Monday, October 13, 2003
Well, Well, What Have We Here?
In a just filed story, the AP is reporting that a new US draft resolution is being circulated at the UN which proposes that by December 15th, the Iraqi interim Governing Council should have developed a timetable for both a constitution and elections.
Needless to say this is a big concession on the part of the US, although a policy change of direction will, doubtless, be denied by the usual Administration deniers.
What could have motivated this new resolution will also, doubtless, remain a mystery. We already know that the President is uninfluencable by polls, never changes his mind, and is never wrong.
Perhaps it was hearing someone like Senator Lugar, over the weekend, try and remind the President that he is the President. Personally, I suspect Rove's hand here.
As the AP notes:
By conceding to many of the international questions about the original proposed resolution, the ball flies right back in the UN's court. If troops and money are not forthcoming, then the administration can say, it wouldn't have mattered what we did. If they are, they've effectively neutralized one of the growing criticisms of its policies, both among Democrats and Republicans.
But shouldn't we all be pleased that the administration is finally listening to something besides the President's gut? So why not welcome this change of policy, we shall doubtless be asked by administration partisans, and join hands with Republicans in a spirit of non-partisanship to make our occupation of Iraq the best damn occupation of Iraq there's ever been?
Because there is no such thing as non-partisan in this administration. Because even though the new resolution may be a better one, it's quite late in coming, and it's as much a ploy as it is a policy. There is no middle ground with this administration, because all policies are ultimately about getting re-elected. It won't matter that Democrats like Biden, like Kerry, yes, even like Lieberman have been urging the administration to travel in this direction, the assault on them as Saddam supporters will continue. There is the separate issue that window dressing like this new resolution alters not a wit the logic of occupation, which in and of itself is the chief impediment to the democratic future I have no doubt the Iraqi people are capable of achieving. (more on this in another post)
So, what do we have here? From my perspective, yet another stink bomb.
Needless to say this is a big concession on the part of the US, although a policy change of direction will, doubtless, be denied by the usual Administration deniers.
What could have motivated this new resolution will also, doubtless, remain a mystery. We already know that the President is uninfluencable by polls, never changes his mind, and is never wrong.
Perhaps it was hearing someone like Senator Lugar, over the weekend, try and remind the President that he is the President. Personally, I suspect Rove's hand here.
As the AP notes:
The latest draft also addresses concerns from U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who had demanded a lead role for the organization or little role at all.
It says the United Nations ``should strengthen its vital role in Iraq,'' saying it can do so by providing humanitarian relief, promoting economic reconstruction and help to restore ``institutions for representative governments.''
By conceding to many of the international questions about the original proposed resolution, the ball flies right back in the UN's court. If troops and money are not forthcoming, then the administration can say, it wouldn't have mattered what we did. If they are, they've effectively neutralized one of the growing criticisms of its policies, both among Democrats and Republicans.
But shouldn't we all be pleased that the administration is finally listening to something besides the President's gut? So why not welcome this change of policy, we shall doubtless be asked by administration partisans, and join hands with Republicans in a spirit of non-partisanship to make our occupation of Iraq the best damn occupation of Iraq there's ever been?
Because there is no such thing as non-partisan in this administration. Because even though the new resolution may be a better one, it's quite late in coming, and it's as much a ploy as it is a policy. There is no middle ground with this administration, because all policies are ultimately about getting re-elected. It won't matter that Democrats like Biden, like Kerry, yes, even like Lieberman have been urging the administration to travel in this direction, the assault on them as Saddam supporters will continue. There is the separate issue that window dressing like this new resolution alters not a wit the logic of occupation, which in and of itself is the chief impediment to the democratic future I have no doubt the Iraqi people are capable of achieving. (more on this in another post)
So, what do we have here? From my perspective, yet another stink bomb.
