Guns, Vetoes for Butter" . "It's time we subject the Iraq war to the same cost-benefit analysis that we are called upon to impose on other government endeavors. We are supposed to repeal or revise domestic program that don't work. Shouldn't a troubled war policy be treated the same way? The ruling assumption of the moment is that we can't afford to withdraw our troops...because of the chaos that would ensure. The idea seems to be that somehow--against evidence of the past 4 1/2 years--good things will happen if we just keep the war going...We should be asking whether keeping our forces in Iraq over an extended period is worth the cost in lives, injuries, money, lost opportunities and strain on our military. How will a prolonged stay in Iraq enhance our security?" Dionne feels that Bush's approach "is the classic case of a politician arguing that a problem will be solved if only we keep throwing large sums of money at it...Interest costs on Iraq-related debt will be more than $23 billion for fiscal 2008. That sum is almost exactly the amount spearing Bush and Congress on spending levels for the entire budged now being debated...So it comes down to this: Bush can bust the budget for Iraq, but God forbid that we spend a little more on education."

Student anti-war protests were suspended for up to 10 days in a Chicago area high school in mid-November. Morton West, in Berwyn, may expel some of the students. The story made the national media. There were told to move their protest from the lunchroom, and there was disagreement as to whether they all moved, with the promise of light punishment. Yet, two dozen were charged with "gross disobedience and mob activity."

From the school point of view, schools officials said they were not upset with the message but that the school day was being interrupted. The superintendent read a statement: "The cafeteria was required to be shut down, and students were held in their classrooms, causing a major disturbance to the school day...It is the responsibility of the district to correct inappropriate behavior..to preserve a peaceful and educational environment."

On the other hand, parents and students disagree and some are very upset with the school. Parents feel their children were, at worst, "loitering...Who's the next group to go off to war. These kids...Yet the military's running around the school trying to recruit." At a meeting, some parents felt that students with a high GPA or who play a varsity sport were treated more leniently. Other parents were proud of their children. One student said, "We weren't violent in any way. We were holding hands and singing 'Kumbaya" and the song 'Give Peace A Chance.'" An aunt added, "The administration is giving harder punishments to students who won't tell them who organized the protest...This isn't a Fascist state. [School officials] are the CIA." One disabled Gulf War vet lashed out at recruiters who "roam the hallways."

A few days later most of the Morton West students returned to the classroom, and none were expelled.

Protestors were arrested in two locations around Veterans Day. In one case, 18 veterans were arrested in Boston and about the same number were arrested in Washington state. They were protesting military cargo shipments arriving from Iraq. They had blocked the entrance to an interstate.

In Washington state, teachers got in trouble for walking out of class with students, to protest the war.

In mid-November the unrest in Pakistan forced Iraq off the front pages for a few days.

Journalists struggle to keep the story alive for Americans. The Tribune's public editor, Timothy McNulty saw Iraq recede from the headlines in mid-November. It is receding "into an abstraction, sets of numbers and talking points. And it is up to a dwindling number of media organizations with the resources and commitment to keep it real. The war is certainly not abstract for the 165,000 American troops...and their families. It is also very real for the reporters and photographers who risk their lives..." McNulty describes a Tribune reporter and photographer who took two days to make a journey which is only a 30 minute drive. "Iraq fatigue set in long ago, I think, for many readers and even for some editors. But reporters still need to tell the story; we cannot allow it to become an abstraction of just debating points." He concludes, "Many Americans and Iraqis may be waiting for January 2009 to hear whether the next president will choose a time for the final pullout of the troops."

John McCain was interviewed by the Chicago Tribune in mid-November and spoke of his long desire to add troops and the success of the surge. In 2005 and 2006 he had consistently urged a change in strategy and denounced the war as it was being fought. The war is still difficult. "What [Democrats] don't understand is the presidents don't lose war and political parties don't lose war--nations lose wars. And when nations lose wars, nations suffer the consequences. You probably don't know that two weeks ago in Ramadi they had a 5K race. You probably don't know that in parts of Baghdad there are soccer games and marketplaces open....Things are much better. If we can convince the American people to give us some more time, I think we will see success there." If not, he added, there will be a power vacuum for al Qaeda and Iran.

McCain feels his political rivals have not displayed "leadership, courage or knowledge" necessary to win the war. Giuliani should have stayed on the Iraq Study Group. "He didn't show much interest in a war where young Americans are fighting and dying.

The Tribune's lead and lengthy editorial of Nov. 23 examined "the war in Washington." The paper feels that Democratic leaders "are trapped in a time warp. They said a year ago the surge was doomed to fail. They were wrong" but they still "demand the president set a timetable for troop withdrawal." Sen. Reid had said "this war is lost" but "Reid was wrong." Political progress will hopefully follow the easing of violence ("we will learn") with progress coming from the provinces, not from the central government. "Yet Democrats remain in the position of calling for a hasty retreat while conditions improve. Forcing the military to yank troops on an artificial timetable could drain away the gains the surge has produced. Democrats could learn from the president's mistakes...that clinging to a failed policy isn't leadership. It's just stubborn."

Obama vs. Clinton was the subject of Post columnist Fred Hiatt (11/26/07). He feels that Obama suggests that Clinton is guilty of "triangulation, poll-testing, and telling the American people what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear. Maybe so. But then it's fair to ask: Is Obama telling the American people anything they don't want to hear?...On Iraq, he used to agree with her that some troops would stay to fight al-Qaeda and other terrorists, train Iraqi forces, and guard embassies. Now he says the antiterrorist mission might be accomplished from outside Iraq, and recently...dropped the train ideas altogether."

For earlier Obama, Clinton, and McCain ideas, see Politics late 2006 and early 2007

The three leader Democrats, going into the early January Iowa caucus, were Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. Their late November comments on the war include Clinton: "The fundamental point...is that the purpose of the surge was to create space for political reconciliation and that has not happened, and there is no indication that it is going to happen, or that the Iraqis will meet the political benchmarks. We need to stop refereeing their civil war and start getting out of it." Obama's spokesman emphasized that "the best leverage we have to get Iraq's political leader to do their job is to immediately begin to withdraw our troops." Added Edwards, "Until there is political reconciliation between the Sunni and the Shia, there cannot be stability, there will not be an end to the violence." Richardson, through his spokesperson , was more direct, favoring unconditionally withdraw beginning immediately: "Let's be clear: 40 dead Americans [in the past month] is 40 too many...65% of Iraqis support killing American solders."

Bill Clinton asserted in November that he opposed the Iraq War from the start, but felt it wasn't too diplomatic to say so at the time. As careful readers of the pre-war chapters of this site, one will notice that the former President was very quiet in the lead up to the war. See Obama's 2002 Chicago speech. The Times covered questions Clinton's reading of history. "Before the invasion, Mr. Clinton did not precisely declare that he opposed the war. A week before...he did say that he preferred to give weapons inspections more time and that an invasion was not necessary to topple Saddam Hussein. At the same time, he also spoke supportively about the 2002 Senate resolution [which his wife supported] that authorized military action." Clinton had said on the eve of war, that Saddam is "finally destroying his missiles, so let's give him a certain date in which, in this time, he has to destroy the missiles." By June of 2004, 14 months after the war began, he said he would "not have done it until after Hans Blix finished" with weapons inspections.

As more progress (less violence) is seen in Iraq, Democrats seem to be shifting their political strategy. The war may become less negative for Republicans by the time of the general election.

Similarly, the Bush administration was shifting goals in Iraq. Major steps toward unity are being downscaled, instead focusing on more Baath party members to rejoin the government, rather than an oil law or federalism agreements.

Friedman feels that the US and Rice should spend less time on Israeli-Palestinian issues and more on Iraq, now that the violence is decreasing. Her emphasis leaves him feeling "like my house is burning down and the fire department has decided to stop along the way to get two cats out of a tree...Don't we need a surge in diplomacy to finish the job?" He wonders if Rice is keeping away "from the Iraq mess to save her image, or does she know that the Iraqi politicians will not and cannot seize this moment to reach a grand bargain, because making big public concessions to one another is still extremely dangerous in a county like Iraq. It is an invitation for assassination...Right now what is indisputable is that we are seeing the first crack in years in a wall of pessimism that has been the Iraq story."

Maliki and Bush agreed on long-term relations in late November. The "Declaration of Principles", signed via video-conference, does not specify the number of US troops or the length of their stay. The Tribune front-page story confirms that troops will stay beyond 2008. Commended Bush's war "tsar", Lute, "It signals a committment...The basic message" is that Iraq is "increasingly able to stand on its own. That's very good news, but it won't have to stand alone."

With the Middle East Summit called by President Bush in late November, Iraq left the front page for a day or two. Abbas and Olmert met with a dozen other leaders of the Middle East.

See many more details on Iran and the NIE on their nuclear potential.

The war is becoming less important to voters, we learned weeks before the Jan. 3 Iowa caucus. Though the war was still the top issue among both parties in New Hampshire, one polling experts feels that "It's been declining since the late spring and early summer." Among Democrats, Iraq in June was the most important issue among 57% but now among only 41% (#2 issue is 23%). Among Republicans, Iraq is #1 among 22% (was 36%) and Immigration is second at 16%. Might Iraq drop to "issue #2" among Republicans by February or March?

As questions about the economy seem to take more importance, Iraq is becoming less important among voters. Candidates for President leading up to Iowa are mentioning Iraq less often in the campaign ads. Ads mentioning Iraq peaked for Democrats in October (40%) but in December are down to about 5%. Obama and Clinton have mentioned Iraq the most in the past 3 months. Republicans are now more likely to mention Iraq than are Democrats, a shift that came in late November. One cause of this change is the reported reduction in violence in Iraq.

As the "R" word (Recession) was more than whispered, Democratic voters in Iowa ranked both the war and the economy the top issue. Republicans ranked it fourth behind illegal immigration, the economy and terrorism. In winning the Michigan Republican primary in early January, Mitt Romney stressed the economy more than the war. The unemployment rate is the highest in the nation in Michigan.

Frank Rich points out in his weekly Times op-ed that the percent who feel the war is going well "has risen strikingly in tandem with he diminution of violence--from 30 % in February to 48% in November...Even so" American sill favor withdrawal and believe the war is a mistake by about the same margins (1/6/08).

The typical front page stories on the war in The Chicago Tribune and The New York Times were more often replaced in mid-late December and into early January with stories of the new NIE on Iran, Bhutto's assassination, post-election violence in Kenya, Roger Clemens, CIA Torture Tapes, and the Presidential caucus in Iowa and primary in New Hampshire.

In the January 2008 Florida primary, Republicans dropped the war to #4 in importance, after the economy, terrorism, and illegal immigration. On Super Tuesday (Feb. 5), most Democrats rated the war as issue #2 behind the economy but ahead of health care, whereas Iraq was usually #3 for Reupblican, alos behind illegal immigration.

Military families are losing faith, reported the Tribune back in a December 2007 poll. "Was the war worth it?" Military families say "no" at nearly the exact percent as all respondents, 60%. Responded one father, "I pray to God that they did not die in vain, but I don't think our president is even sensitive at all to what it's like to have a child serving over there." 1/4 of responds feel troops should stay "as long as it takes to win." Nearly 7/10 favor a withdrawal within the coming year or "right away."

State Department officers are rejecting Iraq, nearly half because they don't agree with the Bush polices. Other concerns include security and separation from families, we learned in January 2008.

Richard Cohen, commentator in the Times had a half hour interview with Obama. The Illinois Senator is skeptical, Cohen writes (12/10/07) about "the American idea and American global stewardship [which] has grown fast during the Bush years. There are many reasons: the failures in Iraq; the abyss between US principle and practice (Abu Ghraib); the rise of other nations (China); startling displays of American incoherence (Iran)..."

After winning the Iowa caucus on January 3, 2008, Obama will certainly stay in the news for at least the coming weeks. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, with little expertise in foreign policy, won the caucus for the Republicans. The first primary, in New Hampshire, would be just five days later. There, McCain was hoping to do well....and won.

Huckabee criticizes the President for not listening to miliaty leaders who urged him to send more troops at the start of the war. "American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up and reach out. The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. The former Arkansas Governor plans to keep troops until Iraq is "stable and secure."

The Times ran a retrospective on where the candidates stand on various issues. Most of the Republicans "have tried to sound more hawkish than the man for whom the [Bush preemptive] doctrine is named." McCain wanted more force, earlier than Bush did. Nearly all Republican are against a timetable for withdrawal, with the exception of Ron Paul. Guliani wants to keep troops "as long as necessary" to achieve the goal of an Iraq which is "stable and that acts as an ally for the US in the Islamic terrorist's war against the US." Romney concurs that Iraq is a front of "global war being waged by violent radical jihadists." However, the former Governor of Massachusetts does not want permanent military bases.

In mid-January 2008, Roger Cohen's Times commentary on McCain emphasizes that he still believes "Iraq's freedom outweighs its terrible price." Yet, McCain is not his choice for President, "but he's too honorable to dismiss at a moment so critical to US standing in the world."

Democrats agree more than disagree. Clinton wants a withdraw to start within 60 days of coming to office with the goal of most troops out by 2013. Chris Dodd, who withdrew after Iowa, wants all combat troops out by April 2008. "Begin an immediate withdrawal upon taking office," proposes Obama and "have all our combat brigades out...within 16 months." He doesn't' suggest how long non-combat troops might stay, how many, and what defines "combat." The "limited number" of troops would fight al Qaeda, "other terrorists" and protects the embassy.

On detainees, Democrats tend to agree but Republicans are more split. Among the leading candidates, Giuliani and Romney want to keep Gitmo open, whereas Huckabee, and McCain want it closed. All Democrats would close the prison, restore habeas corpus and try detainees in federal courts, not military tribunals Richardson has been somewhat less specific.

The Times looks at pre-New Hampshire primary debates in early January. The paper "hardly expected" Republicans to call for withdrawal, but none had "the slightest sense of how to achieve the victory they said they wanted...The four Democrats (Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Richardson) debated ideas for ending the war, a service to American voters who overwhelmingly want it to end."

Who voted for the war and who voted for war funding? This question kept being rehashed in early 2008, especially between Clinton and Obama. The Times criticized Clinton's interpretation of recent history. Clinton and Obama's battle was highlighted on NPR's Morning Edition of Jan. 15. Clinton charged Obama with inconsistency and Obama defended his views.

A record-setting bill passed Congress just a few days before Christmas. The $555 billion bill included about $70 billion more for Iraq and Afghanistan, with no strings attached, such as goals for starting a troop withdrawal. The President promised to sign the bill, though it only provided about half of the funds for the wars which he desired. Why did Democrats back down? Rep. Sen. McConnell threatened to shut down the US government. Two withdrawal plans were defeated in the Senate. By a vote of 71-24, one required most troops to be redeployed in nine months. Another, by a 50-45 vote, was a non-binding plan to transition troops out of combat to a more limited mission by the end of 2008. Anti-war Sen. Feingold feels the US should immediately begin "an orderly withdrawal...What are we supposed to tell them and their families? To wait another year until a new administration and a new Congress starts listening to the American people and brings this tragedy to a close?"

Amazingly, The President vetoed the $696 military bill due to an obscure provision which might expose the Iraq's new government to legal claims dating back to Saddam. This veto came after weeks of "haranguing" Democrats to move quickly to pass a bill he could sign. John Kerry couldn't wait to recall the 2004 Presidential election by quipping, "Only George Bush could be for supporting the troops before he was against it." Others criticized the veto by arguing that the president was siding with the Iraqi government over Americans who had suffered in terrorist attacks, "a sensitive charge" against Bush.

The New York Times end of the year retrospective was the much-forwarded "Looking at America." (12/31/07). They are concerned about a number of issues, mostly relating to the Constitution and to secrecy. These issues include cover up of torture by the CIA, the image of America being "trampled on the constitutional pillars that have supported our democracy." In the illegal and immoral treatment of prisoners, "a few have been punished but their leaders have never been called to account." Another concern is "wiretapping phones and intercepting international e-mail messages without a warrant." After mentioned Gitmo, the Times concludes their last lead editorial of 2007 thusly: "We can only hope that this time, unlike 2004, American voters will have the wisdom to grant the awesome powers of the presidency to someone who has the integrity, principle and decency to use them honorably. Then when we look in the mirror as a nation, we will see once again, the reflection of the United States of America."
See another FAQ for much more on various Editorials.

Madeleine Albright, former Sec. of State, also had some end of the year perspective. Perhaps hoping President Bush or Sec. Rice would read her Post op-ed, Albright wrote of her "Confidence in America" : "I love America deeply and I believe our county is still the best in the world, but I also believe we have developed a dangerous lack of self-awareness. No nukes, we say, while possessing the world' largest arsenal. Respect the law, we demand, while disregarding the Geneva Conventions. You're with us or against use, we declare, while ignoring the impact of our actions on Turkey and the Middle East. Hands off Iraq, we warn, while our troops occupy Baghdad. Bewared China's military, we cry, while spending as much on defense as the rest of the world combined...Our reputation is in disrepair.

The Times followed with their "Let It Start Now" as the lead editorial of Jan. 4. "All of the Republicans want to continue President Bush's disaster of a war in Iraq, including Mr. McCain...The Democrats are united in their opposition ...but none have spelled out a persuasive plan for getting American troops home without setting off a wider conflagration."

In "See No Good" the Post editorial wonders why the Democratic candidates cannot concede that the "surge" has worked. They were all against the surge but it has reduced violence, al Qaeda has "been dealt a major blow, and the threat of sectarian civil war that seemed imminent a year ago has receded. The monthly total of US fatalities in December was the second-lowest of the war." If Democrats were reasonable they would acknowledge the success but point out that they aren't' seeing political progress (See Iraqi Politics '07-08). Yet, they still want "a rapid withdrawal...that would almost certainly reverse the progress." The candidates don't adjust their policies "to the changed situation." The Post concludes, "Any US policy ought to be aimed at consolidating the gains of the past year and ensuring that neither al-Qaeda nor sectarian war make a comeback. So far, the Democratic candidate have refused even to consider that challenge."

In reaction to Bill Clinton calling Obama's Iraq policy "a fairy tale," new columnist for the Times, neocon William Kristol penned his first Iraq commentary for his new paper (1/14/08). Clinton was exasperated that Obama claimed to be consistent on Iraq. "Now, in fact," writes Kristol, "Obama has been pretty consistent in his opposition to the war. But Bill Clinton is right in this respect: Obama's view of the current situation Iraq is out of touch with reality. In this, however, Obama is at one with Hillary Clinton and the entire leadership of the Democratic Party." The surge was "predicted" by Obama and Clinton to be "a failure." But Democrats were wrong, Kristol writes, because violence is down "60%" on US troops and "75% from a year ago" on civilian deaths. But Obama and Reid ("the war is lost") are not willing to say they are wrong. Obama's timeline is wrong, fro Sunni tribes allying with US and Democrats taking Congress. "So the Democratic Party, Having proclaimed that the war is lost and having sought to withdraw US troops, deserves credit for any progress that may have been achieved in Iraq. That is truly a fairy tale."

Obama and Clinton kept at it approaching to Nevada caucuses. She accused him of empty rhetoric because he didn't follow up his 2002 speech against the war on the floor of the Senate "for 18 months." The Illinois Senator's response: "I stood up against the Iraq war when she was voting for it, at a time she didn't' read the intelligence repots or give diplomacy a chance."

"War, Meet the 2008 Campaign" (New York Times, 1/20/08, Week in Review) asks military expert Anthony Cordesman to rate the candidates. "You have to grade all the candidates between a D-minus and an F-plus. The Republicans are taking about his as if we have won and as if Iraq is the center of the war on terrorism, rather than Afghanistan and Pakistan" and other countries. "The Democrats talk about this as if the only problem is the withdraw and the difference is over how quickly to do it." Another military expert, Andrew Krepinevich sees a paradox. The counterinsurgency "requires convincing the Iraqis of our staying power. At the same time, the American people view success it terms of how quickly we can pull out."

For earlier Obama, Clinton, and McCain ideas, see Politics late 2006 and early 2007

Steve Chapman (1/31/08) would not give President Bush high marks because he did not follow through after warning Iraqis that our commitment "'is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people.' But the Iraqis have balked, and Bush is letting them get away with it."

McCain vs. Romney heated up just before the Florida primary of Jan.. 29. Back in April, Romney had told Good Morning America that Bush and Maliki "have a series of timetables and milestones...." Now McCain charges that Romney "wanted to set a date for withdrawal similar to what the Democrats have been seeking, which would have led to victory by Al Qaeda...If we surrender, and wave a white flag," like Clinton and Romney, "then there will be chaos , genocide and the cost in American blood and treasure will be dramatically higher." Romney's camp replied that the candidate has talked about benchmarks and timetables to measure progress but "has never advocated for the withdrawal of our troops, nor has be ever failed to support our mission in Iraq. To suggest otherwise is an outrageous distortion."

John McCain was asked at a town hall meeting about keeping troops for 50 years. McCain suggested 100 years; "that would be fine with me" as long as Americans are not being killed. Also see "When Will US Troops Come Home?" FAQ.

Soon after, McCain made the front page Times article about possible GOP unity. "I guarantee your this: If we had announced a date for withdrawal Iraq and withdraw troops the way that" Obama and Clinton want to do, "al Qaeda would be celebrating that they had defeated the United STates of America and that we surrendered. I will never surrender." Soon the Republican frontrunner added that Clinton and Obama wanted to "wave the white flag of surrender" by announcing a date for withdrawal. The Tribune wonders if McCain is even more of a "cowboy diplomat" than Bush. With gusto, the Arizona Senator vowed, "If I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get Osama bin Laden and I will bring him to justice."

The McCain revival was visited by columnist Michael Gerson (Post, 2/6/08). He feels that "one surge led to another" in that the troop surge helped resuscitate McCain's campaign. He was the most closely linked to the war. "McCain's stubbornness on Iraq is transformed by the calendar into courage. The issue that was supposed to dominate the campaign and destroy the Republicans has helped to elevate a strong Republican candidate...Occasionally, there are political rewards for simply being right."

For CIA torture tape destruction, see "Torture III" FAQ.

What if the race was McCain vs. Obama?, wondered a Tribune editorial of late January. The paper endorsed both candidates in the Illinois primary of Super Tuesday. Would McCain be seen, they wonder, "as the military visionary whose long-lonesome call for a surge...articulated the way to win a war? Or would Obama stand vindicated as the war opponent whose policy of withdrawal looks like the reasonable way to wind down a long conflict?"

How many "false statements" were made by the administration in the lead up to war? Including Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, and 2-3 top assistants, a new study of January 2008 counts 935 false statements from 9/11 to the start of the war. The story was picked up by the AP, NPR's "Orchestrated Deception" , Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, and others. The full study is by the Center for Public Integrity, which charts the statements by month. Also see the PS-FAQ Chapter, "Was the War Inevitable?"

President Bush spoke of Iraq in the State of the Union speech of late January. He urged patience, speaking much more of Iraq than the economy. The surge, he argued, "achieved results few of us could have imagined just one year ago." Avoiding any timetable, he hinted that troops could be there for years to come. "Having come so far and achieved so much, we must not allow [a precipitous withdrawal] to happen."

Response the the State of the Union came in the lead Times editorial. The paper is upset that the President was "not even able to assume American that there is an end in sight...Instead, he made the same empty promise he has made every year: When Iraq can defend itself, American troops will come home. Iraq's defense minister" feels that Iraqis cannot defend themselves until 2018. "Mr Bush has little to show in the way of political reconciliation, the only guarantor of a lasting peace." He has made "no real effort to seek the help of Iraq's neighbors to help stabilize the country." The New York paper concluded, "It is time, finally, for him to put aside the partisanship, the bluster and the empty rhetoric. The state of the union is troubled. The nation yearns for leadership."

Except for a few specials on PTSD and returning soldiers, Iraq was off the front pages for a few days in late January, especially with the South Carolina and Florida primaries.

With Iraq more than often off the front pages in February and March, polls showed the Americans were not paying attention. Only 28% knew that the US death toll was approaching 4000. A year ago, 30% thought the war was "going well", but that has increased to 48%.

A front page Times article (2/12/08) gave perspective to to announced Torture trial (see "Torture III" FAQ). Opening its front page story: "Harsh interrogations and Guantanamo Bay, secret prisons and warantless eavesdropping, the war against Al Qaeda and the one in Iraq. On issue after issue, President Bush has showed little indication that he will shrink from the most controversial decisions of his tenure." The White House seems, according to the paper, to "eager to lock i as many of the president's policies as possible before he leaves office..."

Endorsements started piling up in January. McCain got most of the Republican endorsements, including the Tribune and the New York Times. On the Democratic side, Obama was endorsed by the Tribune, Caroline Kennedy (daughter of JFK) , Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry. Clinton was endorsed by the New York Times.

After the South Carolina and Florida primaries but before Super Tuesday, both Guliani and Edwards dropped out. The former New York mayor endorsed McCain while Edwards withheld any endorsement. With the exception of Huckabee and Paul in the Republican field, it now looked like 4 candidates left for the Presidency.

For earlier Obama, Clinton, and McCain ideas, see Politics late 2006 and early 2007

"Primary Considerations", a Post editorial of late January 2008, is troubled that candidates refuse to "acknowledge the indisputable military progress of the past year." Even more troubling are "their suggestions that they would withdraw most or all US troops...within a year regardless of the circumstances or consequences. They speak as if this strategic, even pivotal Middle East nation, with the world's second-largest oil reserves, can simply be written off, as if a war that they regard as wrong has somehow made Iraq unimportant to the US security." McCain's early criticism "have not endeared him either to the pro-war Republican base or the large anti-war majority, but Mr. McCain does to appear to have formulated his views with an eye on poll ratings."

"Where they stand on...Iraq" was a special Tribune article in the run up to Super Tuesday. Though some of these ideas are highlighted above, a summary follows.

In its early February "check point" series, the Times analyzed Senator Clinton and the Iraq War Amendment of 2002. There was an October amendment to the legislation that passed which would have required the President to come back to Congress before war started (in March) . This Levin amendment was designed to "reign in the President" so the war would not be unilateral. The Levin amendment was defeated in the Senate 75-24, nearly the exact same vote by which the actual war legislation passed. Senator Clinton voted against the Levin Amendment.

Richard Cohen is not convinced by Clinton argument about her vote. His "Hail to the Chief of Staff" (Post, 2/5/08) suggests that Obama would be the better President and Clinton the better Chief of Staff. While her October 2002 vote does not alone disqualify her, "her refusal to simply admit that her judgment--not simply her facts--was faulty says something about her. We all knew George Bush was going to launch the invasion....Her refusal--her inability--to simply confess poor judgment says to me that her vote was politically motivated. In that, she was not alone."

Mitt quit. Romney dropped out a few days after Feb. 5 Super Tuesday. His comments about war and security made front page news. Echoing McCain, the former Massachusetts governor warned that Clinton and Obama "would retreat, declare defeat and the consequences of that would be devastating...Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding the surrender to terror." Clinton and Obama tended to ignore these accusations from both McCain and Romney.

McCain suggested that we might stay in Iraq "for 100" years, if they were not being shot at. This brought commentary from, among others, Helen Thomas, long-time White House correspondent.

Charles Krauthammer feels that Demoracts are rushing to criticize McCain without seeing the big picutre. Troops in Kuwait since 1990 has been helpful to the US. McCain does not hope to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years, but might need to do so.

Also see "Troops Out '07-08?" FAQ.

President Bush in essence endorsed McCain while Huckabee was still running.

For earlier Obama, Clinton, and McCain ideas, see Politics late 2006 and early 2007

"Promises They Can't Keep" came in the Post op-ed pages from Jim Hoagland. (2/10/08) He feels that the promises made by Obama and Clinton about withdrawal are "impossibly vague, unrealistic, or worse. They must now rectify this--for the good of their campaigns and the nation." They are only repeating errors made by Bush that Iraqis must play an important role. It is a "fairy tale" to think they can implement "neat solution to that torn country's complex problems." How would troops be left behind and what would be their role. "Bush's cavalier rejection of the provisional Iraqi government created immediately after the US-led invasion--in favor of installing proconsul L. Paul Bremer III and long occupation--pushed US policy onto its slope of disaster." Hoagland concludes that the Democrats must "also reject Bush's habit of ignoring Iraqi realties and responsibilities and pretending that they US alone has the power to impose its will as the end point of this conflict."

That day a Post editorial criticizes Clinton and Obama for not being more specific about how they would handle to post-withdrawal "ensuing instability." On the other hand, McCain warns that the approach of the Democrats "'recklessly ignores the profound human calamity and dire threats to our security that would ensue.'"

Taking a long-term view was the mid-February editorial of the Tribune, "Iraq's breakthrough." The Chicago paper focuses on politics in Iraq and the US, asking Democrats to admit to positive developments. Violence has "plummeted and streams of emigres" are retuning to Baghdad." (For details on how many are returning see "Life Better for Iraqis" FAQ). And Iraq's political leaders "finally held up their end of the bargain...That's huge progress. Yes, there's still much to do." But the paper feels that one wouldn't know there was significant change by listening to Clinton, Obama, or Congressional leaders. Pelosi declared the surge "a failure." Obama and Clinton "have grudgingly acknowledged a glint of progress. But they've programmed their Iraq comments in a way that suggests they haven't read a headline in a year." Democrats need to be talking about "how to leave Iraq when it is a stable Iraq. That also means McCain will have to acknowledge the enormous costs of this war."

McCain and Obama had public disagreements about Iraq. This was in the week leading up to the Ohio and Texas primaries, which Hillary Clinton still hoped to win. McCain discussed the importance of convincing the American people that the surge was working and US deaths would continue to decline. If not, he said, "I lose....Is there any doubt?" He soon retracted the "I lose" comment. Baghdad is "generally quiet," he added. "There will be suicide bombers for the foreseeable future, just as the Israelis continue to encounter suicide bombers." Suicide bombers attacked Israel only a few times during 2007; attacks in Iraq are nearly daily in 2007. The Arizona and presumptive Republican nominee continued, Obama and Clinton "were wrong when they said that the surge would fail. And they were wrong when they said that the political process would not move forward."

The next day McCain accused Obama is being willing to "surrender" Iraq to Al Qaeda. Obama had said that after the US withdrew (possibly not by 2013) he might send back troops "if Al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq." Replied McCain, "I have some news. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. It's called 'Al Qaeda in Iraq.' My friends, if we left, they wouldn't be establishing a base. They'd be taking a country, and I'm not going to allow that to happen." The Obama retort was, "I have some news for John McCain. There was no such thing as Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decide to invade Iraq." The Times points out, as they do nearly every day, that Al Qaeda is a home grown group which did not exist before the war. US intelligence believes that they are foreign-led. The extent of links to bin Laden are not clear, though some have sworn allegiance to him. If Obama gets the nomination, this issue could be one of their top disagreements.

See "Troops Home 2007-08?" FAQ section, in January 2008.

"McCain's Losing Message", by the Post's Eugene Robinson (2/19/08) sees Bush "the decider", being "eager to help McCain paint" Obama and Clinton as "defeatists, instead of realists (which they are) who recognize that the Iraq invasion was a historical blunder, that the military achievements of Bush's troops surge have served only to partially mitigate the damage done to US national interests by the war and that a permanent US occupation of Iraq--which is, essentially, the Bush-McCain policy--will harm our nation's security rather than enhance it." Robinson feels that the war "is only one issue on which McCain...is out of step with voters."

Obama vs. Clinton were still taking jabs at each other in late February. In her 2/27 Times column, Maureen Dowd quotes a Clinton supporter of "The challenges of navigating our county through some difficult uncharted waters. We are a nation at war. That seems to be forgotten." Replies Dowd, "Actually it's not forgotten. It's a hard sell for Hillary to say she is the only one capable of leading this country in a war when she helped in leading the country into that war."

President Bush got into the fray, though he didn't name the Democratic contenders. "It seems that no matter what happens in Iraq, opponents to the war have one answer: retreat."

Obama added to his regular theme about one week later, that if the October 2002 Congressional vote for war "...had been up to me, we would have never been in this war. It was because of George Bush with an assist from Hillary Clinton and John McCain that we entered into this war."

A lengthy Times special on Obama in mid-March examined his previous votes (3/9/08). He had voted against the troop withdrawal at one point and proposed legislation calling for a draw down only after he was running for president and polls showed voters favoring it. Clinton got on board, as I recall, about six months later. Some Democrats were disappointed, the Times piece continued, because he was not more prominent sooner in opposing the war. For example, he voted against a troop withdrawal proposed by Kerry and Feingold (see below) in June 2006, arguing that "a firm date...would hamstring diplomats and military commanders in the field."

For earlier Obama, Clinton, and McCain ideas, see Politics late 2006 and early 2007

David Brooks of the Times predicts that if Clinton or Obama are elected and start withdrawing troops, partisan tension will resurface "with a vengenace...All dreams of changing the tone in Washington would be gone. All of Obama's unity hopes would evaporate." The Democratic party would be split and "the president would have to make a terrible decision."

Sen. Russ Feingold introduced two bills in that week. One would limit financing to "fighting terrorism, protecting American troops and training Iraqi forces." Actually, that is much of the current US mission. The other would give the administration 60 days to report to Congress on its "global strategy for defeating Al Qaeda and limit the length of troop deployments."

The firing of Justice officials for political reasons stayed in the news in February 2008. The Times urged Congress to vote in contempt. "The stakes are high. There are people in jail today, including a former governor of Alabama, who have raised credible charges that they were put there for political reasons. Congress' constitutionally guaranteed power are also at risk." The House voted overwhelmingly to issue contempt citations against Bolton and Miers. This is the first citation since the Reagan adminstration of the 1980s. Soon, a House committee filed suit against the two former Bush officials.

"Email Gone Missing", a Times editorial of early March, faults the administration for conveniently losing email when controversial issues were much discussed. 12 days were missing for Bush and 16 for Cheney's office. Another witness spoke of hundreds of days missing. "Lately, though, the White House has been shifting its story, insisting that there is 'no evidence' of missing emails." Gaps in missing emails coincide with "the run-up to the Iraq war--the fallout of specious intelligence--as well as" when the White House was leaking the CIA job of Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. See much more on "Plamegate."

With Castro's resignation in Cuba making headlines for a few days, and the approach of the Texas/Ohio primaries, Iraq was less often on the front pages in late February and early March.

For the US-Iraq agreement about future troops, whcih many in Congress oppose, see "Troops Home 2007-08?" FAQ section.

On March 4, Obama hoped to put an end to the Clinton campaign. However, her big win in Ohio kept her hopes alive. That same night, McCain officially clinched the Republican nomination and Huckabee withdrew.

In February, McCain had said, that anyone who believes the surge has not succeeded, "militarily, politically and in most other ways, frankly, does not know the facts on the ground. Obama and Clinton counter that the troops escalation has not helped political reconciliation and will only create this progress only Iraqi politicians are prodded by the prospect of US withdrawal. Clinton wants troop withdrawals to begin within 60 days of taking office. Leading up the the 5th anniversary of the war, McCain visited Iraq.

We know that Clinton voted for the war in October 2002, as did McCain. What was their record before 2002? McCain supported US military action in Grenada, Panama, the Balkans, and the Persian Gulf War. He was opposed to Lebanon, Somali, and Haiti, arguing that our national interests were not at stake. In October 2002, the Republican nominee had said, "Standing by while an odious regime with a history of support for terrorism develops weapons whose use by terrorists could literally kill millions of Americans is not a choice. It is an abdication. In this new era, preventive action to target rogue regimes is not only imaginable but necessary."

For much more on the lead up to the war in Congress, also see Congress 2002 FAQ.

Admiral Fallon resigned (retired early) in the week before the 5th anniversary of the war. Fallon, in charge of troops in the middle east, including Iraq and Afghanistan, had seemed to disagree with Bush on troop levels in Iraq (withdraw sooner), Afghanistan (add troops) and war with Iran (we should take that option off the table). Gates feels Fallon made the right decision.

That same week Bush made three speeches highlighting US policy, especially toward Iraq. He is trying to bolster the war effort. The stakes are high and the enemy is cruel and determined. Iraq will very likely be the #1 legacy of the President when he leaves office in 10 months. His first speech was in Nashville on March 11. The week of the 5th anniversary of the war brought heightened attention to the war. Some media looked back to the start of the war.

"Victory in Iraq a must" the Commander in Chief emphasized on the 5th anniversary. "This is a fight America can and must win...War critics can no longer credibly argue that we're losing...so now they argue the war costs too much. No one would argue that this war has not come at a high cost in lives and treasure. But those costs are necessary when we consider the cost of a strategic victory for our enemies." He told military leaders, "The battle in Iraq is noble. It is necessary and it is just, and with your courage, the battle in Iraq will end in victory."

Replied Sen. leader Harry Reid, "All the president seems able to offer Americans is more of ht same perpetual disregard for the cost and consequences of stubbornly staying the course in Iraq."

While the President maintains that the surge has weakened al Qaeda ("we will show the world" ) critics point out al Qaeda was not in Iraq before the war began.

It wasn't until 2008 that Bush brought up World War II again. In May he called the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan "a great struggle" and warned against those who would waver. "To win the first war of the 21st century, we need to prevail not just in the battle of arms, but also in the battle of wills. And we need to recognize that the only way America can lose the war on terror is if we defeat ourselves. Our new enemies know they can't defeat us militarily. So their strategy is to cause us to lose our nerve and retreat before the job is done...By helping these young democracies grow in freedom and prosperity, we'll lay the foundation of peace for generations to come."

See much more on comparisons to World War II and other wars.

Polls in late February (PEW) found that 48% of Americans believed the war was going "very well" or "fairly well" up from just 30% one year earlier. A majority of Americans still believe the war was a mistake. PEW Polls in March and April asked if the US will "ultimately succeed", 53% say yes, up from 42% in September.

Protests and marches on the 5th anniversary took place all over the country. About 2200 showed up in downtown Chicago. A rally at Federal Plaza was followed by a march up Michigan Avenue. In Illinois, more than 140 soldiers have died.

In DC civil disobedience resulted in arrests, atempting to block access to the IRS.

In the lead up to the April Pennsylvania primaries, McCain, Obama, and Clinton made the front pages nearly every day. McCain and Cheney visited Iraq. Cheney spoke optimistically of progress. The Arizona Senator would have liked not to be in the news when he said three times while in Jordan, that "it is common knowledge" and "well known" that Al Qaeda is being trained in Iran and sent back to Iraq to fight Americans. Sen. Liebermann whispered in his ear that it was insurgents allegedly being trained in Iran, not Al Qaeda. Iran is Shiite and Al Qaeda is Sunni. In fact, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia often targets Shiite civilians. In addition, Shiite Iranians government is strongly against al Qaeda. McCain, the self-proclaimed foreign policy expert, repeated this error a few weeks later.

David Broder, veteran Post columnist, feels that McCain "missed an opportunity" in his visit to Iraq. That day's Post editorial criticizes recent speeches by both Obama and Clinton.

Bill Kristol is more critical of Democrats in his late March "Biography Isn't Enough." He feels that most Americans "want to be told we can leave Iraq sooner rather than later. McCain has chosen instead to tell American the hard and unpopular truths that we'll be there for a while, and that there's no sacrifice-free path to defeating our enemies and securing a lasting peace." Kristol sees Howard Dean calling this "blatant opportunism."

The return of Gen. Petraeus was the top story of the week of April 7. Both parties wanted to focus on different issues.

Another Republican goals is "launch a full-fledged assault on the misinformation campaign promoted by Democratic leaders who have lost every time they have tried to legislate defeat for American...the situation has vastly improved...Our friends on the other side will have a hard time rewriting the facts of that."

Countered Democrats like Biden, "I love the idea of McCain having to explain what is going on here and why this is working so well." Added others, "You can only stretch a military so far." The reduction in violence presented an opportunity for reconciliation that Iraqis "have largely frittered away."

Last fall, Republicans were fearing that some in their party might join Democrats in calling for troop withdrawal. The add by MoveOn, asking about "General Betruas?" was one factor hurting Democrats then.

Petraeus testified in the Senate on April 8. The last time his testified, in September 2007, the pundits had a field day, as the Post shows on highlights of their Petraeus commentary from 2007.

Appearing first in the Senate with Ambassador Crocker, Petraeus spoke of progress and heading in the right direction. They also emphasized the progress was "fragile and reversable." Some Repiblicans were critical of the war. All three leading candidates for President, McCain, Clinton, and Obama, were among the Senate committee members asking questions.

Bush accepted the Petraeus recommendations. Gates admitted that US troops would be about 140,000 when the President leaves office in January 2009. The President stated that week that Iraq "is the convergence point for two of the greatest threats to American in this new century: Al Qaeda and Iran...If we fail there, Al Qaeda would claim a propaganda victory of colossal proportions, and they would gain safe havens in Iraq from which to attack the US, our friends, and our allies. Iran would work to fill the vacuum in Iraq."

Obama again weighed in about troop levels in April. "We have a blank check strategy in Iraq that is overstretching our military, distracting us form the other challenges we face, burdening our economy and failing to pressure the Iraqi government to take responsibility for their future."

The lull of a few month was broken in late May with the new book by former White House spokesman Scott McClellan. He tells of the "propoganda" used to sell the war, while public opinion was "manipulated." For more details see, "Was the War Inevitable" PS FAQ.

We awakened the morning of June 4 to see the morning paper headlines, "Obama Wins Nomination." The night before was the final of the Democratic primaries. The media turned even more stronger toward the McCain vs. Obama debate.

What are some options for the next President? WBEZ's Worldview examines this question in a May program. Are the neocons washed up?

The FISA law, which Bush admitted he broke, was extended by Congress, after a heated debate. A court panel ruled unanimously in November that warrantless searches of American are legal overseas.

Over the summer of 2008, candidates Obama and McCain spoke often of Iraq. McCain tended to focus on the success of the surge he had long advocated, whereas Obama wanted troops to start returning.

Joe Biden, announced as Obama's running mate in late August, had voted for the Senate resolution for war in October 2002, but now says that vote was a mistake: "I underestimated the influence of Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the neocons." Of Biden, U of Chicago professor of Poli Sci Charles Lipson says in the Tribune, "Obama picked Biden precisely because of his foreign-policy judgment, yet he thinks Biden was wrong on the biggest issue [Iraq War]."

Soon after, McCain announced that his running mate would be Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska.

In the first Presidential debate of late September, Obama and McCain mostly agreed on the future of Afghanistan. However, they disagreed about the past and future or Iraq. McCain repeated that he had urged the surge long before Bush decided on it, and that the surge was moving us toward "victory" and was succeeding. The Republican feels that Obama wants to "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory." Obama maintained that "no one is talking about defeat," but added that "At the time the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the WMD were. You were wrong. You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shia and Sunni, and you were wrong."

How would Obama's election win change Iraq? He campaigned on withdrawing troops (usually called "combat troops") within 16 months. Just before the election, al Qaeda "endorsed" McCain, mostly because he was a good recruiting tool for them.

After Obama won the election, we read commentary from conservative Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute the professor of US Military Academy. He admits that Iraqis and Americans both want US troops to leave "as quickly as possible." Iraqis can be our "most natural and eager partners" in an alliance against al Qaeda. "The millions of Iranian pilgrims" who visit Najaf and Karbala "will take home a vision of a flourishing, peaceful, secular, religiously tolerant and democratic Muslim state...President Obama has the chance to do more in Iraq than win the war. He can win the peace."

Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, chimed in with Newsweek commentary in November. In "The World That Awaits", the foreign policy expert sees the good news is that "many arrows...are finally pointing in the right direction and it will not dominate your [Obama] presidency. The bad news is that you know you are in for a rough ride when Iraq is the good news." Haass sees these days as "a sobering moment in American history You begin with a god deal of popular support, but mandates must be replenished."

The response in Washington was mostly negative to the mid-November Status of Forces Agreement. One leading Democrat was concerned about subjecting US soldiers to Iraqi prosecution. It is unlikely the the US Senate will insist on approval, as the Bush administration argues that this is not a treaty. For more details, see "US Troops Home" and "Iraqi Politics 2006-2008."

A lengthy editorial from "the paper of record" (11/23/08), was "The Price of Our Good Name." It opens, "Americans have watched in horror as President Bush has trampled on the Bill of Rights and the balance of power. The list of abuses that [Obama] must address is long: once again require the government to get warrants to eavesdrop on Americans' undo scores of executive orders and bill-signing statement that have undermined the power of Congress; strip out the unnecessary invasion of privacy embedded in the Patriot Act; block new FBI investigative guides straight out of J. Edgar Hoover's [former head of FBI] playbook."

On Monday, December 1, Obama announced most of his national security team, with Hillary Clinton as Sec. of State and General James L. Jones as National Security Adviser. Gates would stay on at the Pentagon. Jones feels that the Iraq war has caused the US to "take its eye off the ball" in Afghanistan. He worried the the consequences of failure in Afghanistan are just as serious as in Iraq.

Gates will need to change his mission of the past two years. He will transition from trying to "win" the war to trying to "end" the war. If Obama follows through on his "16 month" pledge, all US combat troops will be out by May 2010, well before the December 2011 deadline negotiated between Bush and the Iraqi government.

An Iraqi journalist hurls his shoes at President Bush during a news conference in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone on December 14. It would be Bush's fourth and last visit to the country. The video was played over and over in the US but even more so in the Arab world. Bush was denounced on live TV has a "dog" who had delivered death and sorrow for nearly six years. The journalist, Muntader al-Zaidi, was a correspondent for an independent Iraqi TV station. 12 feet from the President, he stood up and shouted in Arabic, "This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog." Bush ducked and was not hit. Upon hurling his second shoe, the reporter yelled, "This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq.' al-Zaidi was wrestled to the ground and beaten. A reporter for a station owned by Maliki described that al-Zaidi was kicked and beaten "until he was crying like a woman." He was taken to jail and could be tried and sentenced to 7 years in prison.

Why throw a shoe? In Iraq and other areas of the middle east, hitting someone with a shoe is considered "the supreme insult" because the target is even lower than the shoe. Back in the April of 2003, Iraqis in Firdos Square beat Saddam's statue with their shoes. The Times reports that "more recently in the same square a far bigger crowd flung their shoes at an effigy" of Bush before burning it. They were upset with the agreement allowing US troops to remain until the end of 2011. Maliki said that al-Zaidi was urged to throw the shoe by "a terrorist...who beheads people." Al-Zaidi's family counters that he was only acting out of his own frustration. Shoe sales throughout the Middle East grew quickly as al-Zaidi became a folk hero to many.

Bush's response was to link the incident to growing democracy in Iraq. "That's what people do in a free society, draw attention to themselves." The President wanted to last visit to have a different emphasis with the press. At Camp Victory, for example, he called the troop increase of 2007 "one of the greatest success in the history of the United States military ...There is still more work to be done" but "with the courage of the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi troops and the American troops and civilian personal, it is decisively on its way to be won." One US commentator suggested that Bush could pardon al-Zaidi.

Was the shoe thrower tortured? His brother, who visited him in prison, alleges that he was. Burned with cigarettes, badly beaten, stitches to his forehead, and having a tooth knocked out. His jailers demanded that he confess that he had been ordered to throw the shoes by enemies of the Prime Minister. After the torture, his brother reported, al-Zaidi told them, "I am ready to say I am a terrorist or whatever you want."

Through his spokesperson, Dana Perino, Bush urged the Iraqis "not to overreact" because Bush "was not bothered by the incident, although it's not appropriate for people to throw shoes at a press conference, at any leader."

Preparation for January 2009 provincial elections began in earnest in December. Maliki's Dawa party would compete with Abdul Azis al-Hakim the Shiite cleric who leads to Islamic Supreme Council. However, neither is running in the local elections. Maliki proclaimed that "Iraq is one tent. We believe in Iraq's unity, sovereignty, and independence." Hakim replied that those elected should be those who "sacrificed for their Iraqi people and Iraq and who are more religious, more faithful and most courageous. Though he has lung cancer, which often means one would die in less than 24 months from diagnosis, Hakim has led the party since his brother was assassinated in 2003. While is Najaf that year, Bakr al-Hakim, was killed.

Americans may care less about Iraq in late 2008 because TV news is winding down their operations, often sending reporters to Afghanistan. Afghanistan is the "forgotten war".ABC, CBS, and NBC no longer have full time correspondents in Iraq. A former NBC VP could not recall a time when this had occurred in an active war zone, except Afghanistan, with even less coverage. In Iraq, newspapers make up for some of the lack of TV reporting. The Times and Post have multiple reporters, as well as AP and Reuters. The three networks had four times as many minutes of coverage in 2008, as compared to 2007. One commentator explains that their viewers appetite for coverage "waned when it turned from all-out battle into something equally important but more difficult to describe and cover." Thus, stories that "require knowledge of Iraq" like political struggles, "are going uncovered." An NBC correspondent added, "Americans like their wars movie length and with a happy ending." One TV editor complained about seeing "the same old pictures of soldiers kicking down doors." The mission is costly and dangerous for reporters, the most deadly war ever.

Israeli bombing and subsequent invasion of Gaza and Palestinian rockets into Israel was the top story between Christmas and New Years of 2008. For a few days, Iraq left the headlines. The bombing began on December 27. In the Chicago area, the Governor's arrest also grabbed headlines, and was a world news story, too.

Bush reflected on his presidency and Iraq through numerous interviews in December and January. He told ABC News that he was "unprepared for war" and his "biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line" and said WMD were cause for war. A Times editorial (12/7/08) responded in their editorial, "The Deluder in Chief": "After everything the American public and the world have learned about how" Bush and Cheney "manipulated Congress, public opinion and anyone else they could bully or lie to, Mr. Bush is still acting as though he decided in invade Iraq after suddenly being handed life and death information on Saddam Hussein's arsenal. The truth is that" Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld" had been chafing to attack Iraq" before 9/11. "They justified that unnecessary war using intelligence reports that they knew or should have known to be faulty. And it was pressure from the White House and a highly politicized Pentagon that compelled people like" Powell and Tenet of CIA to "ignore the counter-evidence and squander their good names on hyped claims" of WMD.

Cheney, in contrast, is defiant until the end. Friends and advisers feel that Cheney saw Bush as too dovish during his second term. The 2006 firing of Rumsfeld was the only public disagreement Cheney had with Bush.

Frank Rich examined the Bush administration and Illinois Governor Balgojevich about three weeks before the Governor was impeached. He feels that Bush's crimes are greater. "Yet those who promoted and condoned the twin national catastrophes of reckless war in Iraq and reckless gambling in our markets have largely escaped the accountability" awaiting Blago. Scooter Libby was part of the White House Study Group, "propagandists that sold an entire war to America on false pretenses...Accountablilty wasn't remotely on Bush's mind." Rich reminds readers that Bush (above) recently wishes that "the intelligence had been different" about WMD, "as if his administration hadn't hyped and manipulated that intelligence." We also learned of "another scandal with cooked books, Enron." Rich hopes that Obama means what he says about the common promise of "a new era of responsibility and accountability."

What will be Bush's legacy? Especially after the election of Obama, the press loved to examine this question. Bob Woodward, who has written more about Bush than perhaps any author, spoke with fellow journalist Bart Gerlman on Talk of the Nation 12/30. Woodward feels that Bush did not keep his "eye on the ball" in regards to Afghanistan.

One interesting piece on the Cheney legacy came from William from Kristol (12/22/08), who began a regular column in the New York Times during Bush's second term, was "Popularity Isn't Everything." Kristol begins, "You gotta love Dick Cheney. OK, OK...you don't have to." Cheney only disagreed publicly with President Bush in the firing of Rumsfeld: "I thought he did a good job for us." Replies Kristol, "I couldn't disagree more ...I'm told by several key advocates of the surge that Cheney was crucial in helping the president come to what was a difficult and unpopular desision--one opposed at the time by the huge majority of foreign policy experts, pundits, and pontificators."

Cheney needled Biden on the proper amount of executive power. Cheney defended the increases in executive power, including Iraq, terror suspects, and spying.

To continue this US poltical narrative, go to "US Politics '09"

Also see "Cost of War" FAQ. and "Good News" FAQ.