A hot and bothering month for Bush
For George Bush, August may turn out to be the cruelest month.
First there is the matter of Cindy Sheehan. On August 6, Sheehan showed up outside Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, demanding the president come out and talk to her about the death of her son in Iraq. So far, he has refused.
Yes, she already has met once with the president. Yes, there might be some truth to the accusations that others are trying to use her for their own political agendas. And, yes, it does look a little odd that she has a public relations firm working for her.
But so what? The poor woman has lost a son. Which makes this a lose-lose situation for the president. If he gives in and meets with her, he might be asked to meet time and again with other grieving parents. If he refuses to meet with her, he might look callous and uncaring.
I don't think the president is callous or uncaring, but I think the war is increasingly boxing him in.
His low poll numbers are a result not just of more losses in Iraq but of a decoupling of Iraq from the war on terrorism in the mind of the public.
One of Bush's most successful tactics during his re-election campaign in 2004 was tying the fighting in Iraq to the fight against terrorism in the United States.
It did not really matter why we were in Iraq (the mythical weapons of mass destruction as a reason to go to war no longer counted), but by fighting the insurgents in Iraq, Bush said, we were fighting the terrorists who would do us harm at home.
The public no longer seems to see (or believe) there is much of a connection, however. Some argue that by fighting in Iraq we are actually taking resources away from safeguarding the homeland.
Others say the British are fighting in Iraq and that did not save them from a recent terrorist attack.
All of this is driving down Bush's popularity while making a reduction of forces in Iraq by the congressional elections of November 2006 almost a political necessity. But can we really draw down forces from Iraq at a time when the insurgency seems to be growing in strength and effectiveness? There are those who argue we need more, not fewer, forces in Iraq. (Though where we would get those forces and how we would equip them is a real question.)
If all this were not bad enough, there were the two lead stories in the Washington Post and New York Times on Sunday.
The Post story was headlined: "U.S. Lowers Sights on What Can Be Achieved in Iraq."
It said: "The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry, or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say."
Pointing out that August is already the worst month for National Guard and Reserve fatalities since the war began, the story goes on: "Washington now does not expect to fully defeat the insurgency before departing, but instead to diminish it, officials and analysts said. There is also growing talk of turning over security responsibilities to the Iraqi forces even if they are not fully up to original U.S. expectations, in part because they have local legitimacy that U.S. troops often do not."
Then there was the Times story. It was headlined: "U.S. Struggling to Get Soldiers Updated Armor."
The story began: "For the second time since the Iraq war began, the Pentagon is struggling to replace body armor that is failing to protect American troops from the most lethal attacks by insurgents."
This is not the kind of story you want to read if you have a loved one in Iraq. This is not the kind of story you want to read if you are a military recruiter trying to get young Americans to join up and fight in Iraq. This is not, in fact, the kind of story anybody wants to read.
Usually, August is a slow month for the news.
For the White House, however, this August has been all too busy.
advertisement
