PS FAQ:  US Politics:  
Dec. 2005 Iraqi Elections to Nov. 2006 US Elections

The Iraqi elections of December 15, 2005 were hailed by the Bush administration as a turning point in the war.  Also see Iraqi Politics in 2005.  These elections were the last of a number of milestones over the past few years.  Would the next milestone be military not political?  Will a new government be formed soon?  Will the Constitution be amended, as promised?

Just after the Iraqi elections, President Bush gave a speech from the oval office, his first since the war began.  (12/18/05) The Times front page headline called the speech "more humble, still firm ....Rather than dismiss his critics with a wave of the hand and a quick retort, as he often has in the past, he asked those who opposed the invasion to help make the biggest gamble of his presidency work"  For example, the Commander in Chief said of critics, "I have heard your disagreements, and I know how deeply it is felt."

He also made a request:  "I do not expect you to support everything I do, but...do not give in to despair and do not give up this fight for freedom." .

The President explained that there was a difference between "honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right." He focused again on training of Iraqis and on resisting a timetable for withdrawal. While admitting that violence will continue, the President urges patience and urges opponents not to "give in to defeatism."  He added, "Some look at the challenge...and conclude that the war is lost, and not worth another dime or another day.  I don't believe that."  For the record, few if any Democrats were suggesting an immediate withdrawal. While being more conciliatory than usual, he still staked the war in pure black and white terms.  "Yet now there are only two options before our country--victory or defeat."  He concluded the prime-time speech, "And I have never been more certain that America's actions in Iraq are essential to the security of our citizens, and will lay the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren."

See more on his WMD/Intelligence comments.

"Total and complete victory" is the stated goal.  Those who feel this is a vague plan wonder how will one know when this is achieved.  Also see PS FAQ "When Might US Troops Come Home?"

Faulty pre-war intelligence continued to be an issue at the end of 2005.  The President first stated "I take responsibility" for the decision to go to war, despite having faulty intelligence. Also see "Where are the WMD?" FAQ.

The Commander in Chief  also held a rare news conference.  He was feeling pressure from the disclosure of the National Security Agency spying on American citizens without warrants.  The story, held by the New York Times for a year on insistence from the administration, released the story the day after the Iraqi elections and as the Patriot Act was probably about to be renewed. Bush strongly defended the practice as making the country safe in the post-9/11 era.  Terrorists need to be tracked carefully, he argued.

Another level of defense was a 42 page legal document prepared by the Justice Department and Attorney General Gonzalez.  The front-page Jan. 20 story in the Times sees this defense as partly a response "to what administration lawyers felt were unfair conclusion in a Jan. 6 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service" which "challenged virtually all the main legal justification" for the program. 

One of the 10 members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) resigned in protest. This was the court set up after Watergate to secretly approve of extraordinary searches.  The court approved about 19,000 and dismissed about four. We learned on December 24 that the nation's phone companies had been cooperating and the spying was much more widespread than the administration first admitted. Also, the FISA law allowed spying in an emergency if the government seeks a warrant within 72 hours. 

Further pressure that week came from the fight to  renew The Patriot Act.  President Bush links the act to 9/11 and terrorism, which he links to the war in Iraq. Back in the fall of 2001, the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act was Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold.  Feingold saw the spying as the act of a "King, not a President."

The President was facing further criticism on spying, as it turns out that the Pentagon was spying on a group of Quakers from Florida. were being spied on by the Pentagon  This became public before the NSA spying controversy (also see "US Troops Home?"). Quakers are pacifist yet often activists. 

These concerns of patterns of secrecy and lack of truthfulness seemed to be adding up for the administration during the last few months of 2005.  The usual pattern is that the stories are first denied by the administration and only admitted to when there seems no other choice. Among the recent concerns are:
1.  Indictment of Libby on perjury concerning exaggerated WMD-Niger claims; Rove was still being investigated (see Wilson/WMD PS FAQ);
2.  Abuse and torture in Iraq and Guantanamo (see Torture '05 FAQ);
3.  Secret torture prisons in Europe and elsewhere where suspects are "outsource" by the US (see Torture '05 FAQ);
4.  NSA spying on US citizens without any warrant (see above)
5.  Propaganda stories in Iraq, not attributed to the Pentagon (see "Good News" FAQ);
6.  Faux news in US; journalists being paid by the US government;
7.  Denial and then admission of use of white phosphorus in Fallujah.
8.  British memo alleging that Bush wanted to bomb al-Jazzera headquarters in Qatar. 

Reaction to the NSA story, and links to Iraq came became a huge story in the press. The New York Times, for example, editorialized that "This White House has cried wolf so many times on the urgency of national security threats that it has lost all credibility on that front.  Worse, we have learned the hard way that Mr. Bush's team cannot be trusted to find the boundaries of the law, much less respect them." (12/18/05)

The following Times editorial ("The Fog of False Choices", 12/20/05) examines the NSA spying with a larger lens and saw "Orwellian" logic.  For example, "The policy debate on Iraqi is between those who support Mr. Bush and those who want to pull out right now, today; fighting terrorists in Iraq means we're not fighting them here. But none of these phony choices were as absurd as the one Mr. Bush posed to justify his secret program of spying on Americans:  save lives or follow the law...This administration has a long record of expanding presidential powers in dangerous ways; the indefinite detention of 'unlawful enemy combatants' comes to mind.  so assurances that surveillance targets are carefully selected with reasonable cause don't' com fort...Chillingly, this is not the only time we've heard of the administration using terror as an excuse to spy on Americans.  NBC News recently discovered a Pentagon database of 1500 'suspicious incident' that included a Quaker meeting to plan an anti-war rally." 

Among the commentary on the NSA spy issue is from University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone.  He concludes "So much for protecting Constitution" (12/21/05) with a connection to other policies.  President Bush believes that "whatever he thinks is necessary must be lawful, whether it be domestic surveillance by NSA, or torture, or denying the Guantanamo Bay detainees the protection of the Geneva Conventions.  Bush is a man of faith, not a man of law.  That is a problem." 

The dean of Temple University law school  sees "a pretty straightforward case where the president is acting illegally."  

The Judicial Committee of the Senate was expected to hold hearings on the NSA spying starting on Feb. 6.  Democrats planned informal hearings before that date

In addition, the ACLU and Center of Constitutional Rights is suing the Bush administration to determine possible spying on lawyers, journalists, scholars, political activists, and others with ties to the Middle East  Some pro-war authors are supporting the suit.

Who was calling for the impeachment of the President?  Who was defending Mr. Bush? Some leading Democrats had been informed of the actions, and some of them protested to the President. Now, some critics called his admission proof that he feels he is above the law.  His actions, states John Dean (of Watergate) and others,  are "an impeachable offense." Also see political pressure on the torture issue.

The issue got an early name, "Snoopgate."  It might stick. Some had earlier suggested that "lying us into war" was impeachable.  Now, calls come over the legality of the NSA spy/wiretap.  One reaction came from Charles Krauthammer, who feels impeachment talk is "demagoguery."  

John Nichols of The Nation is not so quick to dismiss (12/21/05). 

Neither is Ralph Nader, former Presidential candidate of the Green Party, you recalls of Richard Cohen piece of October 2004, when he wrote, "It I were to write a headline for [an article], it would be 'impeach George Bush.'  Nader adds that Cohen "stated the obvious then.  Bush and Cheney had plunged the nation into war 'under false pretenses'...Fourteen months later, no widely syndicated columnist or major newspaper editorial has called for the impeachment" of Bush and Cheney."  That would start to change in the last week of 2005.

Nader emphasizes "An illegal war based on lies, deception, cover-ups and their repetition even after being told by officials in their own administration--not to mention critical retired generals, diplomats and security specialists--of their falsity should have prodded the House of Representatives into initiating impeachment proceedings.  but then, Bush did not lie under oath about sex." On the NSA spying, Nader adds, "Bush violated the law because of the arrogance of power"  Bush and Cheney "have disgraced their office and bled the nation."

At the end of 2005, calls for impeachment were officially submitted in the House, headed by a veteran Michigan congressman, Joseph Conyers. The five counts include lying about the war and the NSA spying. Other calls are for censure.  Those co-sponsoring the various legislation, as of mid-January, were 5-7 members of the House. By mid-March there were 31 co-sponsors who wanted to investigate possible charges. 

In March, 2006 one Vermont town voted to impeach President Bush.  Other local governments who have followed suit include San Francisco, Santa Cruz.  Publications such as Harpers and figures such as Garrison Keillor, John Dean, Barbara Streisand, and Richard Dreyfuss have expressed their support. 

Like Nader, Al Gore appears to have little political future and thus can speak his mind.  Back in February 2002, he urged Americans to support Bush on Iraq, about a year before the war. In a mid-January speech, the former Vice President accused resident Bush with "breaking the law repeatedly and insistently...A President who beaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government."  Gore also asked, "If the president has the inherent authority to eavesdrop, imprison citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what can't he do?"

Bob Herbert, frequent critic of the administration (see his various views on Iraq), wondered "who will stand up for the constitution" (Times, 1/19/06).  51% of Americans polled feel it's OK to engage in warrantless searches to fight against terror.  The President "went out of his way to reassure the American people [ in 2004] ...that...judicial permission is required for any spying." Now Herbert is concerned that FBI agents are overworked and not finding any leads from the NSA.

Leonard Pitts' commentary in mid-March included, "You cannot be a student of history without ruminating on some of the more dubious episodes of the American past and wondering how in the world such things were allowed to happen...How could that which is so obviously wrong now have been so quietly accepted then?...I think tomorrow will wonder how we could have turned blind eyes and disinterested ears to mounting evidence that the war in Iraq was predestined and 9/11 just a convenient pretext.  So I understand where Mr. Feingold and Mr. Conyers are coming from."

Of the Bush prime-time speech, Senator Biden reacted, "Democracy as we know it is not in the offing.  That is not a realistic expectation."

Rumsfeld  followed with a visit two days before Christmas, announcing the start of the expected troop withdrawal back toward 138,000.

Polls of mid-December 2005 (CNN/USA Today/Gallup) showed that 57% of American disapprove of the way President Bush is handling Iraq. A few weeks later approval of the handling of the war was holding below 40%. Generally, this number has been steadily rising throughout 2005. A few weeks later 56% said Bush has no plan for victory in Iraq, despite his numerous speeches leading up to the December 15 elections. 

On December 26, there was no Iraq story on the front page of the Times, for the first time in weeks or months.

Polls of late January show the public evenly split about the NSA program. 

In polls on Iraq, 56% disapprove of Bush's handling of the war.  Americans were also asked "Who is winning the war in Iraq?"
--US  33%
--Insurgents  7%
--Neither  55%

Polls in mid-March, following an increase in Shiite-Sunni violence and deaths, showed that 60% of Americans believe the war was a mistake.

By mid-April 2006, only 37% of Americans approve of the President's Iraq policy.

Also see Wilson/WMD/CIA/Leak FAQ for some of the reasons for lack of confidence in the President. 

Back in January 2006 President Bush was willing to meet with 13 former Secretaries of State and Defense.  Many have different points of view than the President. "We take to heart their advice," he said.  After briefings from current military leaders, "Mr. Bush allowed 5 to 10 minutes for interchange with the group."  It was odd that he did not ask for their input any longer. Powell said nothing. One former official, wishing to remain anonymous, responded, "It would be a stretch to say he was really interested in many thoughts from around the table." 

If Zarqawi and other al Qaeda leaders have publicly stated that the US should leave, should that be motivation for us to stay.  Retired Gen. Robert Gard, speaking in Northbrook IL on January 7, 2005, was asked if it concerns him that he and Zarqawi want the same thing.  His response was, "so what?" 

Hillary Clinton was slow to criticize the President on Iraq in 2005, according to some other Democrats.  Former Presidential candidate and Senator Gary Hart pulls no punches.  "I'm in total disagreement with her position on Iraq.  It all has to do, in my judgment, with the post-Vietnam image the Democrats got of being weak on defense.  so they all had to prove this muscularity by voting for this resolution.  I think it was all wrong.  We are a republic.  We are not an empire.  And this is an imperial policy." (1/8/06, New York Times Magazine)

In mid-January 2006 President Bush spoke of those who debate the war.  He warned Americans not to debate the war "irresponsibly."  It wasn't clear who is was referring to, but McClellan later suggested Dick Durbin and Harry Reid. The President also slammed "defeatist" critics.

Speaking to Veterans of Foreign Wars on January 10, the Commander in Chief emphasized the difference between "honest critics" and those "who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people."  Few in Congress ever mention oil or Israel as a cause.  The debate should bring "credit to our democracy not comfort to our adversaries...We have a responsibility to our men and women in uniform, who serve to know that once our politicians vote to send them into harms' way, our support will be with them in good days and in bad days."  This could be aimed at Kerry or Edwards, who now express regret for their fall 2002 votes. On progress in Iraq, the President continued, "The vast majority of Iraqis prefer freedom with intermittent power, to life in the permanent darkness of tyranny and terror."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/images/20060110-1_p011006pm-0054jpg-515h.html

This was a slow week for Iraq news, off the front pages for a few days with no breakthrough in the post-election Iraqi political scene, a lull in violence, no new scandal or investigation, and the Alito hearings. 

In late January, the President went on a campaign to defend the NSA surveillance.  He was joined by Attorney General Gonzalez who referred to the "long tradition of wartime enemy surveillance "by Presidents Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt during war time. Gonzalez defending the dropping of the 72 hour notification guideline because "the system might not work quickly enough in all cases.'

Noting that his actions are within the law, the President doesn't want to discuss revision the FISA law because the debate "is likely to expose the nature of the program." 

One of the responses to the President's vigorous defense, came in a tough New York Times editorial, "Spies, Lies, and Wiretaps" (1/29/06), which tries to examine to big picture.  From the President lately we have got "the familiar mix of political spin, clumsy historical misinformation, contemptuous dismissals of civil liberties concerns, cynical attempts to point dissents as anti-American and pro-terrorist, and a couple of big, dangerous lies."  Among the "lies" are:
1.  The domestic spying program is only at people who are actively working with Al Qaeda (as opposed to violating "the rights of countless innocent Americans")'
2.  9/11 could have been prevented ("We keep hoping that Mr. Bush will finally lay down the bloody banner of 9/11")
3.  Spying is legal
4.  Just trust us ("When Mr. Bush doesn't like the rules, he just changes, them, as he has done for the detention and treatment of prisoners...The founders...created a system of checks and balances to avert just this sort of imperial arrogance"):

5.  Other presidents did it (The precedents of Washington, Wilson, and FDR "have no bearing on the current situation, and [Attorney General Gonzales's timeline] conveniently ended with FDR, rather than including Richard Nixon, whose surveillance of antiwar groups and other political opponents inspired FISA in the first place.  Like Mr. Nixon, Mr. Bush is waging an unpopular war and his administration has abused its powers against antiwar groups and even those that are just anti-Republican").

See much more on Times editorials.

It proved hard to take the NSA story off the front pages, but the Hamas election victory and the severe wounding of ABC anchor Bob Woodruff was the top story on the eve of the Bush' speech.

The President's January 31, 2006 State of the Union Speech, (see complete transcript, 7 pages) much anticipated, focuses about half on foreign policy.  Much of the foreign policy points were on Iran, Terrorism, Hamas, Surrender/Retreat, and, of course, Iraq.  In the opening moments of the speech, the President painted a broad picture of terrorism and freedom:

"Dictatorships shelter terrorists and feed resentment and radicalism and seek WMD.  Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors and joint the fight against terror.  Every step toward freedom it he world makes our country safer, so we will act boldly in freedom's cause."  The Commander in Chief pointed out democratic progress in Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Egypt.   Democracy, freedom, and terrorism were widely used words. 

He mentioned bin Laden for the first time in a State of the Union. "Terrorist like bin Laden are serious about mass murder...Their aim is to seize power in Iraq, and use it as a safe haven to launch attacks against America and the world.  Lacking the military strength to challenge us directly, the terrorists have chosen the weapon of fear...The US will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil...Once again, we accept the call of history to deliver the oppressed, and move this world toward peace."

Moving on to Iraq more specifically, the President summarized many of his recent speeches:  "And we are on the offensive in Iraq, with a clear plan for victory." 

Reaction to the State of the Union came, as always, from a variety of sources.  One Washington Post editorial examines the President's State of the Union address.  "Retreating on the Offensive"...
(2/2/06)

At the speech, two women were forced to leave before the speech began.  Their crime?  Wearing t-shirts "protesting."  One shirt read, "Support the Troops--Defending Our Freedom."  The other, worn by Cindy Sheehan, read, "2245 Dead.  How many more?"  Policed later offered an apology to Sheehan. 

Sen. Bill Frist criticized Feingold for "attacking" the President "in a time of war." Feingold was being labeled as "siding with the terrorists"  by Senator Allard of Colorado. Added Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan), "I would only point out that you really don't have any civil liberties if you're dead."

Asked about the censure at a March  press conference, the President urged "honest and open debate without needless partisanship."  He also accused those against his surveillance as being weak on terror. 

Feingold, after visiting Iraq with McCain in late March, expressed concern for the Iraqi government.  "I think we have to at least openly consider at what point we can bring our troops home or, at least, to begin to bring our troops home."  He desires support on this action from the American openly and wants to "consider whether the large presence of...troops here could contribute to or feed the insurgency and whether in any way it makes it more difficult for a government of national unity to be created." 

After his State of The Union address of January 2006, President Bush kept a relatively low profile, even during the Shiite mosque bombing of late February.  His overall approval rating down to his lowest ever, about 35%, the lowest since Jimmy Carter of the '70s and 18% inflation. At this time, the President decided in mid-March to begin a series of speeches about Iraq.  Cheney, Rice, and others were to be more active, too.  This was a similar approach to the speeches he gave leading up to the December 2005 Iraqi elections.

At a March 20 Cleveland speech, the President took questions from the audience, some of which were critical.  He explained how he could be optimistic in the light of daily reports of violence, killings, and reprisals.  The Commander in Chief highlighted the progress he sees in the northern city of Tal Afar. 

Military analysis feel other parts of Iraq could not replicate Tal Afar.  

Excerpts from the President's news conference stressed four main themes::  Civil War:  "The Iraqis took a look and decided not to go to civil war.  A couple of indicators are that the army didn't bust up into sectarian division.  The army stayed united...The first step is to make sure a civil war doesn't break out.  And that's why we're working with the leaders...to form a unity government." Optimism:  But I see progress.  You know, I've heard people say, 'Oh, you know, he's just kind of optimistic for the sake of optimism.'  Well, look, I believe we're going to succeed.  And I understand how tough it is

• Plan For Victory:  "We have a plan for victory, and it's important we achieve that plan...If I didn't believe we had a plan of victory, I wouldn't leave our people in harm's way...And I can understand how Americans are worried about whether or not we can win.  I think most Americans understand we need to win.  But they're concerned about whether or not we can win.  So one of the reason I go around the county to Cleveland is to explain why I think we can win."

• War on Terror:  "A democracy--first of all, this is a global war on terror, and Iraq is a part of the war on terror.  Mr. Zarqawi and Al Qaeda, the very same people that attacked the US, have made it clear that they want to drive us out of Iraq, so they can plan, plot and attack America again...

  President's post-election speech	NSA Spying	Reaction to NSA Spying
  Impeach President Bush?	Jan. '06 Polls	"Responsible Debate"
  State of the Union '06	Feb. '06	Return To Top

The President hopes that Iraqi forces will control more than half of the country by the end of 2006.  Murtha replied that such a statistic is meaningless, since much of western Iraq is uninhabited. 

In addition to Feingold, criticism came other Democrats considering a run of the Presidency.  Sounding like John Kerry from 2004, Sen. Joseph Biden said in a statement, "We went to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their job, without the support of our major allies, without enough troops to prevent a security vacuum, and with out a plan to win the peace."

In "Two Deadlines and an Exit" Kerry's April 5 New York Times op-ed opened, "We are now in the third war in Iraq in as many years.  The first was against Saddam Hussein and his supposed WMD.  The second was against terrorist whom, the administration said, it was better to fight over there than here.  Now we find our troops in the middle of an escalating civil war.  Half of the service members listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died after America's leaders knew our strategy would not work.  It was immoral then and it would be immoral now to engage in the same delusion.  We want democracy in Iraq, but Iraqis must want it was much as we do." If we withdraw our troops by the end of 2006, we will "empower the new Iraqi leadership, put Iraqis in the position of running their own county, and undermine support for the insurgency...We must redeploy American forces to garrison status...We will defeat Al Qaeda faster when we stop serving as its best recruitment tool.  Iraqis ultimately will not tolerate foreign jihadists on their soil...An exit form Iraq will also strengthen our hand in dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat." 

In addition to the censure issue, discussed in the Senate in late March, came a specific call for the resignation of Dick Cheney.  Democratic Representative, hawk and recent war critic Jack Murtha wants to Vice President to resign. 

In early April, Secretary of State Rice admitted that the US has made "tactical errors, a thousand of them, I am sure." One assumes she is partially referring to Secretary Rumsfeld. Antiwar protestors followed Rice around the US and in England.  As one might have predicted, it was Rumsfeld, tow days later, who challenged Rice on her criticisms. He "did not know what she was talking about."

In March 2006 the UK Attorney General threatened newspapers not to print more information of the  Bush-Blair meetings when Bush reportedly suggested bombing al-Jazeera TV.

The censure hearings began in the Senate on Friday, March 31.  Few Senators had joined to support Senator Feingold.  Feingold opened with these remarks.  Among those set to testify was former Nixon chief of staff, John Dean, (pictured in '74) whose latest book about the Bush presidency, is Worse Than Watergate.  Dean testified, that the expanded executive power represents an "even more serious" threat to the Constitution that Nixon's misdeeds.

The Judiciary committee chair, Specter, feels the censure proposal has "no merit" and is a long shot. Earlier Specter suspected that the President had indeed broken the law. Sen. Hatch believed that the hearings were "an inflammatory attempt to punish the president for leading this war on terror.." Others feel it is a "reckless stunt" that could embolden terrorists.  

Following his late March press conference, the President's speech on Iraq on North Carolina of April 6 drew hostile questions from a rare non-screened audience.  He admitted, according to the Times, to at least three problems:  that training of Iraqi police officers "should have started earlier, that the Iraqi military was initially unprepared for threats from within its borders and that prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib was disgraceful."

Harry Taylor, a commercial real estate broker, directly challenged the President, saying:  "While I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges.  What I wanted to say to you is that I--in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of, nor more frightened by my leadership in Washington, including the presidency, by the Senate.  I would hope from time to time that you have the military and the grace to be ashamed of yourself."  Part of Bush's reply was, "I'm not going to apologize for what I did on the terrorist surveillance program."  

The President approved of Libby leaking previously classified information, we learned in April, 2006.  Replied Jane Harmon, senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, "If the disclosure is true, it's breathtaking.  The president is revealed as the leaker in chief."  Bush has long been a vocal critic of leaks and vowed that anyone in the White House who leaked sensitive information would 'be dealt with." .He warned repeatedly that leaks hurt the national security and are criminal acts.  Spokesman McClellan suggested that this leak was authorized because the president declassified the information, and that the goals was simply to clarify the public debate. Libby did not assert that Bush gave permission for Libby to leak Wilson's wife's name to the press.

In late April 2006 some in Congress considered action to openly debate the war.  May 2006 opened with a New York Times op-ed co-authored by Sen. Joe Biden.  "Unity Through Autonomy in Iraq" suggests that Iraq should be, to some degree, divided into three regions, Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd.  The central government remain in control of foreign policy.  I wonder where the Sunni "border" could be drawn.  Also see "Options" FAQ.

Polls in mid-May showed the President at his lowest approval rating ever, just 31%.  According the the Times/CBS poll, Bush was tying his father's lowest numbers, only Carter and Nixon have been lower in the past 50 years.  Polls on Iraq were also tracking lower and his public support has been "eaten away," according to the front page Times article.

--2/3 disapprove of the President's handling of the Iraq War.
--56% feel going to war was a mistake (up from 50% in January)
--60% said things were going "somewhat or very badly" in the drive to stabilize Iraq.
--Yet, 55% believe the effort in Iraq was somewhat or very likely to succeed.

Polls in June showed some improvement with more Americans thinking the US will "win" in Iraq. By October more Americans thought the war was a mistake.

September polls show 57% feel that war has not been worth the cost, while 38% feel it has been. More Americans feel we should stay as long as it takes to establish order (46%) than feel we should withdraw within the next year (28%).

This poll comes out six months before November 2004 election day.  The biggest two questions for November appear to be, "Will the House and/or Senate" maintain their Republican majorities?"  If the Democrats took over the House, John Conyers would become chairman of the Judiciary Committee and has has called for an inquiry into possible impeachment.  Patrick Leahy of Vermont would run the Senate Judiciary Committee in the event of a Democratic majority.

Responding to McCain's appearance at Liberty U. was Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, who wrote:

Though Democrats and some Republicans criticized this new report as unlawful, deceitful, and/or unconstitutional, some op-ed's supported the President as using the NSA to effectively fight terrorism. 

There were also reports from telephone companies, about a week later, than the original USA Today story unfairly targeted them.

In The Progressive, Ruth Conniff asked, "What About Censure?"

Rolling Stone Magazine asked, more pointedly, "The Worst President In History?"

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history/print

Eugene Robinson writes his Post column "An Easy Call:  Lying".  He reminds readers that "when it was revealed last year that the NSA was eavesdropping on phone calls and reading e-mails without first going to [the FISA court] for a warrant, the president said his 'terrorist surveillance program' targeted international communication in which at least one party was overseas, and then only when at least one party was suspected of some terrorist involvement.  Thus no one but terrorists had anything to worry about.  Not remotely true, it turns out, unless tens of millions of Americans are member so al-Qaeda sleeper cells--evildoers who cleverly disguise their relentless plotting as sales calls, gossip sessions...There's an understandable tendency, with this administration, to succumb to a kind of 'outrage fatigue.'  Pre-cooked intelligence on Iraq secret CIA prisons, Abu Ghraib--the accretion is numbing." 

Also see "Tenet/Rumsfeld Resign?" for more on NSA director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, nominated and approved for head of the CIA.  

In late May, President Bush met with Britain's Tony Blair and in the most direct manner since the war began over three years ago, admitted errors. In regards to his "Bring 'em on" challenge to the insurgency in 2003, the President said, "I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner."

President Bush surprised us on June 13, 2006, when he made a surprise visit to Iraq. It was only his second visit in the past three years. He flew into the Green Zone of Baghdad for five hours. The President encouraged Iraqis to "seize the day...the fate and future of Iraq is in your hands."

Seeming to put more burden on the Iraqis and their politicians, he added, "It's up to them, but we'll help." This sounds like a stronger version of "Iraqization."

The President urged "patience", stating at a Rose Garden news conference, that Iraqis feared "America will lose its nerve...when America gives a commitment, America will keep its commitment...The challenges that remain are serious and they will require more sacrifice and patience."

How will progress be measured? The President suggests tangible measurements. In the past, we have looked at numbers of Iraqi security forces. In the future, emphasis will be on oil sales and electricity, both still lower than pre-war levels. Maybe these two measurements have nowhere to go but up. Some polls were going up during this time period. Americans were somewhat more optimistic about Iraq.

President Bush further feels that Democrats should be warned that an early withdraw would set back counterterrorism and "endanger our country."

Reaction to the President's visit came for days and many sources. The New York Times editorialized that "After too many photo-op's aimed at giving Mr. Bush and his fellow Republicans a short-term lift in the domestic opinion polls at election time, Americans hunger more than ever for a realistic game plan for Iraq and some real progress."

The "stay the course" strategy compels Post columnist Eugene Robinson to ask, "Stay the course? What course?"

Meanwhile, in Congress in June 2006, leading Democrats disagreed about Iraq. Nearly all criticized the President, but Kerry desired a timetable for troops to be out by the end of the year, in contrast to Hillary Clinton.

The New York Senator and leading contender for the Democratic nomination in '08, thinks that a smart strategy would be to not set a deadline for withdrawal. Iraqi security "is not the job of the American military." On Republicans, Clinton added, "One thing they do know how to do is win, and we have to reach out to people who may not be able to agree with us."

Also at the meeting for activists with Clinton was John Kerry, who re-stated his regret for voting for the war, saying "It is essential to acknowledge that the war itself was a mistake...One of the great lessons of life is that you cannot change the future if you are not honest about the past...It is time to end the war...that weakness the nation each and every day we are in it."

In the House and the Senate in June 2006, resolutions were passed about troops withdrawal (the Senate is strongly against complete withdrawal by the end of 2006) and other Iraq issues.

The Times editorial (8/6/06) expresses that a "timetable isn't an exit strategy." "As America's military experience in Iraq grows ever more nightmarish, it is becoming clear that President Bush's strategy comes down to this: Keep holding to a failing course for the next 29 months and leave it to the next administration to clean up the mess. That abdication of responsibility cannot be allowed to continue at the expense of American lives, military readiness and international influecne...The country cannot afford another election cycle of bipartisan evasions."

In August McCain criticized the administration for misleading Americans into believing the war would be "some kind of day at the beach." He was bothered the speeches and comments such as, "Stuff happens, mission accomplished, last throes, a few dead-enders," quotes from Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

Polls in August 2006 showed that more and more Americans no longer see the war as part of the fight against terrorism. 51% saw no link (Times/CBS), a jump of 10% since June. 53% believe that going to war was a mistake, up from 48% in July.

Also see related PS FAQ, "When Will US troops Come Home?"

As the Times reported, the decline in public approval for the war--"and a corresponding drop for the president--has emerged as the single biggest cloud over the Republicans' prospects for elections this year."

The big political story of August 2006 was the election of Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary of Connecticut. The three-time Senator and 2000 nominee for Vice President (with Al Gore) lost primarily for his consistent pro-war stance and lack of any outspoken criticism of the President. Lamont favors an end to the war, much like Rep. Murtha. Might Lieberman run anyway as an independent, we wondered? He would and led in the September polls, winning his Senate seat in November.

In early September the President began his pre-9/11 speeches on Iraq. "If we give up the fight in the streets of Baghdad, we will face the terrorists in the streets of our own cities." It takes time, as Jefferson said, to move from "despotism to liberty." Responded Democrats via Rahm Emanuel, "They've only got fear to sell."

Cheney's rare appearance on Meet The Press with Tim Russert on NBC was in mid-September. Asked if he had any regrets on Iraq, the Vice-President volunteered that not only was it the right thing to do, but "if we had it to do over again, we'd do exactly the same thing...The world is much better off today...Think where we'd be if [Saddam] was still there. He'd be sitting on top of a big pile of cash, because he'd have $65 and $70 oil. He would by now have taken down the sanctions...He would be a major state sponsor of terror. We also would have a situation where he would have resumed his WMD programs." In separate speeches, Cheney and Rumsfeld labeled those against the war as "appeasers" who "have not learned their history lessons."

Responded the Times lead editorial of September 12, "It will be hard to hear the phrase 'lessons of Sept. 11' again without contemplating that statement." He paints a bleak picture for "cut and run" in Iraq. John Kerry's response is that the administration policy is "stand-still-and-lose strategy." Cheney feels that the terrorists "want to know whether or not if they stick their heads up, the US, in fact, is going to be there to complete the mission...And those doubts are encouraged, obviously, when they see the kind of debate that we've had in the US", referring to the suggestion that some troops start pulling out soon.

Cheney blamed CIA director Tenet for the bad intelligence. He didn't say why he had been so contrary to IAEA inspector conclusions. Now he supports inspectors in Iran. E.J. Dionne, of the Post replies that "It's no wonder that Cheney isn't happy with the spread of democracy to the American foreign policy debate."

Senator Joe Biden further criticized the administration for picking "the wrong fights at the wrong times, failing to finish the job in Afghanistan...and instead rushing to war in Iraq, which was not a central front in that struggle."

Senator Barak Obama added in late September that the war has "vastly expanded the number of terrorist recruits" led to a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, and not caught bin Laden.

In the two weeks leading of the the 5th anniversary of 9/11, the President gave five speeches, as did his allies, on terrorism and Iraq. In trying to shore up support for an ever unpopular war, the President labels those who criticize the war as "defeatists." He added is his prime time speech on the night of the anniversary, "America did not ask for this war, and every American wishes it were over. So do I. But the war is not over--and it will not be over until either we or the extremists emerge victorious." Stating Iraq in stark terms, he said, "The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad...If we do not defeat these enemies now, we will leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons" and be at risk of terror attacks "in the streets of our own cities." He feels the war is "a struggle for civilization" and the war on terror is "the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century."

A new domino theory was suggested by Bush and Cheney in the run-up to the 9/11 anniversary. Like the LBJ theory of the Vietnam era (lose Vietnam to Communists and they will take over all of southeast Asia). If America "fails" in Iraq, Cheney warned, the next target could be Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, with their nuclear weapons. Iran would benefit from a US withdrawal. Replied former Bush speech writer and hawk David Frum, "It doesn't help to talk about the consequences of failure unless the public thinks some measure of success is possible." What is "victory" in terms of time, casualties, troops, and money?

In his 9/11 anniversary prime-time speech President Bush spoke of Saddam and 9/11: "I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible of the 9/11 attacks." Mr Hussein was "a threat....On September 11, we learned that America must confront threats before they reach our shores...My administration, the Congress, and the UN saw the threat, and after 9/11, Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take. The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power."

President Bush states that his goals are bringing democracy and stability to Iraq, and decreasing the violence. However, in the fall he was emphasizing less the need for victory and more the danger of defeat.

A military judgment is a released NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) report of September quickly became a political battle. It was the first public NIE since the war began. An NIE is the consensus view of 16 intelligence agencies, including the CIA, and are the most authoritative documents produced by the intelligence agencies. President Bush had continued to label Hussein a "clear threat" and say "the US is safer with the Iraq war." However, the National Intelligence Estimate concluded, among other points, that the Iraq War has made America less safe. This was the same conclusion reached by the CIA many months earlier. For example, a 2005 NIE talked of terrorist training ground in Iraq and a new generation being trained there. This NIE was completed in April, before the violence increased. The war has sparked a new generation of Islamic radicalism. Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib added fuel to the fire. As Sen. Charles Shumer stated simply, "We are less safe today because of the Iraq war."

The Tribune lead editorial worries about the Times cherry picking out of context conclusions. The author of this site recalls that the administration cherry picked and took intelligence out of context in their rationale for going to war in the first place.

The administration rebuttal was that the report did not say America was less safe but rather that the US can't leave Iraq without clear victory or the US will become less safe. As the front page of the September 27 Chicago Tribune blared, "Bush denies war incites terrorists." He feels the conclusions were taken out of context and are quoted from selectively. For example, the President stated, "You know, to suggest that if we weren't in Iraq we would see a rosier scenario, with fewer extremists joining the radical movement, requires us to ignore 20 years of experience..My judgment is: the only way to protect this county is to stay on the offense." Attacks against the US began before the Iraq war. He added, "the party of FDR and Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run."

In Congress, the NIE debate larger fell along party lines. Defending the President included Sen. Cornyn, who interpreted the key passage as, in his words, "for us to cut and run would simply embolden our enemy in a way that they were emboldened when we left Somalia" in the early 1990s. Sen. Reid's view was that "no election-year White House PR campaign can hide the truth--it is crystal clear that America's security demands we change course in Iraq."

Of the numerous reactions and counter-reactions, Paul Pillar, former CIA official feels that is is "stating the obvious" when the report concludes that Iraq is used as recruiting and training for terrorists. Added Senator Kennedy, "The last thing we need is another selective declassification of portions of the report in a desperate attempt ...to avoid disclosing the truth." Replied McCain, fundamentalist are always looking for ways to recruit.

Under pressure, Bush also had Negroponte release and declassify, on September 26, a 4-page excerpt of the NIE report which did indeed state that the Iraq war had become "a cause celebre" for Jihadists, causing deep resentment and "cultivating supporters for the global jihadists movement." The war was noted as one of four underlying factors fueling Islamic radicalism. Of the four pages, there were other topics besides Iraq.

Bob Woodward's new book made headlines within a few days of the NIE estimate. State of Denial uses Woodward's typical inside (and usually unnamed) sources to criticize decisions or non-decisions of the administration. According to the front page Times story, "The White House ignored an urgent warning in September 2003 from a top Iraq adviser who said that thousands of additional American troops were desperately needed to quell the insurgency." The White House was dysfunctional and full of division. Rumsfeld is described an disengaged and hostile toward Rice. The Rice-Rumsfeld tift began with the Abu Ghraib revelations in 2004.

Before the war, senior war planners were "thoroughly uninterested in the details of postwar mission." Neither the President nor Vice-President Cheney agreed to be interviewed, perhaps seeing that with each book Woodward is more critical of the administration. Cheney is seen as desperate to prove the Hussein had WMD. The Pulitzer Prize winner's previous book was Plan of Attack. See a complete list of books and videos.

Though much of his conclusions are already known, Woodward's inside sources and reputation make the book a headline story. Woodward concluded that in the administration members are afraid to speak truth to power. Experts were ignored or failed, according to the Times book review, "out of cowardice or blind loyalty, to press insistently their case for an altered course in the war." War planning was improve, like a pickup basketball game, trying to give the public a rosy picture despite its own intelligence.

White House disputes the book's accounts, especially that there was division and discord. Those whose advice had been ignored about troop levels and other issues, said spokesman Tony Snow, were soar grapes. "The average Washington memior ought to be subtitled, 'If they only listened to me.'" According to a detailed Times report, Snow did not explain Bush's upbeat assessments nor why Bush didn't listen to the broad call for more troops.

Henry Kissenger is a top confidant of the President, we learn from Woodward. The former Nixon top administrator urges Bush and Cheney to stick it out because starting a withdrawal is like a salted peanut to the US public, "the more US troops come home, the more will be demanded."

Columnist Thomas Friedman refers to Woodward in his pre-election column. "If I Had One Wish" (10/4/06) hopes for Democrats to win back the House and Senate in November. "Incompetence" is the common theme of the new books out, including Bob Woodward's State of Denial. To solve problems, the Republican Party needs to suffer from "election shock," Friedman suggests. "There is something immoral about kicking Iraq down the road for someone else to deal with...Yes, Mr. Bush's original vision of a unified democratic Iraq was compelling and important. But it's not happening...Our top military people..know the Bush team won't order a Plan B, because it would be construed as an admission of failure and used in domestic politics. So we are staying a failing course." See much more on Friedman and dozens of other columnists.

Reaction to Woodward from the administration was mostly vague. Counselor Dan Barlett pointed out that the book "time after time" shows that "the President was being presented with the bad information"

In response to the President's September 30 weekly radio address, Tammy Duckworth, running for Congress in the west suburbs of Chicago, spoke of the administration having no plan to secure Iraq, but simply slogans. "I didn't cut and run, Mr. President...My helicopter was shot down long after you proclaimed 'Mission Accomplished.' Duckworth desires a new Congress to examine intelligence, post-war plans, and the costs of the war. Bush had said in his address, "We do not create terrorism by fighting terrorism

In a strange story, a Colorado man filed a federal lawsuit against Cheney's secret service for arresting him for speaking to the Vice President. The Times reported that Steven Howards, 54, said words to the effect of, "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible." Howard said he was arrested about 10 minutes later.

Woodward and the NIE were quickly dwarfed a few days later by the House Page Scandal involving Representative Mark Foley.

Secretary of State Rice made a unannounced visit to Baghdad's Green Zone in early October 2006 after her trip to the middle east. Ms. Rice has made five trips of Secretary of State, and this was her first in six months. She urged the Iraqi government to do more to stop the sectarian violence. She feels that Iraqis are "making progress" and denied that the administration had ever sugarcoated news from Iraq. Her transport plane, coming in from Turkey, had to circle the Baghdad airport for 40 minutes because or mortar fire or rockets. During her meeting with Talabani, the lights went out. On Prime Minister Maliki, Rice commented, "I think he's a very good and strong Prime Minister" As Politics and Violence often merge, also see "Iraqi Violence Post-Zarqawi"

The same day as Rice's visit, the Republican Chairman of the Senate Arms Service Committee and ally of the administration, John Warner, warned that Iraq was "drifting sideways." Some saw this comment as a possible turning point in the war, as Warner has been supportive of the President's war policies. He suggested a "change of course" if things don't get better in 2-3 months. Is Warner trying to warn the President? In contrast, Senator Levin (D-MI) favors setting a date for a drawdown of troops. No policy options should be "taken off the table," the World War II veteran added.

The White House appeared caught off guard by Warner's warnings. The press secretary said, "Slow progress is being made." Sen Susan Collins (D-ME) sees it differently. "We've heard over and over that as Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down. Well, there are now hundreds of thousands of Iraqi troops and security forces, and yet we have not seen any reduction in violence."

Perhaps Warner has been talking with James Baker, former Secretary of State during the Persian Gulf War of 1991. Baker is part of a bi-partisan group, the Iraqi Study Group, set up with Congress' blessing and hesitantly supported by the White House. The group plans to release their recommendations for Iraq, after the November 7 elections. Maybe Baker can help Bush save face by making a change in Iraq. The panel has been working for over six months.

In his 1995 memoir, Baker examined the 1991 war and the Bush decision not to topple Saddam then. "Marching on Baghdad was ridiculous from a practical standpoint. Even if Saddam were captured and his regime toppled, American forces would still be confronted with the specter of a military occupation of indefinite duration to pacify the country and sustain a new government."

Iraq naysayers sometimes say "I told you so" but studies show they claim more hindsight that is deserved. A psychologist at OSU state in a Washington Post piece (10/2/06) that "Liberals' assertion that they 'knew all along' that the war...would go badly are guilty of the hindsight bias...This is not to say that they didn't always think that the war was a bad idea." Hindsight bias plays an important role in the political debate and gives people a false sense of certainty and overconfidence.

Former Secretary of State Powell came back in the debate in October 2006 with a new biography. It tells that he had warned Bush that Iraqi elections would not solve the problem. The President is described as disengaged. Powell never threatened to go public in his criticism and has generally kept his views to himself since resigning, because "there's a war on." His rare criticism has come on Katrina and detainees. In the book, Powell speaks of his now infamous speech at the UN before the war. He spend five days "trimming the garbage" that Cheney's staff wanted in the speech. The speech, according to Powell was full of falsehoods and distorted intelligence and a "blot" on his record.

Also see "Wilson/CIA/WMD" FAQ and "Was the War Inevitable?" FAQ

August polls show that the most important issue for political leaders to concentrate on right now were terrorism (24%) and Iraq (22%). The economy and health care were both over 10%.

When Americans are asked, "Do you think the US did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq?" the responses have changed over the past few years. Over 60% agreed in 2003 and the generally slow decline was hit 40% in early October 2006.

In early November, the Times reported that updated polls concluded:
--61% believe the US should change strategy
--69% believe that Bush has no clear plan
--20% believe we are winning the war in Iraq
--27% believe all troops should be removed

With the increased violence and killing continuing into October, President Bush admitted that he could see a parellel with Vietnam's Tet Offensive. See much more on Tet and Vietnam. The violence was a top story as the US election was only two weeks away.

The Times editorial of Oct. 22 criticized the President for just trying "to hang on" and pass the problem to the next President. If the President really doesn't believe in "staying the course" anymore, why was he so optimistic for so long? "There is probably no worse time to begin a serious discussion about Iraq policy than two weeks before a close, bitter election."

Also see US Politics Since 11/06 Elections

How are Republicans using Iraq in the November 2006 elections? An advantage in most races in 2004, now many Republicans are staying away from the issue. The White House and many Republicans describe the Iraq War as part of the greater War on Terrorism. But Democrats are now seizing on Iraq more than their opponents, rather the avoiding the confrontation. Independents, polls show, are moving toward Democrats due to the war.

Dick Cheney was interviewed on NPR and said that handover to Iraqi forces has "a long way to go." Readers will recall that in mid-2005 he declared that the insurgency"was in its last throes." Allies of Cheney argue that "fighting the enemy [in Iraq] always makes the enemy madder."

"Stay the course" no more, the President told us two weeks before the November elections. He would change "tactics" but not the overall "strategy...We cannot allow our dissatisfaction to turn into disillusionment about our purpose in this war." The President repeatedly emphasized that he was committed to "getting the job done...The fact that the fighting is tough does not mean our efforts...are not worth it." His October 25 news conference opened with "encouraging" news, such as Saddam's capture, elections and the demise of Zarqawi. "Not encouraging developements" were the bombing of UN headquarters, not finding WMD, and loss of Amerian life. Hundreds of Iraqi security forces have died in the past month. "Iraqi civilians have suffered unspeakable violence."

What is the mission? "Our mission it to help the elected government...defeat common enemies, to bring peace and stabilty to Iraq and make our nation more secure. Our goals are unchanging. We are flexible in our methods to achieving those goals...a military solution alonge will not stop violence." The government must make tough decisions. "I know the American people understand the stakes in Iraq. They want to win. They will suport the war as long as they see a path to victory...The road to victory will not be easy." The President used the "domino theory" in explaining the importance of defeating "terrorists and extremists" because otherwise "they will gain access to vast oil reserves and use Iraq as a base to overthrow moderate governments across the broader Middel East. They will launch new attacks on America from the new safe haven. They will pursue their goals af a radical Islamic empire that stretches from Spain to Indonesia."

When asked if the US was winning, he replied, "Absolutely, we're winning." Added Cheney, "We'll make every change that is necessary to do the job, to finish the job, and to bring the troops home with the honor they've earned." Nixon, during Vietnam, often spoke of "peace with honor." More Republicans were getting restless with the war, looking for a timetable. Also see "US Troops Home" FAQ for related topics.

Response to "stay the course" changes came from numerous sources, including Eugene Robinson's "Seriously Misspoken."

John Kerry, upset over Bush's accusation of opponents as "cut and run", counters that the Bush policy is "stand still and lose."

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) doesn't see any reason "to belive the president is any more realistic." He trying to "get past the election" by telling Americans that "he's changing course whle telling the Iraqis he's not changing course."

George Lakoff, author of language and metaphors, writes of "staying the course right over a cliff" (Times, 10/27/06). He feels that stay the course "was for years a trap for those who disagreed" with the policies because "to disagree was weak and immoral. It meant abandoning the fight against evil. But now the president himself is caught in that trap. To keep staying the course, given obvious reality, is to get deeper into disaster...while not staying the course is to abandon one's moral authority as a conservative. Either way, the president loses." Lakoff concludes with a lesson for the Democrats. They need to find "a more assertive strategy" or their gains "will be short-lived. They, too, will learn the pitfalls of staying the course."

What would Democrats do? In the weeks leading to the Nov. 7 elections, it appeared likely that Democrats would take at least one House. 19 House members voted to cut off funds for the war. Pelosi, possible new speaker, talks of getting all troops out by the end of 2007. Democrats do not all agree. In the Senate, Levin and others desire troops starting out in 2006 to show Iraqis the commitment is not open ended. Also see "US Troops Home" FAQ for related topics.

"Undoubtedly there was arrogance and stupidity from the US " in Iraq, a top State Department official said in Arabic on al Jazeera TV in late October. After the uproar caused by diplomat Alberto Fernandez ,the first spin was that he was misquoted or mistranslated. But those were his words, so he said "I realized that I seriously misspoke." Some Iraqi lawmakers welcomed the remarks, including a Kurdish member of Parliament.

October 2006 included a Times lead editorial relating to arrogance and stupidity. "Money Down the Drain in Iraq" highlights problems of corruption and waste. It opens, "When the full encyclopedia of Bush administration misfeasance in iraq is compiled, it will have to include a lengthy section on the contracting fiascos that wasted billions of taxpayer dollars in the name of rebuilding the country. It isn't only money that was lost. Washington's disgraceful failure to deliver on its promises to restore electricity, water and oil distribution, and to rebuild education and health facilities, turned millions of once sympathetic Iraqis against the American presence." They complain about high overhead costs and add, "Bush administration incompetence, not corporate greed, is the chief culprit." (10/26/06)

During the next week "The Great Divider" Times editorial suggest that since Bush can't defend "the real world created by his policies and his decisions" he is "inventing a fantasy world in which to campaign on phony issues against fake enemies." There are two kinds of Americans, those who are against terrorism "and those who somehow are all right with it. Some Americans want to win in Iraq and some don't." The paper of record concludes, "This is hardly the first time that Mr. Bush has played the politics of fear, anger and division; if he's ever missed a chance to wave the blood flag of 9/11, we can't think of when."

Before the November elections Barak Obama suggested that he would indeed consider a possible run for the Presidency in 2008. He might make an announcement after the November 7 US elections. How does this relate to Iraq? As media veteran Newt Minow opined in the Tribune, "For those who question whether he has enough experience to have good judgment, I remind them that it was Obama who had the wisdom and courage back in 2003, "Do not invade Iraq." Obama was very public in his strong views before the war.

When criticized by some for his lack of experience, Obama replied, "What I think is more important is judgment. Judgment can be borne out of experience. It would be nice to think the more experience we get, the better our judgment is. But I don't think that's the case. I mean, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have an awful lot of experience, and yet have engineeered what I think is one of the biggest foreign policy failures in our recent history."

The story on October 29 was that there was no story. That is, neither the Tribune nor the New York Times had any Iraq-related story on the front page. This is the first time Iraq has been "missing" in at least a few weeks.

In the first week of November, just a week before the Nov. 7 elections, John Kerry was not happy to be in the news. In what he said was a "botched joke" about President's Bush's lack of education, he said to a group of students, "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't you get stuck in Iraq." He meant to say, "Get us stuck in Iraq" but it sounded like he was ridiculing US troops. Kerry, a veteran, responded that he would never criticize "heroes serving." However, Republicans pounced on his statement, calling them "anti-troop." Bush felt the comments were "insulting and shameful." Kerry fought back hard, but then ended up apologizing and laying low. For more on bonuses and opportunities for troops, see "Troops" FAQ.

Columnist Clarence Page, in two columns, did not go easy on Kerry. In "Bush and Kerry are joined at the lip" he opined in the Chicago Tribune, that Kerry has now lessened his chances in the 2008 election, should he again run for President. He labeled Kerry as having "combat-boot-in-mouth disease and reminded us that the US military has never been better educated.

Fellow columnist Michael Kinsley blames both sides. "Apparently and unfortunately, President Bush is right that the Democrats have no 'plan for victory.' Niether does he, of course. Nor for that matter do I. But I don't claim to have one. And I didn't start it." Kinsley wants Iraqis to take more responsibility.

Bush chimed in, "The Democrat goal is to get out of Iraq. The Republican goal is to win in Iraq." Responded Page, "Unfortunately, the Bush administration seems to have lost sight of what winning means."

In the week before the November 2006 election, Friedman was the most direct in his criticism of the administration that I can recall. "Insulting Our Troops, and Our Intelligence" (11/3), opens provocatively, "George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld think you're stupid" because they can "get you to overlook all of the Bush team's real and deadly insults to the US military over the past six years by hyping and exaggerating Mr. Kerry's mangled gibe [joke[ at the President. What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to the US military than to send it into combat...without enough men...or force...or equipment...left to buy their own body armor and to retrofit their own jeeps with scrap metal." He insulted Rumsfeld with, "Hey, you go to war with the army you've got--get over it." There was no "coherent postwar plan for political reconstruction." Friedman concludes, "Let Karl [Rove] know that you're not stupid. Let him know that you know that the most patriotic thing to do in this election is to vote against an administration that has--through sheer incompetence--brought us to a point in Iraq that was not inevitable but is now unwinnable."

On the eve of US elections, Cheney promised "full speed ahead" with US policy in Iraq. "It may not be popular with public opinion, but it doesn't matter...we have to do what we think is right." He again claimed that terrorists were happy that Lieberman lost his primary election in Connecticut.

Republican Senator Elizabeth Dole feels that "to pull out, to withdraw from this war, is losing. The Democrats appear to be content with losing." Replied Democrat Rahm Emanuel, I will not sit idly by with an accusatio that Democrats are content with losing."

Hillary Clinton spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations and called for "a fundamental change in course". Her most comprehensive criticism included: "American credibility is held hostage by an Iraqi government that will not fulfill its pledge to seek a political resolution" for Sunnis and to allocate oil." We need to press the Iraqis, "consistently, privately and publicly" to get serious about "internal reconciliation and political solution...and present real condwquences for their failing to do so." The New York Senator called for phased redeploment" to "get the attention" of the Iraqi leaders. This is similar to a position long outlined by her colleague in the Senate, Carl Levin. Columnist Richard Cohen was disappointed by her address. "She delivered a no-news address lacking conroversy, fresh approaches, or even a single soaring sentence."

In Foreign Affairs magazine, Obama and Romney outlines their positions on Iraq, with sharp contrasts. Obama still wants a phased withdrawal completed by March of 2008, while Romney wants to "give the troops a chance."

Also see US Politics Since 11/06 Elections