Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |   E-mail Dan  |  
Correction to This Article
After the publication of this column, Victorville Daily Press reporter Tatiana Prophet said in an interview that she was wrong when she described New York Times reporter Jim Rutenberg as "kneeling in the desert dust" at a Bush photo opportunity. It was therefore incorrect to describe Rutenberg's behavior as constituting physical abasement.
Page 4 of 5   <       >

A Poke in the Eye at Recess

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

"But Democrats say that even if Bush wins the legislative battle in the short run, they think they have the winning political strategy in the long run, given that growing majorities of the public and in Congress favor setting a target date for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. . . .

"White House counselor Dan Bartlett said the speech was part of a 'drumbeat' that Bush intends to continue through next week, after which the two houses of Congress are set to try to reconcile their differing funding bills."

Duane W. Gang, Joe Vargo and Richard K. Deatley write in the Riverside, Calif., Press-Enterprise that Bush's trip "came as his popularity in California reached an all-time low.

"Just 26 percent of California voters surveyed said they approve of how Bush is handling his job, the lowest for any president in 30 years, according to a Field Poll released today."

Here is the transcript of Bush's remarks, which were notable only for the repetition of dubious assertions.

"I appreciate those of you who are about to deploy in an important theater in this war against radicals and extremists, this war on terror," he said -- avoiding any mention of the fact that most American troops in Iraq are now policing a civil war rather than chasing al Qaeda.

"I analyzed all the situation here this fall -- I listened to the advice from the military, I listened to the advice from the political people -- all in reaction to the fact that al Qaeda and the extremists bombed a sacred place, which caused sectarian violence to begin to rage," he said.

One has to wonder: Does he actually believe this ahistorical narrative of how Iraq fell apart, or is he being intentionally misleading?

"If chaos were to reign in the capital of that country it could spill out to the rest of the country; it could then spill out to the region, where you would have religious extremists fighting each other with one common enemy, the United States of America, or our ally, for example, like Israel," he said.

So he's suggesting that if civil war spread, both sides would unite against us?

"The enemy that had done us harm would be embolden. [sic] They would have seen the mighty United States of America retreat before the job was done, which would enable them to better recruit."

But an April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate made it clear that the ongoing conflict in Iraq is serving as a powerful recruiting -- and unifying -- tool for Islamic radicals.


<             4        >


© 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive