Originally posted here

I have been a bit critical of the Democrats' election year message on Iraq: 2006 - A Year of Transition. Now I like a good slogan as much as the next guy, but a slogan should never take the place of a real policy. At a time when the majority of Americans disapprove of the way the Bush Administration has handled the debacle that is Iraq, they are looking for an exit strategy. When 72% of the troops believe they should be out of there by year's end, they deserve more than "We'll think about it." Imagine you are one of the brave Americans serving and willing to die for your country. You have done what your country asked in toppling a brutal dictator to prevent him from distributing WMD to his Al Qaida allies. You now find yourself caught up in a civil war in that same country because your civilian "leadership" at home failed to plan for the power vacuum that would result from the invasion. Rather than gratitude and a solid plan to bring you home safely, the news from home looks like this:

Recently, Senator Maria Cantwell (d-WA) submitted an Op-Ed to the Seattle Times in which she gives her explanation of "Year of Transition." In the piece, she says, "President Bush must act with urgency. He must provide the leadership necessary to make sure that 2006 is the year that the new Iraqi government succeeds and our troops can begin to come home." However, when he was asked just weeks ago about troop withdrawal from Iraq, President Bush said, "...the decision about when to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq will fall to future presidents and Iraqi leaders..." I don't hear much of a sense of urgency there.

The senator states, "The president also needs to recognize that the U.S. cannot and should not rebuild Iraq alone. We can and should enlist international cooperation in that effort. Getting the rest of the world more involved in Iraqi reconstruction may cost Halliburton and others some contracts, but it will benefit Iraq while saving American taxpayers billions." Apparently the good senator believes a leopard can indeed change its spots. For the entirety of his presidency, George W. Bush has shown nothing but contempt for the diplomatic route in any endeavor; most especially when it comes to Iraq. From the time preceding our invasion, Bush has been totally unwilling to work with any country that did not support our pre-emptive strike. By installing John Bolton (a man who probably can't even spell diplomacy) as UN Ambassador, Bush has sent a signal to the rest of the world about his approach to that effort.