US Federal Government: Truce over Iraq

[Ardentfrost]

Bush aides consider Iraq truce at Capitol - Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has begun exploring ways of offering Congress a compromise deal on Iraq policy to avert bruising battles in coming months, U.S. officials said.

With public support of the war dropping, President Bush has authorized an internal policy review to find a plan that could satisfy opponents without sacrificing his top goals, the officials said.

The president and senior officials "realize they can't keep fighting this over and over," said one administration official, who along with others declined to be identified because they weren't authorized to speak publicly or because decisions were pending.

The Republican White House has not opened formal negotiations with the Democratic-controlled Congress. But some senior administration officials — including Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and U.N. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad — have been quietly talking with lawmakers about how to adjust policy in the months ahead. Among other ideas, they have discussed whether the United States should advocate a sharply decentralized Iraq, a notion that has seen a resurgence on Capitol Hill.

Bush was victorious last month in the most recent round of his battle with congressional Democrats over Iraq. He forced them, after weeks of struggle, to accept a $120-billion emergency war spending bill that did not require reductions of U.S. troops in Iraq. But future White House battles with Congress are looming.

Leading congressional Republicans have signaled that they expect a new U.S. course by September, when a key military assessment is due. Democrats, meanwhile, intend to use other legislative measures to push Bush toward a troop withdrawal, beginning as early as this week's deliberations on a Defense authorization bill.

An accord with Congress could save the White House from refighting the issue every few months. But the odds of a compromise are long.

Bush has said he will not accept any American pullback that would imperil Iraq. Democrats are feeling growing pressure from their antiwar base for troop withdrawals, and could sacrifice a crucial 2008 campaign issue if they agreed to a deal with the White House.

At the same time, a deal could be tempting to lawmakers who see it as a way out of a war that has damaged Congress' reputation as well as the president's. Though Democrats would be reluctant to let Bush off the hook, many "would have a hard time turning down a proposal that offers a real way out," said a Senate Democratic aide.

White House officials have not indicated how a compromise might look. Administration officials and some Democrats favor shifting U.S. forces to a support role: fighting insurgents, training Iraqi forces and providing other backup.

Many Democrats want such a shift in the next few months, but Bush has said Iraq must become more stable first. In a news conference last month, Bush said he "would like to see us in a different configuration at some point in time."

Administration officials have signaled that there is a spectrum of views within the government. Some top officials, including Gates, have appeared less enthusiastic about the current "surge" of 30,000 troops.

...

There's more to that article, but reading this kinda got me thinking. Now, I'm not an advocate of conspiracy theories, however I can sorta see how this could play out so that everyone gets what they want (or at least they think).

We remember a few months ago when we all thought Pelosi and her motley crew of Democrats was going to force Bush into a time table for troop withdraw. They weren't budging, then suddenly, a bill passes through without the time tables in... it basically just gave the president more money to play with in Iraq without any sort of restrictions. At first this seemed like a failure on the democrats part until we later found out they threw in the minimum wage thing, and we were satisfied that they had just used it to further another agenda, knowing that another spending bill would be just around the corner.

Well, now I read the quoted article, and suddenly the White House is looking for some compromising in how to deal with Iraq? Their entire thing is being UNcrompromising as far as Iraq is concerned. The president, even in the article, is still saying that he will not withdraw troops until Iraq is stable. But saying "will not" is no sort of compromise.

So here's the thing... the anti-war elements of congress believe that completely pulling out of Iraq is the best thing for us. On the other hand, the war mongering elements believe that we must stay there else we'll be attacked again. If the war mongering side lets the other side win for now (not publically, but make it seem like their funding was cut off), they'll be vying for us to get attacked. And if we pull out of Iraq (even if it's not fully), democrats have a good chance of winning in 2008... and the only thing that could prevent that would be the attack the other side would be vying for.

So, in the next few weeks, if the White House is seemingly forced into troop withdraw and we are attacked suddenly by some sect of middle easterners just before the 2008 elections, I will henceforth be a conspiracy theorist.