Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Nice spin.
I read that. Only use of the word "panic" was to say, no panic.
Story mostly driven by the internal Iraqi controversy about mechanism for formation of new Iraqi government. Many mullahs in Iraq are calling for full elections now, as opposed to Bush's ideas for coalition govenrment as a warm-up.
So, Bush is taking proposals. He's open to people's ideas. But, he's not willing to go with an idea that leads to a longer presence that what he was planning.
But, you present this as "panic".
Write another post about how I unreasonably never accept what your pundits of choice say.
|
Since you, and Kevin Drum, and I all agree that it would be a mistake for Bush to cut and run, the difference between you and him appears to be that he fears the worst, and you expect the best.
Instead of responding to the reported facts, you want to quibble about the word "panic." To which I will only say, (1) Drum said "Apparently George Bush is now almost panicky in his desire to disengage from Iraq and get the UN in." You are not engaging with his point. (2) When a newspaper like the Post prints an administration denial that there's any panic, that is tantamount to reporting that something like panic -- if not panic -- is happening. Nuance, apparently, is not your forte, though.
eta:
The important fact in the WaPo article is that administration is willing to discuss anything about how to turn over power, except when it will happen. That's non-negotiable, and has to be well before November. If they were more committed to fixing Iraq then to getting Bush re-elected, they would want to do the right thing, but these folks are not about making political sacrifices.
