Bush claims Mitch McConnell asked for troop withdrawl from Iraq to help in midterm elections

From Decision Points:

emphasis added.

A troop pullout was a reasonable enough position at the time, but McConnell was blasting Democrats at the same time for wanting to withdraw troops. Either McConnell really believed troops should have been withdrawn but still publicly called for them to stay as a way to attack Democrats, or he did not believe troops should be withdrawn but called for withdrawal to help in the midterm elections. Either way, he was using American troops, who were in war theater, as political pawns.

McConnell has not commented on Bush’s allegations, yet. If McConnell was trying to use American troops as political pawns, what should his punishment be? Should Republicans force him to resign? Using troops who are in war theater as political pawns is one the worst things a politician can do.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/10/mcconnell_bush_iraq

I wonder what the response will be from the people on the right who mindlessly aped McConnell’s talking points.
I’d say if Republicans in the senate have any decency he’d be stripped of leadership. Which is to say, nothing will happen.

I agree. If Bush’s account is accurate, then McConnell was behaving despicably.

Where he’ll get punished is at election time. This is exactly the kind of backroom double-dealing the Tea Party types are dying to punish.

They can take a number.

McConnell’s office has issued the following statement on the allegations:

The statement pretty much misses the point. The public record is clear. The allegation is that McConnell’s private actions completely contradict the (clear) public record.

Having thus established the dismal facts of the matter, is it too early to launch ourselves boldly into speculation? By way of asking “Why? Howcum?”

Can’t be a mistake, that book was read rather carefully by numerous editorial assistants and advisers. Shirley, somebody must have said “Mr. President, sir, you are publicly buggering Mitch McConnell with this, are you quite sure?..”

Ergo, it was deliberate, hence, there was one heckuva motive. Can anyone think of a reason why GeeDubya would hate Mitch the Turtle so much as to stake him our on an ant hill like this?

Why hate? Maybe he’s trying to take some of the heat off of himself and put some on Mitch. Maybe it’s kind of a, “I’m not that bad. Look what Mitch did.” sort of a thing.

It is beginning to make sense why Republicans wanted Bush to hold off getting his book published and on the shelves until after the election.

I think we can all agree that Mr. McConnell will never suffer any adverse effects from this.

I am inclined to believe McConnell was behaving despicably, but if the proof depends on Bush knowing the truth and successfully transmitting it in its entirety, unaltered, all I can say is who the hell really knows.

I thought Bush was a liar.

At any rate, McConnell will claim he was either misunderstood or that Bush doesn’t remember correctly. He said, he said. But Bush is history, and McConnell will probably survive just fine.

As for punishment, that’s up to the voters in this state.

That’s what I thought McConnell would do, but then he issued that non-statement.

You don’t have to read much between the lines to see the denial in that statement. Is Bush’s book not part of the “public record” now?

I think Bush is telling the truth. He liked being Commander-in-Chief. You think some cracker senator from Kentucky is going to tell a Texan what to do? McConnell figured that they were going to get greased via the ballot. Self-deluded or not, Bush knows that by sending troops to war he would have “blood on his hands.” Along comes Senator McConnell arguing that politics should come 1st. Bush was probably pissed at McConnell for putting politics above the national interest and sticking his nose in the executive branch.

I welcome correction from any fellow Doper, but AFAIK when Bush was president, he did call or visit numerous families whose members were KIA or wounded as a result of the Iraq war. It’s one thing to visit a family and offer condolences (perhaps Senator McConnell has–I don’t know), but if you’re the person who orders the troops into battle, watch them die, and then pass condolences to on a family (especially if people are wondering if it’s really a just cause), how would you feel about putting politics 1st?

McConnell is a crafty politician. He made it clear to his Republican brethren that the only way they could reacquire power was playing the obstruction card for the last two years. And he succeeded. In this case, years before, he overplayed his hand Bush on with this particular issue.

Will this affect McConnell? At worst, a few days of news from hell, but more likely it’ll be a smudge on his career with a minor “controversy” entry in his Wikipedia page. He’ll continue playing the obstinate minority leader and life will move on …

Not any more hypocritical than Joe Biden claiming credit for victory in Iraq.

What, you think he’ll have a Tea Party challenger in 2012? That would be interesting.

Because Bush cared about the military. All indications are he genuinely thought he was doing the right thing, he regretted the loss of life, and he held the troops in high respect. We can argue on if his actions hurt the military or not, but I’ve never seen anything to indicate Bush didn’t respect the military. Somone playing political games with the military is exactly the sort of thing that I think would royally piss W off.

Including Iraqi life?

Not if they get Fox News in his state.

I think it’s safe to say the Kentucky voter is, in general, not that bright. Cite.