Inspired by this thread, I offer a new Novak column: “Quick exit from Iraq is likely” that posits that “Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush’s decision will be to get out”, i.e., exit Iraq post haste, in 2005.
In the previous thread, this strategy was held to be disastrous and waffling on Kerry’s part. Novak tears this down by asserting that the Kerry campaign cannot be bold enough to make such a step, and Bush is somehow being bold where Kerry is weak by making nearly the same move – “declare victory and exit” – that the Kerry folk are suggesting.
Novak seems to be widely recognized as a shill for the GOP (examples available upon request, but I can’t believe this would be in wide dispute), so this narrative seems likely to be direct from the WH.
Observations & questions:
This is idiotic. It’s also a change from what he was saying just yesterday, that we’re making good progress in Iraq. and there are enough troops. Now he wants to pull them all out.
I know there are a lot of Bush supporters here who have said that even though the war was wrong, it would be disastrous to cut and run. Do you now agree with Bush’s new position, or do you agree with the ‘old’ Bush, from, say, yesterday?
And even if you think the troops should come home, don’t you think it’s stupid to announce a timetable before hostilities have ended? Doesn’t that just give the enemy more strategic options? (“The Americans want to go home, Aziz. Let’s calm down, let them think everything is okay, and then after they leave we will take over.”)
Finally, from a tactical election standpoint, is this not just idiotic? Bush’s biggest problem is that he has been pigeonholed as a waffler who can’t stand the heat. How does changing his position again help his campaign?