In response to the criticisms of the Kerry campaign and of the press, the Bush administration has now begun to explain better where they have gone wrong in Iraq and how they hope to set things on a better path. That, in itself, is progress. One wonders why it didn’t occur to the White House to let us know sooner, to explain more fully, to detail exactly what they have been doing. Still, it’s good news:
For each of the cities identified as guerrilla strongholds or vulnerable to falling into insurgent hands, a set of measurements was created to track whether the rebels’ grip was being loosened by initiatives of the new Iraqi government, using such criteria as the numbers of Iraqi security personnel on patrol, voter registration, economic development and health care. And for each city, a timeline was established for military action to establish Iraqi local control if purely political steps by the central government proved insufficient. “We’re working on them by population size, by importance to the election,” said one senior administration official, who added that the ultimate objective was to make sure that the main Sunni Muslim cities were able to take part in free elections. “That’s where the bad security situations are, and that’s where we really need to make some major political and economic changes in the next several months if we’re going to have a successful nationwide election,” he said.
I may be too suspicious in seeing some classic Bush payback in the criticisms leveled at Paul Bremer in the briefing to the New York Times – but the White House is now saying that for an entire year, Sanchez and Bremer were working at cross purposes. The plan reassures me, at least, that national elections are still being planned; and the experience in Samarra is also hopeful as to the possibility of success. We can pray it works. My criticisms of the occupation have not been in order to discredit it, but to goad the administration into explaining what the heck it’s up to. It’s just a shame that it’s only the prospect of losing an election that has promoted them to tell their own citizens what is exactly going on.
EMAIL OF THE DAY I: “Slow down on the Republican bashing, my boy. We understand that you’re unhappy with the way the war is being handled, as are many of us. But dear God! Do you really think Kerry would improve things? The guy has no clue how to lead a country in a time of war. He and his little bitch boy, Edwards, are completely out of their league. You may be swinging votes to the left with all your ‘honesty’, but can the world afford to have these two $600 haircut getting dipshits in office?”
EMAIL OF THE DAY II: “I can’t say I agree with you on every point, but the gist of your arguments is compelling, and I think the Bush/Cheney days are numbered. They certainly deserve it for the conduct of post-war Iraq, and for the incredibly inept way in which they have handled the communications of the war. And if Lieberman or Gephardt were running against Bush, I would happily vote Democrat. But for all the praise you heap on Kerry and Edwards, I am not convinced that their current positions aren’t just election season posturing. In this I think the past IS relevant, and both Kerry and Edwards’ prior votes on national security issues are disquieting. Furthermore, when Kerry is elected, I have to think the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party, which has pulled out all the stops for the guy, will call in their chits. The prospect of an already decision-challenged Kerry trying to balance the demands of his anti-war constituency and the winning of the war itself does not fill me with the warm fuzzies. Throw in the fact that Edwards wants to go medieval on the pharma industry, and I am just depressed as hell…” My feelings entirely.
The Dish 