[T]wo things drive…Bush propagandists into an apoplectic rage: first, the perception that Bush is caving in to…critics and following their advice; and second, that we're "withdrawing" from Iraq. If we're withdrawing, that means, of course, that we're doing just what Bush said we never could do: we're giving in to the terrorists. We're letting the terrorists win. We're being weak. So they need to call it something else: a redeployment, a shift in troop strength dictated by other requirements -- anything but a withdrawal.Indeed.
If it helps to bring this catastrophe any closer to an end more quickly, I'll very happily give Bush and his Merrie Band of Warmongers both points. Bush isn't doing anything like what his critics have suggested. It's entirely different! It's not at all the same. Why on earth would he listen to America-hating Saddamites anyway??!!! He wouldn't, not ever. Whatever he does, he thought of it all by himself, just like Condi told him. He's doing what's best for America, and for the troops. Hooray for the
And we aren't going to withdraw from Iraq. That's traitorous, fifth-column, filthy talk. Oh, yeah, U.S. troops will be leaving, maybe even as many as 50,000 next year. But they won't be withdrawing! We would never, ever withdraw from Iraq! We're going to snorkenpuffle from Iraq!
Fine. Call it whatever the hell you want. Just get our troops out of there as quickly as it can reasonably and safely be done.
Hat tip to Atrios for the pointer.
Update: The SJ-R is offering this headline this afternoon in it’s online Breaking News section:
Rumsfeld: Early exit from Iraq would invite more terrorism. Isn’t that exactly backward; it was our early ENTRY into Iraq that has invited more terrorism.