The 1990s were a silly time. But that decade did produce, at its close, an impressive pair of vice presidential candidates–Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman. Both spoke up last Thursday as the congressional debate over Iraq reached a new low.
Vice President Cheney was asked on Fox News about concerns that the Iraq war was hurting Republicans. “We didn’t get elected to be popular,” Cheney said. “We didn’t get elected to worry just about the fate of the Republican party.”
This was a just rebuke to the 11 Republican congressmen who had visited the White House the day before. They had two purposes in mind: to tell President Bush that the Iraq war was harming the GOP, and then to tell the media that they had visited the White House to convey that message. The media are primed to reward Republicans for defecting from the White House on the war. So the Washington Post reported on its front page Thursday that the House Republicans had spoken truth to power. They told it to the president like it is. The on-the-record star of the meeting was Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia. “People are always saying President Bush is in a bubble,” Davis told the Post. “Well, this was our chance, and we took it.”
But what chance did they take? How did they help the president deal with a crucial foreign policy challenge? Davis “presented Bush dismal polling figures to dramatize just how perilous the [Republican] party’s position is, participants said.” Polling figures!
These same Republican congressmen presumed–at the very same meeting–to criticize Iraqi politicians. Yet the Iraqi political class is showing a lot more courage than the American political class. They risk assassination. Our politicians risk electoral defeat. Yet it is our politicians who panic–and do so shamelessly and abjectly. And stupidly. Do the Republicans who want Bush to cut and run really think they would benefit if Iraq were to blow up, with U.S. troops helplessly standing by watching the slaughter, the full spectacle of American defeat unfolding before the American people? Here is a fine posture for a Republican to assume in 2008: I voted for the war, and then I voted for the surrender. Who in their right mind would vote for such a person?
As for the Democrats, they are in a way less abject. Most of them simply believe the war is lost, or that it should be lost, and want to throw in the towel. The day after panicked Republicans descended on the White House, almost three-fourths of the House Democrats voted to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq within 90 days. The rest of the Democratic caucus–with a handful of exceptions–embraced a slower-bleed defeat, presumably seeking a bit more political cover.
Only one Democrat–now an “independent Democrat”–called them on their vote: Joe Lieberman. As the members of his party voted for defeat, he took to the Senate floor to plead for full funding of our troops: “Only a couple of months ago, the Senate confirmed a new commander to implement a new strategy in Iraq, General David Petraeus. That new strategy is now being implemented, and it is achieving some encouraging, if early, signs of success. . . . Yet, now many in Congress would pull the plug on this new strategy and thwart the work of our troops before they are given a fair chance to succeed. I am aware that public opinion has turned against the war in Iraq. . . . But leadership requires sometimes that we defy public opinion if that is what is necessary to do what is right for our country. . . . Al Qaeda itself has declared Iraq to be the central front of their larger war against our way of life. . . . Our judgment can be guided by the polls and we can withdraw in defeat. [But] no matter what we say, our enemy will know that America’s will has been broken by the barbarity of their bloodlust–the very barbarity we declare we are fighting, but from which we would actually be running.”
Joe Lieberman is of course a prophet without honor in his own party. But will poll-fearing Republicans also reject his message? The same day Cheney and Lieberman spoke, I happened to get an email from a friend. He’s been very critical of the way the Bush administration has fought the war, and was pessimistic about the outcome until Bush’s change of strategy in January. He’s in Baghdad now, is modestly optimistic about what’s happening there, and was amazed to read about the state of debate in Washington:
“It will be a tragedy and an unforgivable crime if we abandon the Iraqis who are fighting with us. It will really be a black spot on our history far worse than Vietnam. . . . It will set back any effort to achieve positive effects in the Muslim world, and especially the Arab world. . . . A senior Iraqi officer I spoke to today told me that any Iraqi who says that America should withdraw soon is not a real Iraqi. Only the militia and the insurgents, he said, want us to leave. He is right. If we withdraw now, we will be acting at the behest of our worst enemies, snatching defeat against al Qaeda from the jaws of victory, and strengthening all of the worst actors in this region. The Iraqi people do not want us to leave. . . .
“We went through two of the worst Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad. . . . heavily infested with al Qaeda and other terrorists who terrorize the population and drive them to support or at least tolerate attacks against us. But the kids on the streets–and there were many–waved, smiled, asked for candy. The locals give us tips and ask us to get the terrorists out of the area and, above all, to protect them. We walked through a market off of Haifa Street–remember, the site of that long-running gun-battle back in January that made so much news? The market was thriving, flourishing, the local U.S. commander knew everyone and everyone knew him. The kids thronged around us, laughing, asking for candy. . . . One guy chased us all around the pool hall with a paper in his hand. He wanted to give it to General Odierno to get him a job working at the airport. Imagine a guy not only willing to be seen in public asking us to help him, but a guy willing to chase us around to do it.
“And Haifa Street is a mixed neighborhood. There were Sunnis and Shias both at the market and mixed in areas all through there. And we have not cleared Haifa Street–but we were able to drive up and down it, see people living, working, talking together, and in considerable safety. We are winning this war with the people. And they are putting their lives in our hands. . . . Our tip lines are flooded with calls from locals to tell us about bad people, even of their own sect. They are counting on us and they want to work with us and help us help them. I will never be able to see America the same way if we abandon them now. I hope and pray that our country is incapable of such an abominable act.”
It is George W. Bush’s historic mission to stand in the way of such a disgrace. And he can prevail. Surely this nation will not, at the end of the day, follow the path of defeat-embracing Democrats or poll-fearing Republicans.
–William Kristol
