Sunday, March 18, 2007

DeLay calls Bush a traitor?

Today, on Meet the Press, the chattering classes included Tom Delay, pushing his new book. He saved the worst for last, when no one had time to reply:

From page 6 of the transcript:
FMR. REP. DeLAY: .... When you tell the enemy what your strategy is, that's aiding and abetting the enemy because they can use that strategy to come back and harm your soldiers.

Tom DeLay was clearly hoping everyone would think he was talking about war protesters such as Tom Andrews (also on the program), because he said it while commenting on Andrews' efforts to set a withdrawal deadline. However, what he actually said also applies to President Bush.

Bush gave "the enemy" more than a month's head start when he announced the latest Surge in his "surge and run" cycle. Plenty of time for them to alter their strategy and stay inside the US military's decision loop. Clearly aiding and abetting them. Maybe DeLay has a point.

And, of course, DeLay was also attacking the Secretary of Defense and most Generals involved with the war in Iraq. At various times each of these have articulated our strategy in Iraq. They have told the various insurgent groups exactly what they needed to do to get us to leave (be real quiet during the election, for example, which they did). The insurgents simply seem to lack the patience to wait the six months or so that Bush needs to claim victory. If the insurgents had taken a decent history class, they would know that Nixon needed a cease fire to justify a peace agreement in early 1973 that led to a full withdrawal of all US troops by late March (before Congress "cut off" funds for the war in Indochina, by the way) and might guess that Bush needs a similar bit of political cover for him to get out. Maybe they want the US to stay.

And, I'll ask in closing, was DeLay calling a notable conservative such as Ed Meese (Reagan's Attorney General) a traitor because, as a member of the Iraq Study Group, he supported deadlines for specific actions by the Iraqi government with specific consequences? DeLay must be, if he consistently attacks anyone who supports the proposals in that document.

No comments: