The fledgling Iraqi government must "step up and take more responsibility" for the country's security, a high-ranking White House official said Monday.
At the same time, Dan Bartlett denied in a television interview that the Bush administration's war policy has been a sweeping "stay the course" commitment, saying "what we aren't doing is sitting there with our heads in the sand."
In contrast to earlier White House statements, Bartlett did not deny a New York Times report saying the head of the U.S.-led Multinational Forces in Iraq and the U.S. ambassador were working on a plan that for the first time would set a specific timetable for disarming militias and meeting other political and economic goals.
"I was a bit puzzled about the report over the weekend because it was stating something that we've been talking publicly about for months," the senior White House counselor said on CBS's "The Early Show." Bartlett said the goal is to "define demonstrable milestones and benchmarks" and said it has been "very much a part of our strategy all along."
...
I wonder if this is the Bugs Bunny strategy in which you start saying the exact opposite of what you are doing in hopes that your peers will state your goal and then you can confidently state that it is indeed Duck Season. This is one of the most surreal elections I've ever witnessed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Well, Brian, join the club then, I guess... Surrealistic politics has definitely become a «paramount» branch of political philosophy. Around here in Europe examples just pop out of the ground like mushrooms...
Politicians these days must be on something, for sure! Otherwise, how to explain such abnormal behaviours?
Th-th-th-that's all, Brian! (Lol!)
Saying the opposite of what they're doing is the Bush Administrations modus operandi. It's like 1984 except for real...War is Peace!
Last week, the general in charge of the British army - that's the man in charge of the whole British army, Richard Dannatt - said publicly that Iraq and Afganistan were never going to calm down while occupied, western style democracy was never going to be stable there, and the best thing we could do was just leave.
Tony Blair and his cohorts condemned him, not for being a coward or a liar, but for telling an unpatriotic truth so publicly. No one said what he said was untrue - just that he shouldn't have said it.
Are there prominant Republicans in the same position? Shouted down for saying Bush must go, by commentators who don't actually disagree, but just want to keep the Democrats out at any cost?
Kap, there are prominent republicans who are beginning to challenge the Bush strategy. I think this more than anything is why we are hearing about new tactics from Bush and co.
Mark, I'd forgotten about that tactic. Unfortunately I think any withdrawal, whatever the propaganda gloss, would look like conceding defeat.
The complete failure in Iraq and Afganistan is such common knowledge that no-one would believe a declaration of victory - even the hardcore neocons and christian far-right.
There is the possibility of America keeping a token force in both countries, and very publically cooperating with neighbouring states (including Iran) in rebuilding them as "progressive Arab-Islamic states". That might be sellable as a compromise that doesn't look like defeat.
In the early 60's there was a very conservative Republican from Vermont and his solution to the "conflict" was for the U.S. to declare victory and leave....do you suppose this stratagy might work today?
Mark don't you remember the Mission Accomplished banner? We already won!
Post a Comment