The Thing About Crossroads

Jules Crittenden thinks we are at a cross roads in history. Perhaps, but what people often forget is that a crossroads is as much where divergent paths meet, as part. Yes, the Dems wrote a letter to Bush, they certainly don't want to own this war at this point. They are gambling that another year or so of turmoil will sweep them into the White House in 2008.

To make that happen, neither can they afford to appear too weak. Witness Steny Hoyer's comments today, that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. Meanwhile, Bush says he believes there will be common ground in governing. And I think there likely will be on Iraq, as well.

Bush will probably disappoint those hoping for a no holes barred approach going forward in Iraq with a large surge in troops - just as he'll disappoint those who call for immediate withdrawal. The Maliki government, as much as anyone, is seeing to that through launching a new offensive of their own yesterday.

We will increase troops, but the focus will be as much on training and supporting the Iraqis, as anything else - and the Dems will be all but forced to buy into that. As for Iran, the headlines about a plan for a nuclear strike by Israel represent only that, a plan and nothing more - for now.

Signals are being sent, hopefully messages are being received by governments well outside of Iran, but pertinent nonetheless. I wouldn't say we're looking into some worldly abyss in the sense Jules implies, not just yet.

Lebanon has not exploded as some thought. Abbas has outlawed the Hamas police force. And while that resolves nothing, that and Maliki's actions do show that we have allies in a part of the world where we haven't had them for a long time. That is a product of the Bush strategy to date and very little else.

When one thinks back on all those contemporary would be great moments in history - this development, that announcement, or speech ... one might just recall walking away feeling more, what was that all about, than, man the world has turned. Things have a way of going forward in steps when we are always expecting leaps and bounds. And I predict that's about what we have to expect regarding Iraq and Iran for the foreseeable future.

Great moments in time have a way of creating themselves on their own, rarely are they predicted or expected and we often recognize them only after they've gone. And as the original wording of the song Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas suggests, we always seem to muddle through somehow.

Comments

[Phoenix]

"As for Iran, the headlines about a plan for a nuclear strike by Israel represent only that, a plan and nothing more - for now."

I don't know if it's 'nothing more'. There isn't a country in the Middle East that isn't having second thoughts about the effect of Israel's threat and the 'threat' of a burgeoning democracy in Iraq. How effective can a government be when its own populace is really pissed-off? Or scared?

[lewis]

Part of Bush's new plan is to stress negotiations with Iran. Dems have promised to pass a resolution (with heavy Republican backing) that there will be NOpre=emptive military action against Iran, or it'l be an impeachable offense. Bush MUST to go to Congress to get ANY authorization for ANY force. Pelosi talked abou this in one of her trilion interviews. So did Dodd who said it'll have no problem passing. That's a very good thimg for Bush. Takes the decision out of his hands. His track records totally sucks. Anyway, they'll discuss it after a "hundred hours" This may be the most important thing the dems do!

[Phoenix]

So, what if the U.S. is not the country that engages in a pre-emptive strike?

Bush is not stupid. He sure enjoys having people think he is, though. It's all part of his genius. That is, if you call being forced to deal with no-minds as genius.

[Dan Riehl]

"Bush MUST to go to Congress to get ANY authorization for ANY force."

That's utter BS and totally unconstitutional. Try reading it and then send a copy to your San Fran Nanny.

[yyy]

Silly me, I thought the ability to declare war was reserved for the United States Congress.

I must have missed the signing statement where George determined that he, too, could wage war, as long as he called it something other than "war"....

Oh wait, scratch that, I forgot that the WAR ON TERROR authorizes the president to do whatever he thinks is necessary...torture, kill, bomb other countries, secret prisons, read mail, whatever.

Cause we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here, and innocent people don't really care about due process and privacy rights, only those with something to hide care about those sorry liberal concepts.

That about right?