Apparently Republicans believe they -- and Bush -- are in better shape politically than they have been in a while, thanks to a "more secure" situation in Iraq. This is playing out in a decision, evidently, to make no changes in Iraq policy in September, according to the Washington Post. One (anonymous) White House official is quoted as saying: "We all know that there will be a long-term robust troop presence that will outlast this president."
Rep. John A. Boehner (Ohio), the House Republican leader, said in an interview that the reports he has been receiving from his colleagues over the past several weeks suggest that they are feeling less nervous about the situation in Iraq and that the president "is better positioned than he has been over the last six months."
"The security side was in very bad shape for a very long time, and that's changing. And that's stabilizing the situation on the Hill," added Peter H. Wehner, who recently left a senior staff job at the White House. Regarding next month, he added, referring to Petraeus: "I don't think you will be seeing any major change at all. You have the right man and the right strategy, and it wouldn't be the right time to change."
Democratic congressional aides also said that they are not expecting major changes from Bush next month, but they said the president is far from safe politically. They said it will not be clear whether moderate Republicans will stick with the president -- the key to Bush's political survival on Iraq -- until members of Congress return early next month from their summer recess.
The question is whether the political situation in Iraq will change -- or be changed -- in the next several weeks, and whether the White House may be "anticipating" such a change.
A more detailed and a gloomier (for Bush) report comes from Warren Strobel at McClatchy, who acknowledges the speculation that there's a move on to oust Maliki. Bush, Strobel writes, is in a tight spot with few options. Changing the political leadership in Iraq is one of options.
ABC interviewed State Department ex, Philip Zelikow, who you may remember also as executive director of the 9/11 Commission and as someone not universally trusted. During the interview, Zelikow did more than hint at administration interest in leaving the Maliki era behind.
On Tuesday night, ABC News correspondent Martha Raddatz quoted him saying the administration had a "Plan B" alternative to Maliki. "I can confidently guess that our government is quietly speculating about a lot of different options knowing how much concern Iraqis have about their leadership." But Zelikow was identified only as a "Former Counselor to the State Department," not part of the firm paid to push Allawi.
Today Salon's Glenn Greenwald set ABC News back on its heels by pointing out that Zelikow didn't divulge to his work, as he should have, for the very same lobbying firm which has been hired by Maliki's would-be successor. Zelikow likely knows a good deal about the "different options" the Bush administration may be considering. The lobbying firm also has strong connections to Bush. A tangled web, indeed.
ABC was "deeply disappointed" at not (evidently) knowing about and acknowledging Zelikow's relationship with the firm and said as much in an apologetic email to Greenwald. But it hasn't explained or apologized to its viewers, at least not so far. It has left them in the dark about the Zelikow interview and the omission -- though something was posted about it at their website -- according to Salon editor, Joan Walsh.
There may be more coming from Greenwald about this story soon. "Breaking," as they say. The whole dang thing -- with updates -- is at Greenwald's blog.
Comments