The New York Times editorial board *finally* enunciates it clearly:
"If the war is going according to plan, someone needs to rethink the plan."
Courtesy of International Herald Tribune:
Three things about Iraq The New York Times TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2005
To have the sober conversation about the war in Iraq that America badly needs, it is vital to acknowledge three facts:
The war has nothing to do with Sept. 11. Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy of Washington, but there was no Iraq-Al Qaeda axis, no connection between Saddam and the terrorist attacks on the United States. Yet the president and his supporters continue to duck behind 9/11 whenever they feel pressure about what is happening in Iraq. The most cynical recent example was the absurd and offensive declaration last week by Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's chief political adviser, that conservatives and liberals had different reactions to 9/11. Let's be clear: Americans of every political stripe were united in their outrage and grief, united in their determination to punish those who plotted the mass murder and united behind the war in Afghanistan, which was an assault on terrorists. Trying to pretend otherwise is the surest recipe for turning political dialogue into meaningless squabbling.
The war has not made the world, or the United States, safer from terrorism. The breeding grounds for terrorists used to be Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia; now Iraq has become one. Of all the justifications for invading Iraq that the Bush administration juggled in the beginning, the only one that has held up over time is the desire to create a democratic nation that could help stabilize the Middle East. Any sensible discussion of what to do next has to begin by acknowledging that. The surest way to make sure that conversation does not happen is for the administration to continue pasting the "soft on terror" label on those who want to talk about the war.
If the war is going according to plan, someone needs to rethink the plan. Progress has been measurable on the political front. But even staunch supporters of the war, like Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican, told Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at a hearing last week that Bush was losing public support because the military effort was not keeping pace. A top general said last week that the insurgency was growing. The frequency of attacks is steady, or rising a bit, while the repulsive tactic of suicide bombings has made them more deadly.
If things are going to be turned around, there has to be an honest discussion about what is happening. But Rumsfeld was not interested. Sneering at his Democratic questioners, he insisted everything was on track and claimed "dozens of trained battalions are capable of conducting anti-insurgent operations" with American support. That would be great news if it were true. General George Casey, the commander in Iraq, was more honest, saying he hoped there would be "a good number of units" capable of doing that "before the end of this year."
Americans cannot judge for themselves because the administration has decided to make the information secret. Senator John McCain spoke for all Americans when he expressed his disbelief at this news. "I think the American people need to know," he said. "They are the ones who are paying for this conflict."
=30=
-- Zero Surprises: No virus found in this outgoing message // lcm Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.2/29 - Release Date: 6/27/2005