Turning Tide?

Mikaela says:
Despite evidence shown in the LA Times news story about the lack of photographs showing the true cost of the Iraq war, the American people soon may have a new medium for learning the dark side of this "war for Iraqi freedom": Congress. Democracy Now reports that North Carolina's own Walter Jones, Republican congressman, has come out in opposition to the war.

Backer of 'Freedom Fries' Now Opposes the War in Iraq
But also on Capitol Hill -- a surprising critic of the war has emerged -- Republican Walter Jones. The Congressman from North Carolina recently told a local newspaper that the US went to war "with no justification."

Jones made international headlines three years ago when he lashed out at France for not supporting the war effort. In March 2003 he demanded that three Congressional cafeterias ban the word French from the menus. French fries soon became freedom fries. While the ban is still in force, Jones' current view on the war appears to be closer to France's than President Bush's.

Jones said "If we were given misinformation intentionally by people in this administration, to commit the authority to send boys, and in some instances girls, to go into Iraq, that is wrong. Congress must be told the truth."

Will Congress use the Downing Street memo to force the Bush administration to start coughing up the truth? Will that eventually lead to a plan to withdraw troops, and if so, will Bush be able to blame Congress for the pull-out from Iraq, which everyone admits is problematic at best and morally reprehensible -- given the chaos we'll be leaving -- at worst? Cynically, I speculate that no matter how it all plays out, Rove will find a way to justify getting us out of the quagmire Bush currently has us stuck in and glorify Bush in the process. If it saves human lives, I'm almost prepared to say it would still be worth it.

So there's hope for Iraq, but what about Syria? An article in yesterday's LA Times seems to contradict recent reports that Bush is "warming up the old horrors" for a showdown with Syria. Army colonels in the Iraqi border region with Syria report that the Pentagon is ignoring pleas for more troops and instead, quietly withdrawing forces from this area, which has become the new "epicenter of the Iraqi resistance."

"[Commanders] can't use the word, but we're withdrawing," said one U.S. military official in Al Anbar province, who asked not to be identified because it is the Pentagon that usually speaks publicly about troop levels. "Slowly, that's what we're doing."

These stories, coupled with the latest report from London thinktank estimating US troops will be needed in Iraq for at least 5 years, raise the question of Bush's exit strategy -- not from Iraq -- but from the White House.

Polls have shown that Americans vote for Republicans in times of war, but recent polls have indicated that Americans no longer support the Iraq war -- or at least the current Republican president's (mis)handling of it. If Bush can get us into a war with Syria before he leaves office, Americans might take the bait-and-switch and vote in the next tough-minded Republican. In this kind of election, the Democratic candidate would have to either go out on a limb and oppose war altogether (which recent history has shown Democratic presidential candidates unwilling to do) or go with the old "we'll win and then get out as soon as possible" and risk the "flip-flop" label perhaps rightly affixed to candidates with such waffling positions.

What's the other option? Admit he was wrong and leave the mess for the next guy? That will only work if he's ready to be shunned by the Republican party, and something tells me Bush will find that hard to swallow. He only ran for President because of his monomaniacal need to prove himself worthy of his family to history. You think he's ready to take the fall in the history books? I don't think so.

It's time for us to start figuring out how the Republicans are going to spin the damage control and be ready with our own strategy -- either to elect a decent Democratic candidate -- or to leverage the desire for change in order to force some serious re-tooling of the Democratic party itself, both needed outcomes.