Well! The WaPo has now finally come to roughly the same position regarding the US presence in Iraq that Juan Cole was espousing in June-July 2005. In a key editorial today, the paper’s august editorial team argued,
- PRESIDENT BUSH said this month that he was willing to “change tactics” in Iraq if U.S strategy was not working. We believe the time has come for such a change. The Iraqi coalition government that Mr. Bush has been counting on to forge political compromises and disarm sectarian militias doesn’t seem to have the strength to carry out either mission. A U.S.-led attempt to pacify Baghdad by concentrating forces in the capital has failed, while contributing to a grievous spike in American casualties. Support for the war is rapidly slipping, in the country and in Congress; a congressionally mandated commission is likely to recommend a new course sometime after next month’s election. Mr. Bush would be wise to act sooner than that: The rapidly deteriorating situation in Iraq needs to be addressed urgently…
A revised U.S. strategy must aim to jump-start political accord and militia disarmament. But it must also provide for the possibility that decisive progress will not be achievable soon…
But if, as appears more likely, Iraq’s civil war deepens and spreads, the United States should abandon attempts to pacify Baghdad or other areas with its own forces. It should adopt a strategy of supporting the Iraqi government and army in a long-term effort to win the war… A reserve force of U.S. troops could remain as a guarantor against a military victory by insurgents and as a rapid reaction force that could strike al-Qaeda targets.
The editorial then plainly raises the possibility of failure:
- “A change of course won’t necessarily rescue the U.S mission in Iraq.”
It ends with this plaintive (and fairly unrealistic) little bleat: “But there remains a chance the government could gain control over the country. As long as that prospect exists, the United States has a moral obligation and a practical interest to remain in Iraq.”
The clear implication there being, of course, that once it is clear there is no chance that the Iraqi government can “gain control over the country”, then it will be time for the US forces there to head for the exits, fast.
(So why not go straight to a “speedy, complete, orderly, and generous” withdrawal plan such as I have been advocating for some years now? H’mmm.)
But anyway, we do need to recognize the depth and importance of this shift in the WaPo’s position, especially given the intense degree to which the WaPo and its editorial board were cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq throughout 2002 and 2003, and have been supportive of the administration’s general policy there ever since.
And another indication of the current zeitgeist shift: Right opposite the editorial itself we have the latest signed column by Jim Hoagland (who had probably also helped to write the editorial.) Jim had been one of the biggest members of the mainstream commentatoriat beating the drums for the war back in 2002. Now, here’s what he wrote today:
- The bloody chaos of Iraq under U.S. occupation is shaking Western governments into sobering reassessments of that conflict and of war itself. More urgently, some of these governments have launched tightly held contingency planning for the consequences of a possible American failure in Iraq.
He wrote of,
- the gathering sense at home and abroad that the administration is belatedly engaged in a search for a political-economic exit strategy. Such a strategy would quickly reduce the role of U.S. combat troops in Iraq and gradually increase the economic involvement of other countries, including Iraq’s neighbors.
He gives no clue, of course, as to how you get the “neighbors” to start picking up the economic costs of running Iraq without also giving them a share of the political/diplomatic decisionmaking. But maybe this is the way Hoagie and his friends in the administration might be hoping to “package” a move to involve the neighbors in Iraq-related consultations, for the benefit of a US audience? I doubt that Iran, Syria, and other Iraqi neighbors who have been systematically belittled and in many cases outright opposed by Bush for the past 6 years would be ahappy to participate in this project on quite those terms.
Then, he writes this:
- military leaders and diplomats in Western capitals are not waiting for the Baker and U.N.-sponsored efforts to conclude before they assess the mistakes, poor strategy and changing conditions of warfare that have brought U.S. forces face to face with the bitter prospect of having to withdraw, mission unaccomplished…
The need for changes in practice and doctrine was reinforced by Israel’s inconclusive July-August war in Lebanon against Hezbollah, a classic guerrilla force that also possesses a strategic missile arsenal capable of damaging and shutting down entire Israeli cities…
Oh, I have to say that it is fine spectator sport to watch Hoagie squirming as he starts to come to terms with some of these harsh (for him) political and strategic realities.
Then, right under him, we have veteran (paleo-)conservative George Will posing some questions that he thinks Jim Baker’s Iraq “Study” Group ought to be asking the Bushites. The first of them is this:
- * What are 140,000 U.S. forces achieving in Iraq that could not be achieved by 40,000?
* If the answer to the first question is “creating Iraqi security forces,” a second question is: Is there an Iraqi government? In “State of Denial,” Bob Woodward quotes Colin Powell, after leaving the administration, telling the president that strengthening Iraq’s military and police forces is crucial but that “if you don’t have a government that you can connect these forces to, then, Mr. President, you’re not building up forces, you’re building up militias.” And making matters worse.
Precisely. I couldn’t have put it better myself.
Will concludes with this:
- On Sept. 19 Hamilton said that “the next three months are critical.” On Oct. 5 Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said that the next “two or three months” are critical. If only the worsening insurgency were, as the president suggested Wednesday, akin to North Vietnam’s 1968 Tet Offensive. The insurgency is worse: Tet was a military defeat for North Vietnam. [But a political victory… ~HC] The president says the war in Iraq will be “just a comma” in history books, but by Nov. 26, the Sunday after Thanksgiving, with the Study Group’s recommendations due, the comma will have lasted as long as U.S. involvement in World War II.
And so, as the Democrats continue to edge closer and closer to looking able to take one or both houses on Congress on November 7, we should ask, will the Democrats’ policy on Iraq be any better?
A first answer to this would, honestly, have to be “No.”
On that same op-ed page, veteran WaPo political commentator David Broder writes about a conference call that Democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, both longtime members of the Armed Services Committee, held recently with a number of reporters.
He wrote:
- Reed, who has made many trips to Iraq and returned just weeks ago from his most recent visit, described the “very, very difficult situation” he found there. “We have to begin to work toward redeployment without setting a timetable,” he said. “We have to start laying out some red lines for the Iraqis . . . give them some clear goals we want them to achieve.” They need to set plans for disarming militias, conducting elections at the provincial level and spending some of the funds being hoarded in Baghdad on better services for the people, he said.
Implicit in their comments is a belief, based on their firsthand observations, that the current rulers in Baghdad have a different agenda for themselves than the Bush administration’s bland assurances suggest. As Levin put it, “Our only leverage for change is to force the politicians in Iraq to realize we’re not there as their security blanket. When they recognize that reality, they’re more likely to make the necessary compromises on sharing of oil revenues and sharing power. The prospect of losing us as their personal security blanket will focus their minds.”
This is extremely close to where the administration’s current policy is– if not identical with it. Today’s news pages are all full of reports that the Bushites have decided to establish “benchmarks” and whatever for the Maliki government to live up to in Iraq… This is nearly all, at this stage of how bad things are in Iraq, meaningless posturing before the US voters. (And quite likely to backfire badly with Maliki and others who might consider this as a quite unwarranted form of US bullying, not to mention unwarranted intervention in Iraq’s internal affairs…)
Also, at one level, it’s a hilariously misdirected “threat”. “Look here, Maliki, you better do as we tell you, or otherwise we’ll– well, we’ll do just exactly what you, your party, and the vast majority of Iraqis want us to do.”
Monty Python does the governance of Iraq.
But Broder continues with the crux of why these two senior Democratic good ol’ boys are so disappointing:
- When the senators were asked if a Democratic majority in the House or Senate would force the issue in Iraq by threatening to cut off funds for the war, they quickly ruled out any such action. Levin said that a simple resolution recommending to the president that he set a date to begin redeployment might do the trick.
Cutting off the funding for the war in Vietnam was, of course, the only way that Congress was able, back in the day, to end the militaristic madness there. And these guys want to “quickly rule out any such action” even before they’ve even come anywhere near any taste of real Congressional power?
Almost beyond belief.
So am I still motivated to help elect this bunch of Democratic Party rascals to office? Yes, I am. The most important thing is still to send a strong anti-war message to the Bushites. After that we can get to work on these lily-livered Democrats– and some Dems, actually, have positions that are far better than those articulated by Levin and Reed.
Plus, if the Democrats get control of even one of the houses of Congress, they can start to win some real form of accountability from the administration by holding authoritative hearings into so many different aspects of the administration’s policy at home and abroad.
What is intensely noticeable to me, meanwhile, is that even in the absence of any decent leadership on the war issue from our so-called “opposition” party here, the zeitgeist in the country has been turning so strongly against the war over the past few weeks.
Plus, if the Democrats get control of even one of the houses of Congress, they can start to win some real form of accountability from the administration by holding authoritative hearings into so many different aspects of the administration’s policy at home and abroad.
Helena, you’re very very optimistic about Democrats.
I my deep heart, I think there will no much differences yeas there is some changes but forgive me there are same as Republicans , just change the faces….
WaPo suggests international peace conference on Iraq. That is, Bolton, Rice, Khalilzad are supposed to chat to Ahmadinejad and Sadr. Well, for Fox viewers, this idea may look reasonable.
Bolton, Rice, Khalilzad are supposed to chat to Ahmadinejad and Sadr.
Then the “Whitehall’s strategists” fallen in the black turban of Iran Mullah trap…….
Helena, I am very appreciative of the way you set out information and analysis for us. Like the other commenters, I wish I had your faith that all could be made right with a Dem victory — or even just set on the right path.
Still and all, I like your analysis and look forward to your next piece.
Oh dear.
Zeitgeist shift.
Sowing-the-wind-reaping-the-whirlwind.
Turkeys coming home to roost.
Etc.
What the hell, since ripeness is all why not throw another faggot on the fire: let’s blow a blast through the ram’s horn for letting the words of Philip Weiss go forth far and wide.
As my bubster used to say about cuts and scratches and owies and hurts…”expose it to the air and it’ll heal faster.”
Philip Weiss is that principle writ large: he’s one of the great aeraters of our day.
As Scott McConnell puts it, PW’s blog
http://mondoweiss.observer.com/
is the most lucid commentary in America on the “trouble-had-better-be-got-into-before-
mere-trouble-turns-into-catastrophe” matter: the question of the lobby and its “reach”.
Let’s not just run up those colors. Let’s nail ’em to the mast.
I think the appropriate Vietnam parallel is whether the antiwar candidates of that era ran on a platform of cutting off funding for the war. We wonkish types know that it’s the effective avenue for Congress to end the war, but that doesn’t mean it’s necessary or effective to campaign on it.
An answer to George Will’s first question: 140,000 US troops can survive in Iraq, whilst 40,000 US troops would probably collapse.
Helena
They threatened to attack UNIFIL positions yeterday if they are fired on
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/778344.html
This going to end in tears.
I wonder who put them up to it.
Helena – Your friend Pat Lang has a new and very interesting comment on Washington’s ability (actually, lack thereof) to control the developing situation in Iraq.
Readers can find a link to Pat’s Sic Semper Tyrannis 2006 in your sidebar list of favorite blogs.
Yes, a few deck chairs closer to the bar, a few others next to the band to hear “Nearer my God to Thee.” Name Alawi captain. Toss al-Maliki overboard or make him junior steward. Green Zone: no icy waters until 2009 or so, but send your kin abroad.
A Dem controlled Congress would be of great help to W in taking blame for “losing” Iraq. The Right would suddenly be free to demand “bold action,” which could never have been funded or manned, but which the Right will say the weak kneed Dems failed to appropriate. W could then spend his last two years in serene denial: I won Iraq, they lost it.
W could then spend his last two years in serene denial: I won Iraq, they lost it.
Hannity to Democrats: “[S]tay home on Election Day … for the sake of the nation”
http://mediamatters.org/items/200610200001
Yab,
I agree with any and all political scenarios that would result in flushing our corrupt governmental sewer of all incumbents who had anything whatsoever to do with the needless twin disasters of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a matter of simple numbers: since more Republicans than Democrats swim in and drink from this toxic toilet, such a long-overdue cleansing would obviously result in a change of majority in Congress. This may actually happen in at least some selected cases but will it happen in enough of them? I suppose we will know in a few more weeks. Meanwhile, another six billion dollars in unfunded war expenditures and hundreds of lives — Iraqi and American — will disappear while we dither.
How nice to go to the polls without having the slightest idea what either major party plans to do about the mess they have made of things. If the Democrats win and take control of Congress, Representative Pelosi has already ruled out impeaching the miscrants in the White House and Senator Levin has already ruled out cutting off funding for our twin illegal, immoral, and unnecesary wars. Even worse, no Democratic candidate that I know of has even mentioned revisiting and revoking the humiliating humbug “authorization of force” (i.e., “Gulf of Tonkin II”) legislation upon the dubious basis of which Dick Cheney and George W. Bush conduct their egregious assaults on our traditional liberties and national honor. So, my vote for a Democrat will get me what: a non-Republican doing precisely what a Republican would do if left in office to go on doing it?
Sure, I understand what H. L. Menken meant when he said: “I never vote for anyone. I always vote against.” I guess this election pretty much boils down to voting against at least some incumbents — although, unfortunately, not all of them who deserve a tar-and-feathering for their abysmal lack of judgment. Somehow, though, I fear that those whom we vote for who promised us nothing will simply assume that we voted for them to give us nothing, and so they’ll gladly give that to us — again — and say we asked for it.
jkoch is right. What’s in store for Iraq after the midterm elections is a coup d’etat, a replacement of Maliki with a military junta, and suspension of the constitution. A new government will be formed and you can be sure that al-Sadr won’t have any influence over it.
The Washington Times has the story:
http://washtimes.com/upi/20061023-091743-9067r.htm
My guess is that the US will then go after Moqtada al Sadr and attack the Madhi Army. Unlike the present Iraqi government, the new one without al-Sadr, will be more compliant and do what the US tells it to.
H’mm, I agree with Pat L’s post somewhat (that there ain’t v. much Washington can do to affect the situation in Iraq at this point, except to make it worse faster) and disagree somewhat (I don’t think partition is inevitable– and certainly not between the Shia and the Sunnis– unless the US really works even harder at promoting it; and I don’t think the Shia bloc in Iraq is necessarily a pro-Iran force over the medium term).
I think deckchairs-on-Titanic metaphors (for the US presence in Iraq) are very apt.
I’m not sure what it means at this point to “rip up the Iraqi constitution.” The US did that when they installed the CPA; and then they tried to install a pro-US pro-privatization order which they cloaked with a “constitution”. But that “constitution” has never done the key thing that one requires a constitution to do, which is to protect the rights and physical security of the citizens.
Au contraire.
But that “constitution” has never done the key thing that one requires a constitution to do, which is to protect the rights and physical security of the citizens.
Are you sure what you wrote here?
Is it “Noah constitution” written for Iraqi or against the Iraqi?
This Zionist wrote the constitution as he proclaimed as “Nation Building” as if there is no nation, there is no state of Iraq he invented and created.
He came to create a new nation of course they did a new Fragmenting/Partitioning Nation, in favour of Israel/US strategic interests in the region,
It will not be and will never be to protect Iraqi citizens its to protecting the Israel/US interest mainly those Oil hunger companies to get over 80%-90% of the Oil in Iraq reserves by make it hard to any future government or regime to get it back from them without very very expensive penalty if they can get back.
I don’t think the Shia bloc in Iraq is necessarily a pro-Iran force over the medium term).
You undermined Iranian Helena, with thier achievement in the last three years they are faster and better runner than US with what they done of a very stupid things inside Iraq, in fact US handed Iraq to Iranians free no doubt about that.
” Iran’s unofficial influence in Iraq is even greater. In the past three years, Iran has built an impressive network of allies and clients, ranging from intelligence operatives, armed militias, and gangs to, most visibly, politicians in various Iraqi Shiite parties. Many leaders of the main Shiite parties, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and Dawa (including two leading party spokesmen, former Prime Minister Jaafari and the current prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki), spent years of exile in Iran before returning to Iraq in 2003. (SCIRI’s militia, the Badr Brigades, was even trained and equipped by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.) Iran has also developed ties with Muqtada al-Sadr, who once inflamed passions with his virulent anti-Iranian rhetoric, as well as with factions of Sadr’s movement, such as the Fezilat Party in Basra. The Revolutionary Guards supported Sadr’s Mahdi Army in its confrontation with U.S. troops in Najaf in 2004, and since then Iran has trained Sadrist political and military cadres. Iran bankrolled Shiite parties in Iraq during the two elections, used its popular satellite television network al Aalam to whip up support for them, and helped broker deals with the Kurds. Iraqi Shiite parties attract voters by relying on vast political and social-service networks across southern Iraq that, in many cases, were created with Iranian funding and assistance. ”
«إيران الثورة» لها موقف مريب من حركات العنف داخل العالم الاسلامي، فلقد أصدرت طابعين يحملان صورتي سيد قطب وخالد الاسلامبولي وهما رمزان من رموز العنف والتطرف، بل إن الاسلامبولي، يزين اسمه أحد شوارع ايران الرئيسية، ناهيك من وجود أكثر من عنصر من قيادات تنظيم القاعدة. كل ذلك لا بد أن يثير الدهشة والريبة والقلق في كيفية خدمة «ذلك» المشروع الايراني الكبير في الشرق الاوسط.”
http://www.asharqalawsat.com/leader.asp?section=3&article=388778&issue=10192
Iran……the cancer of ME
“…suspension of the constitution.”
And this would be a bad thing?
And then there is the utterly Alice-in-Wonderland demands on the part of the Americans that the so-called Iraqi make-believe government do this and do that about the situation “or else”. Whom do they think they are kidding? Some refer to that so-called government as a puppet government. True, the “Iraqi” so-called government does not blow its nose without a directive from the Americans, but even so it doesn’t even qualify as a puppet. It is nothing but a pretend government. Some say that so-called government has no power outside the green zone, but I have news for them. It doesn’t even have any power inside the green zone. That so-called government is nothing but a set of cardboard cutouts intended to create the illusion of a government for those who travel rapidly past the scene without taking a good look – a potemkin government, if you will. And it doesn’t even look very much like a government to those who give it anything more than the most superficial of glances. It looks, as has everything else about this catastrophe, like an ugly, cruel, putrid joke.
The Bush administration in general, and the Iraq affair in particular, are a true triumph for George Orwell. His only mistake was thinking it would happen 20 years earlier than it did.
“there remains a chance the government could gain control over the country. As long as that prospect exists, the United States has a moral obligation and a practical interest to remain in Iraq”
Moral obligation? Funny to hear such a word! The US of A decided to attack Iraq without UN approval, it was a war of aggression, one of the counts in the Nuremberg trial. Numerous war crimes were committed and still are committed in Iraq, without any judicial effect. Those responsible of that war, and those crimes, are most of the time still in charge, without any trial or even an inquiry. Torture, illegal detentions…
And the US of A are supposed to have “moral obligations”?
The people of the US of A is directly responsible of what its gvt has done. It will be the same as for Vietnam years ago. A withdrawal will enable the politicians to wash their hands, as well as the people to be freed of responsibilities. At least, people were one of the main forces that drove to withdrawal back in the seventies. It is not even the case today.
It is disgusting to see such a behaviour, especially when I remember the mood of the beginning of 2003…How different were the US of A at the times… How many iraqis had to pay for american dreams?
or otherwise we’ll– well, we’ll do”
“What we should all fear is a political situation in Washington where a new Congress forces President George W. Bush to redeploy, and Bush, doing so under duress, makes only the most half-hearted of gestures to engage Iraq’s neighbors in the process. That could lead to hundreds of thousands of dead in Iraq, rather than the tens of thousands we have seen. An Iran that continues to enrich uranium is less of a threat to us than genocide in Iraq. A belligerent, nuclear Iran is something we will, as a last resort, be able to defend against militarily. And it probably won’t come to that. But if we disengage from Iraq without publicly involving its neighbors, Sunni Arabs—who will bear the brunt of the mass murder—will hate us for years to come from Morocco to Pakistan. Our single greatest priority at the moment is preventing Iraq from sliding off the abyss.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200610u/kaplan-withdrawal/2
Looking ahead to the inevitable political scapegoating by American reactionaries frustrated once again by another of their imperial/colonial debacles coming home to feast on their political corpses, I offer — with apologies to Bob Dylan (who wrote “Who killed Davey Moore?”):
“Who Lost Iraq?”
Who Lost Iraq?
Where did it go, and how to get it back?
“It wasn’t me,” said the President,
With his hard head stuck in its hard cement.
“I just start fires in the minds of men;
Pour gas on the flames every now and then.
I accomplished my mission when I robbed the store,
Then to cover up the crime I went and started a war.
In a few more years someone else will want the fun;
I’ll give the mess to them; then I’ll say that I won!
They’ll lose Iraq
Who couldn’t see me handing them the sack.”
Who lost Iraq?
Where did it go and how to get it back?
“It wasn’t us,” cried the military brass
“We just saluted Rumsfeld and kissed his senile ass.
We long ago swore not to think too hard or much;
Just do as we’re told and to use that as a crutch.
So when the hopes go wrong and the shit hits the fan
We can always just say: ‘We took our orders from the man.’
With our medals and our pensions and our private jumbo jets
It’s the only war we’ve got and that’s as good as it gets.
They lost Iraq:
The suits who tied our hands behind our back.”
Who lost Iraq?
Where did it go and how to get it back?
“It wasn’t me,” said the Secretary
Talking too dense and sounding real scary.
“We know we don’t know what we don’t know we know
But we do know how to stage a little dog-and-pony show.
The Senators and Congressmen whose districts get the pork
Think the meat’s well done, so they stick in a fork.
The army’s not the one we want, but let me tell you what:
We have to go to war with it or see our funding cut.
They lost Iraq
Who wouldn’t cut me some semantic slack.”
Who lost Iraq?
Where did it go and how to get it back?
“Who the hell cares,” shrugs the televangelist
Preaching at his pulpit and pounding with his fist
“I tell folks: ‘vote Republican if you don’t want to die’
(Watching cable television; lapping up the lie).
I feed the rubes on fantasies of Armageddon day,
When Jesus in his spaceship comes to take them all away.
I scare ‘em and they love it and they come back for more
To vote for someone else’s kid to fight in their war.
They lost Iraq
Who wouldn’t stop me selling Crusade crack.”
Who lost Iraq?
Where did it go and how to get it back?
“We had to hit someone,” said the jaded journalist
Thumbing through his Rolodex and making up a list
Of contacts in the government who leak the names of spies
Whose husbands tell the truth sometimes, instead of packaged lies.
“My name is Tom Friedman and the world is flat;
That sh*t about a globe you heard just isn’t where it’s at.
I cheered for Dubya’s war just like the chicken hawk I am
And then when things went south I blamed a Lebanese imam.
They lost Iraq:
Who wouldn’t buy my books from off the rack.”
Who lost Iraq?
Where did it go and how to get it back?
“Who said you ever owned us?” cried the people of Iraq.
“Who asked you for your bloody war and unprovoked attack?
You seemed to think that killing us and wrecking all we had
Could win elections for George Bush and make him look less bad.
Our oil we’ll sell to whom we please, why don’t you find your own?
And get yourselves a president at least a little grown.
In case you haven’t noticed, he’s the one that you should fear
Whose words smell like the noisome gas escaping from his rear.
Please leave Iraq
Then see if you can win your own souls back.
Michael Murry, “The Misfortune Teller,” Copyright 2006
I think we are honor bound to start thinking about sanctuary for those Iraqis who have cast their lot with us and will be slaughtered after we leave. At 300 billion plus, we can afford a few million more.
Concerning the “ZeitGeist” shift in Washington, it strikes me that this reflects a much larger share of opinion. Look at Zeyad’s blog for instance. He is a dentist who, during month, he has been a staunch support of the US intervention. He recently got a grant to study journalism in the US and despite all, the 16th October he wrote : “I now officially regret supporting this war back in 2003. The guilt is too much for me to handle.”
His comment section used to be populated mainly by conservative people. So I expected him to get a lot of angry comments. Yet a rapid check (I didn’t read all the more than hundred entires) shows that most of the people just tried to comfort him, telling him not to feel guilty about his earlier choice, that he couldn’t have known how things would turn out in 2003-2004.
“he couldn’t have known how things would turn out in 2003-2004.”
Yes he could have if he had just opened his eyes. Many of us did.
“he couldn’t have known how things would turn out in 2003-2004.”
Yes he could have. Many of us did. He just needed to open his eyes. He should feel guilty not just for supporting the aggression against his country, but for acting as a propaganda source for the aggressors.
Shirin,
Better late than never. And I’m touched by his late entries; he is profoundly honnest. The other thing I wanted to underline is that his American commenters didn’t flame him for changing his mind; they have probably also changed their mind too. It was a long time since I hadn’t read these blogs visited by right wing North Americans and I was struck by the change of tone.
Let’s hope that this result in a political change at the polls. It’s about time for Bush and co to be held accountable for all their lies and war crimes.
Christiane, you are right. Better late than never, and I, too, am touched by his admission and his very justifiable feelings of guilt. I hope that guilt prompts him to take action to counteract all the negatives he produced by his support and his propagandizing for the criminals who invaded and continue to occupy and destroy Iraq.