Saturday, October 07, 2006

Why are Republicans soft on national security?

For years Republicans have been accusing the Democrats of wanting to cut and run from Iraq. This translates to being weak on national security.

Yet, look at what came out of Senator John Warner's mouth (R-VA) on Friday. He said, "For the moment, I'm putting some faith into what Maliki told us: We're going to work this thing out, give us time. In two or three months, if this thing hasn't come to fruition and if this level of violence is not under control and this government able to function, I think it's the responsibility of our government, internally, to determine: Is there a change of course that we should take?"

Supposedly Warner's remarks caught the White House off guard. I would guess that is because they came prior to the mid-term elections.

Josh Micah Marshall has been tracking the Republican plan to withdraw. The biggest give away is that James Baker is coming to the rescue. Earlier this year, he was appointed to head a commission to figure out new ideas about Iraq.

I think we can all agree, that the only workable new idea about Iraq is an American pull-out of troops.

From a political point of view, the Republicans need Iraq cleaned-up before the 2008 presidential primaries. The Republican candidates will never be able to get past the Iraq War. Even "maverick" John McCain, will be sunk because of his unwavering support for President Bush.

After Democrats win the House (and Senate), lots of voices will be clamoring for a withdrawal. President Bush will be able to paint Democrats as defeatists and as weak on national security again by doing as they ask, because he has been planning on doing it all along.

Should Republicans retain the House and Senate, Bush will just claim victory and get out. Either way, mark my words, President Bush will begin withdrawing troops from Iraq in 2007 and through the 2008 presidential campaign.

Technorati Tags: , , ,