Glenn links to this piece in the Washington Post arguing who gets credit for the Iraqi elections, but fails to mention the egregious final sentence of the story. In short, the piece discusses in detail who deserves the credit, and my short reaction is – the voters and the soldiers. Domestically, the Democrats will never give Bush credit, the Republicans will give him too much, and neither will be correct nor will either have the last word, as historians will be arguing about this 50 years after Bush is dead.
On the foreign scene, it is hard to imagine anyone giving to Bush, but rather, the axis of weasels will instead pretend that the elections were an event that was just going to happen one way or another, with or without any help from the US.
So, in short, the article is pretty boring. Until you come to the last sentence, which follows a discussion that intimates that the elections may pave the way towards an allied withdrawal:
“Will the new government demand that the occupying forces vacate Iraq, as many of the candidates were threatening to do,” asked the Dubai-based Gulf News. “And, if they do ask, will the United States, and others, really go?”
In a peculiar turn of political events, the elections that Bush welcomed may wind up being the best means of undoing his Iraq war policy.
Peculiar turn of events? Undo his war policy?
The clear implication is that Bush is unwittingly being duped again, and that Bush really wants to stay in Iraq ad infinitum. The reality of the situation is that Bush held the elections as part of a step to remove the US from Iraq.
How does someone get it so ass-backwards?