Cindy Sheehan couldn?t do it. Senator Robert Byrd couldn?t do it. Bruce Springsteen couldn?t do it. But now it begins to look as though Representative John Murtha COULD do it. That is, wrest control of the Iraq debate from ?stay the course? President Bush. As you probably recall, when Congressman Murtha, a well-respected Democratic hawk and a Vietnam veteran, boldly announced on the floor of the US House of Representatives that he no longer supported continued US military presence in Iraq, that the US military had ?done all it could do,? and that we should bring the troops home ?at the earliest practicable date,? he was at first verbally assaulted and called a coward - the usual character assassination employed by Republicans whenever someone has the temerity to oppose President Bush even slightly. But then a curious thing happened: Bush and his allies toned down their attacks, high-ranking Republican leaders praised Murtha?s patriotism and war record, and conservative flacks stopped accusing Murtha of being a recruiter for Osama bin Laden and started saying reasonably nice things about him. What?s going on here?
Remember the run-up to "Shock and Awe," when Bush gave us one reason after another why the United States needed to invade Iraq immediately? Now we know, of course, that most (if not all) of those reasons were false, exaggerated, and based on doctored intelligence or forged documents. At the time, however, the Bush Administration presented them in ultra serious, Doomsday tones, even including threats of ?a mushroom cloud? here in America.
Now, I claim no special inside expertise, but when I first heard Bush talk about Sadaam Hussein, I had a very uneasy feeling. What my gut told me is that ?this guy is lying,? although I wasn?t sure about just what exactly at the time. How did I know this? Having raised a teenaged boy who, when he got in trouble, frequently attempted to lie his way out of it, I heard the same resonances of voice, the same overly earnest and emphatic protestations from Bush as my young son had employed.
I also remember listening to Bush after he had repeated the same mantras over and over, and I noted how his tone changed, indicating he had convinced himself. Like any good con man, Bush apparently now truly believed what he was saying. That left me as confused as everybody else, uncertain but willing to endorse whatever course of action my President proposed. I expect that many Democratic Congressmen, John Murtha included, likewise accepted what their Commander in Chief told them.
Why wouldn't they trust President Bush, given that they really had no other yardstick with which to measure the truth of Bush?s statements? Particularly after 9/11, most of these folks would have been highly reluctant to imagine an American President not telling them the whole truth about something so important (why would he do such a godawful thing?).
In the end, we went to war without a formal declaration, frightened and bullied into turning war powers over to the Bush Administration with almost no restraints whatsoever. As I mentioned, this is not surprising given the information people had at the time, as well as the overall temper of the country after 9/11. However, we did have a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq", which many Democratic members of Congress voted for. In doing so, they inadvertently became complicit in the decision to invade Iraq, thereby weakening their ability to criticize it later, as Republicans have reminded us ad nauseum.
In the end, Iraq did not turn out to be the cakewalk as advertised, and the Bush Administration "true believers" were completely blindsided. Fully expecting to be greeted with roses, they had no idea how to make things better in Iraq when they were instead met with truck bombs. Even worse, no deus ex machina (e.g., Daddy Bush's rich and powerful friends, more competent individuals, a rich Saudi) showed up this time to dave "Dubya," as had always happened in the past. In response, Bush simply decided to ?stay the course,? while attempting to demolish any opponent - foreign or domestic - who questioned him. In addition, the Bush Administration rigged the terms of the debate by presenting a phony ?either/or? choice: EITHER cut and run, turning Iraq over to Zarqawi and Al Qaeda, OR continue to ?fight the terrorists there instead of here in America.? Obviously, this represents a false (but convenient) dichotomy; as almost everyone knows, there are many other options besides those two.
And then came Congressman Murtha, a war hero who was extremely difficult to smear (although they tried) or demolish (ditto). As a result, the Bush Administration - for a while at least - lost control of the Iraq debate. In the aftermath of its disgraceful and incompetent response to Hurricane Katrina, Congressman Murtha's stance posed a grave risk for the Bush Administration. Could the chickens all start coming home to roost now, after 5 years of crony capitalism, corruption, ballooning deficits, amateurish mismanagement, the Iraq quagmire, and the less-than-successful ?war on terror?? Could Murtha's remarks represent a "tipping point" for the Bush Administration? Watch out.
As possible evidence for the "tipping point" hypothesis, I would point to the remarkable, groundbreaking statement issued in Cairo a few days ago by Iraqi Shiite, Kurd, and Sunni leaders: ?We demand the withdrawal of foreign forces in accordance with a timetable.? Even more remarkably, the joint communique asserted that "national resistance is a right of all nations," while carefully condemning "terrorism."
Wow. Simply stated, the Cairo statement is astonishing. It also represents a harsh rebuke for President Bush. In the aftermath, we are suddenly reading that General John Abizaid, top US military commander in the Middle East, has a plan to bring up to 30,000 U.S. troops home by spring of 2006. And we are hearing that Zalmay Khalilzad, American ambassador to Iraq, has set up a committee with Iraqis to plan for such withdrawal. Bush himself will soon make a major speech on the subject. Perhaps it will be called the "cut and run" speech? Not likely.
Seriously, though, what can Bush say at this point? That "stay the course" has suddenly mutated into a planned withdrawal? That we have accomplished such wonders in training Iraqis that they now - suddenly! - can do most everything on their own? That Iraqi oil will soon start flowing freely? That happy days are here again?
Whatever Bush says, it appears that the "tipping point" has arrived. Perhaps Congressman Murtha?s speech has (ironically?) provided Bush with that deus ex machina after all: a chance to make a politically necessary course correction (as I'm sure Karl Rove is telling Bush), while attempting to save face at the same time.
Pretty clever, huh? Oh, and if things don't work out perfectly in the future, any difficulties can always be blamed on those pesky, unpatriotic Democrats, who forced Bush to change the course, against his own better judgment. All in time, of course, for the November elections, when that same "tipping point" threatens to snatch away control of Congress from the Republicans. "Cut and run" in Iraq to save the Republican majority at home? The question is, will the American people let them get away with it.