Brian Rucker
07-20-2006, 10:04 AM
Reality Bites
Reality is finally driving a wedge in the hitherto unshakeable support by congressional Republicans for Bush's every utterance about the war Iraq.
Jonathan Weisman and Anushka Asthana write in The Washington Post: "Faced with almost daily reports of sectarian carnage in Iraq, congressional Republicans are shifting their message on the war from speaking optimistically of progress to acknowledging the difficulty of the mission and pointing up mistakes in planning and execution. . . .
"Rank-and file Republicans who once adamantly backed the administration on the war are moving to a two-stage new message, according to some lawmakers. First, Republicans are making it clear to constituents they do not agree with every decision the president has made on Iraq. Then they boil the argument down to two choices: staying and fighting or conceding defeat to a vicious enemy.
"The shift is subtle, but Republican lawmakers acknowledge that it is no longer tenable to say the news media are ignoring the good news in Iraq and painting an unfair picture of the war."
Case in point: Mark Fischenich wrote in the Mankato (Minn.) Free Press yesterday that Minnesota Republican "Congressman Gil Gutknecht found the situation in Iraq more bleak than he anticipated during a weekend visit to the war zone, and said a partial withdrawal of some American troops might be wise.
"Gutknecht, a strong supporter of the war since it began in March of 2003, told reporters in a telephone conference call Tuesday that American forces appear to have no operational control of much of Baghdad."
And just how is that reality?
Frank James blogs for the Chicago Tribune: "Well, the situation in Iraq is either looking up or the American effort to produce a viable democracy is going to hell in a handbasket, depending on whom you'd rather believe.
"The Republican National Committee emailed an upbeat list of what it calls ' Iraq Facts .' . . . It's essentially a collection of newspaper clips of items meant to show progress in Iraq, things like oil output going up in the south Iraq and small swaths of Iraq being turned over by U.S. forces to their Iraqi security counterparts.
"But then there is the competing view of Anthony Cordesman , the no-nonsense analyst with Center for Strategic and International Studies. Today he released an analysis of what he views as a clearly deteriorating situation in Iraq."
And from Iraq itself, Borzou Daragahi wrote in the Los Angeles Times yesterday: "Retaliatory massacres by gunmen and bombers linked to rival Muslim sects have left more than 130 people dead across Iraq over the last two days, the latest casualties of what some politicians now are calling an undeclared civil war. . . .
"Since the beginning of May, attacks by Sunni Arab and Shiite Muslims have claimed the lives of more than 6,000 Iraqi civilians, according to a United Nations study and Iraqi police reports. . . .
"U.S. and Iraqi government leaders have argued that the 150,000-strong foreign troop presence has kept the country from descending into full-scale civil war. But many Iraqi officials fear the threshold has been crossed."
In Tuesday's New York Times, Edward Wong and Dexter Filkins showed how U.S. soldiers may be getting caught in the middle of that civil war: "As sectarian violence soars, many Sunni Arab political and religious leaders once staunchly opposed to the American presence here are now saying they need American troops to protect them from the rampages of Shiite militias and Shiite-run government forces."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
Reality is finally driving a wedge in the hitherto unshakeable support by congressional Republicans for Bush's every utterance about the war Iraq.
Jonathan Weisman and Anushka Asthana write in The Washington Post: "Faced with almost daily reports of sectarian carnage in Iraq, congressional Republicans are shifting their message on the war from speaking optimistically of progress to acknowledging the difficulty of the mission and pointing up mistakes in planning and execution. . . .
"Rank-and file Republicans who once adamantly backed the administration on the war are moving to a two-stage new message, according to some lawmakers. First, Republicans are making it clear to constituents they do not agree with every decision the president has made on Iraq. Then they boil the argument down to two choices: staying and fighting or conceding defeat to a vicious enemy.
"The shift is subtle, but Republican lawmakers acknowledge that it is no longer tenable to say the news media are ignoring the good news in Iraq and painting an unfair picture of the war."
Case in point: Mark Fischenich wrote in the Mankato (Minn.) Free Press yesterday that Minnesota Republican "Congressman Gil Gutknecht found the situation in Iraq more bleak than he anticipated during a weekend visit to the war zone, and said a partial withdrawal of some American troops might be wise.
"Gutknecht, a strong supporter of the war since it began in March of 2003, told reporters in a telephone conference call Tuesday that American forces appear to have no operational control of much of Baghdad."
And just how is that reality?
Frank James blogs for the Chicago Tribune: "Well, the situation in Iraq is either looking up or the American effort to produce a viable democracy is going to hell in a handbasket, depending on whom you'd rather believe.
"The Republican National Committee emailed an upbeat list of what it calls ' Iraq Facts .' . . . It's essentially a collection of newspaper clips of items meant to show progress in Iraq, things like oil output going up in the south Iraq and small swaths of Iraq being turned over by U.S. forces to their Iraqi security counterparts.
"But then there is the competing view of Anthony Cordesman , the no-nonsense analyst with Center for Strategic and International Studies. Today he released an analysis of what he views as a clearly deteriorating situation in Iraq."
And from Iraq itself, Borzou Daragahi wrote in the Los Angeles Times yesterday: "Retaliatory massacres by gunmen and bombers linked to rival Muslim sects have left more than 130 people dead across Iraq over the last two days, the latest casualties of what some politicians now are calling an undeclared civil war. . . .
"Since the beginning of May, attacks by Sunni Arab and Shiite Muslims have claimed the lives of more than 6,000 Iraqi civilians, according to a United Nations study and Iraqi police reports. . . .
"U.S. and Iraqi government leaders have argued that the 150,000-strong foreign troop presence has kept the country from descending into full-scale civil war. But many Iraqi officials fear the threshold has been crossed."
In Tuesday's New York Times, Edward Wong and Dexter Filkins showed how U.S. soldiers may be getting caught in the middle of that civil war: "As sectarian violence soars, many Sunni Arab political and religious leaders once staunchly opposed to the American presence here are now saying they need American troops to protect them from the rampages of Shiite militias and Shiite-run government forces."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html