Left News and Views

Maybe there is hope, but I suppose we will have to wait until this afternoon to find out.

According to The Hill, “The Senate Judiciary Committee’s ranking Republican, Arlen Specter (Pa.), emerged from a crucial Monday briefing and gave the Bush administration 18 hours to resolve the controversy over apparent contradictions in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s congressional testimony.”

We know that Gonzales is trying to wriggle out from under his mountain of lies by saying his testimony in February 2006 that there had been no “serious disagreement” about the NSA wiretapping program was true because the disagreement testified to by others in the administration referred to data mining and not the secret eavesdropping program.

“Given the difficulty of discussing classified matters in public, I think it is preferable to have a letter addressing that question [of Gonzales’ veracity] from the administration … by noon tomorrow [Tuesday], which will be made available to the news media,” Specter wrote in the statement. “The administration has committed to producing such a letter.”

The speculation is that Gonzales will be forced to resign.

But wait, Vice President Cheney loves the guy.

According to a story today in the Washington Post, Gonzales “has testified truthfully” before Congress and has performed well as head of the Justice Department.

“I’m a big fan of Al’s,” Cheney said in the radio interview. “. . . I think Al has done a good job under difficult circumstances. The debate between he and the Senate is something they’re going to have to resolve. But I think he has testified truthfully.”

Of course we all know Cheney’s version of “the truth” is, and it sure doesn’t reflect reality in any way. The only good news is that when Cheney stepped forward to defend former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld was fired a week later.

As we have seen during his many appearances before congressional committees, trying to pin Attorney General Alberto Gonzales down on specifics is like trying to pin Jell-O to the wall. It now appears he may have slipped in his own Jell-O.

Gonzales is under intense fire now, in particular, for his testimony in February 2006 that there had been no “serious disagreement” about the NSA wiretapping program.

This testimony was first shown to be a lie in May when former deputy attorney general, James B. Comey, described a dramatic hospital bedside confrontation between Gonzales and his predecessor, John Ashcroft.

To recap, Bush directed Gonzales to alter the Terrorist Surveillance Program that permitted limited wire tapping of suspected terrorists before the program expired on March 11, 2004. Comey, as acting attorney general, ruled that the proposed changes were not legal and wouldn’t sign off on them. Gonzales and Bush’s then chief of staff Andrew H. Card Jr. tried to do an end-run around Comey by rushing to the hospital to get Ashcroft, weak and on pain killers, to sign off. They were turned away by Ashcroft and Comey, who had heard of the plot and arrived minutes before them.

According to Comey’s testimony, only when faced with resignations by a number of Justice Department officials including Comey, his chief of staff, Ashcroft’s chief of staff, Ashcroft himself and possibly F.B.I. Director Robert S. Mueller 3rd, did the White House agree to make changes to the program that would satisfy the requirements of the Justice Department to sign off on it.

Comey’s testimony put Gonzales in a corner and on Tuesday, he brought out his reserves of Jell-O, saying the subject in the hospital room was “intelligence activities” under debate in the administration, but not the Terrorist Surveillance Program. This time he slipped on his own Jell-O.

First, documents obtained by AP show that eight U.S. congressional leaders were briefed about the TSP on the eve of its expiration in 2004, contradicting Gonzales’s sworn Senate testimony that the discussion focused on another intelligence program that he would not describe.

Then, yesterday, F.B.I. Director Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee that the Bush administration’s secret eavesdropping program was the main topic at the hospital encounter, once again contrary to what Gonzales swore before the Senate Tuesday.

Most legal experts are coming forward to say that Gonzales has now clearly committed perjury.

After he swears to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, “He tells the half-truth, the partial truth and anything but the truth,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer. Schumer and three other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee asked the Justice Department yesterday to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether Gonzales lied to Congress about the NSA program.

What everyone should be asking is how can President Bush, who promised to restore integrity to the office of the president – I know, by now we all know that is a joke – allow this man with no integrity left continue to be the top law enforcement officer in the nation.

At least Gonzales has done one positive thing – he has brought the Republicans and Democrats together in the belief that he needs to go.

So you thought that if General Petraeus was unable to show that his “surge” strategy was working in a planned report in September, we could expect the Bush administration would finally acknowledge that the time has come to begin withdrawing, huh.

Well, of course, no one really believed that. It is hard to believe anything coming out of the Bush gang anymore. According to Monday’s New York Times, the American command in Iraq has prepared a detailed plan that foresees a significant American role for the next two years.

“The classified plan,” the Times reports, “which represents the coordinated strategy of the top American commander and the American ambassador, calls for restoring security in local areas, including Baghdad, by the summer of 2008. “Sustainable security” is to be established on a nationwide basis by the summer of 2009, according to American officials familiar with the document.”

What happened to September 2007? When did “sustainable security” become a goal?

If you feel like you have fallen down Alice’s rabbit hole every time you read a report on this administration, the following brief – yes, that’s what I said, brief – overview of past predictions, actions and assorted mumbo jumbo from the Bushies should make you feel like you will never get out.

May 1, 2003; Mission Accomplished: [M]y fellow Americans. Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. [White House web site]

June 6, 2003; Rumsfeld blames Iraq problems on “pockets of dead-enders”: In those regions where pockets of dead-enders are trying to reconstitute, Gen. Franks and his team are rooting them out. In short, the coalition is making good progress. [USA Today,

September 3, 2003; Report shows Bush failed to plan: A secret report for the Joint Chiefs of Staff lays the blame for setbacks in Iraq on a flawed and rushed war-planning process that "limited the focus" for preparing for post-Saddam Hussein operations. [Washington Times]

April 19, 2004; Bob Woodward reveals CIA Director George Tenet said there was a “slam dunk case” against Iraq: About two weeks before deciding to invade Iraq, President Bush was told by CIA Director George Tenet there was a “slam dunk case” that dictator Saddam Hussein had unconventional weapons, according to a new book by Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward. [CNN]

May 1, 2004; Bush says “daily life” of Iraqis is improving: One year later [after Mission Accomplished], despite many challenges, life for the Iraqi people is a world away from the cruelty and corruption of Saddam’s regime. At the most basic level of justice, people are no longer disappearing into political prisons, torture chambers, and mass graves — because the former dictator is in prison, himself. And their daily life is improving. [White House web site]

September 16, 2004; Intelligence report delivered to Bush warns of civil war. Bush’s response: the CIA is “just guessing”: A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq. The estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war, the officials said. [NYT and the White House web site]

September 28, 2004; Another report showing Bush was warned about conditions in post-war Iraq: The same intelligence unit that produced a gloomy report in July about the prospect of growing instability in Iraq warned the Bush administration about the potential costly consequences of an American-led invasion two months before the war began, government officials said Monday. [NYT]

MAY 1, 2005; Downing Street Memo revealed: Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. [Downing Street Memo]

May 30, 2005; Dick Cheney: Insurgency in its “last throes”: I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency. [CNN Larry King Live]

October 13, 2005; Bush administration paid no attention to warnings of post-war chaos: A review by former intelligence officers has concluded that the Bush administration “apparently paid little or no attention” to prewar assessments by the Central Intelligence Agency that warned of major cultural and political obstacles to stability in postwar Iraq. [NYT]

November 15, 2005; U.S. Senate votes 79-19 to demand regular reports from the White House on progress towards a phased pullout of troops from Iraq. [CNN]

December 1, 2005; President Bush laid out his administration’s vision for winning the war in Iraq: Bush acknowledges that the U.S. military has suffered “setbacks” but asserts that it is making unmistakable progress in training Iraqi security forces — a mission he vows will not be cut short by political pressures on the homefront. [Washington Post]

December 17, 2005; Lieberman: Bush has turned corner on Iraq: The last two weeks have been critically important, Lieberman says, and he says he believes it may be seen as a turning point in the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. [AP]

February 2, 2006: Rumsfeld doubts “long war” in Iraq: “Is Iraq going to be a long war?” Mr. Rumsfeld answered, “No, I don’t believe it is.” [Washington Times]

March 19, 2006: “Complete victory”: On the eve of the third anniversary of the Iraq invasion, President Bush promised to “finish the mission” with “complete victory,” urging the American public to remain steadfast but offering no indication when victory may be achieved. [Washington Post]

March 21, 2006: Bush says some U.S. troops will remain in Iraq at least until 2009:
QUESTION: [W]ill there come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq?
BUSH: That, of course, is an objective, and that will be decided by future Presidents and future governments of Iraq. [Bush press conference]

MAY 1, 2006: On the 3rd anniversary of Mission Accomplished, Bush says Iraq has reached “a turning point.”: A new Iraqi government represents a strategic opportunity for America — and the whole world, for that matter. This nation of ours and our coalition partners are going to work with the new leadership to strengthen our mutual efforts to achieve success, a victory in this war on terror. This is a — we believe this is a turning point for the Iraqi citizens, and it’s a new chapter in our partnership. [White House web site]

June 20, 2006: Iraqi National Security Adviser writes that U.S. troops should be out of Iraq by the end of 2007: We envisage the U.S. troop presence by year’s end to be under 100,000, with most of the remaining troops to return home by the end of 2007. [Washington Post]

September 11, 2006: Cheney: war critics aid terrorists: terrorists are encouraged, obviously, when they see the kind of debate that we’ve had in the United States, suggestions, for example, that we should withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. [Meet the Press]

October 4, 2006: Al Qaeda letter says prolonging the Iraq war “is in our interest.”: “The most important thing is that you continue in your jihad in Iraq …Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest, with God’s permission.” [Counterterrorism Center at West Point]

October 6, 2006: In Baghdad, Rice says Iraq is “making progress”: Her trip “began inauspiciously when the military transport plane that brought her to Baghdad was forced to circle the city for about 40 minutes” because the airport was under attack. [New York Times]

November 20, 2006: Iraqis demand U.S. troops withdraw: “Seven out of ten Iraqis overall–including both the Shia majority (74%) and the Sunni minority (91%)–say they want the United States to leave within a year.” [World Public Opinion poll]

December 6, 2006: Iraq Study Group Report released.

December 19, 2006: The White House is “aggressively promoting” a plan to send “15,000 to 30,000 more troops” to Iraq “over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” the Washington Post reports.

January 2, 2007: Gen. George Casey warns against troop escalation in Iraq: “It’s always been my view that a heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problems in Iraq over the long term.” [New York Times – Goodbye Gen. Casey]

January 10, 2007: Bush announces escalation: “I’ve committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq.” [White House web site]

February 2, 2007: National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq declares Iraq is worse than a civil war: The document states that the term civil war “accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict,” though it “does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict.” [Washington Post]

March 27, 2007: McCain claims progress in Iraq: McCain tells CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed humvee. I think you oughta catch up. You are giving the old line of three months ago. I understand it. We certainly don’t get it through the filter of some of the media.” He later acknowledges, “There is no unarmored humvees. Obviously, that’s the case.” [CBS]

April 5, 2007: 12,000 more National Guard troops to Iraq: “Coming on the heels of a controversial ’surge’ of 21,000 U.S. troops that has stretched the Army thin, the Defense Department is preparing to send an additional 12,000 National Guard combat forces to Iraq and Afghanistan.” [MSNBC]

April 11, 2007: Gates announces 12-15 month extensions for Army troops: Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced yesterday that all active-duty soldiers currently deployed or going to Iraq and Afghanistan will see their one-year tours extended to 15 months, acknowledging that such a strain on the war-weary Army is necessary should the ongoing troop increase be prolonged well into next year. [Washington Post]

April 24, 2007: Tillman family accuses Bush administration of twisting the facts: In “explosive testimony” today, Kevin Tillman, brother of Cpl. Pat Tillman, the former NFL player who was killed in action in Afghanistan, “accused the Bush administration of twisting the facts of his brother’s death to distract public attention from the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib.” [LAT]

May 9, 2007: Majority Of Iraqi Parliament Calls For Timetable For U.S. Withdrawal: “On Tuesday, without note in the U.S. media, more than half of the members of Iraq’s parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal, according to Nassar Al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the Al Sadr movement, the nationalist Shia group that sponsored the petition.” [Alternet]

June 14, 2007: Despite surge, violence on the rise: “Three months into the new U.S. military strategy that has sent tens of thousands of additional troops into Iraq, overall levels of violence in the country have not decreased, as attacks have shifted away from Baghdad and Anbar, where American forces are concentrated, only to rise in most other provinces, according to a Pentagon report released yesterday.” [Washington Post]

JUNE 26, 2007: Support for war reaches new low: “A new low of 30 percent of Americans say they support the U.S. war in Iraq and, for the first time, most Americans say they don’t believe it is morally justified,” a new CNN poll finds. [CNN]

If anyone questions the deleterious effect President Bush’s politicization of the Department of Justice and the judiciary has had on our system of jurisprudence, they need look no further than the judge’s dismissal of the Valerie Plame’s suit over the Bush administration’s disclosure of her name and covert status to the media.

Plame and her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, sued Vice President Dick Cheney, his former deputy and current pardoned felon, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, political operative Karl Rove and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage for their roles in the outing.

It would be rather difficult to deny that Judge John D. Bates, the judge who dismissed the suit, is a loyal Bushie who got his appointment to the bench in 2001. He is also the judge who dismissed the lawsuit over Dick Cheney’s energy task force records.

In that case, Bates found that Comptroller General David M. Walker, the head of the General Accounting Office, did not have sufficient standing to sue the vice president. Walker had asked the judge to order the White House to reveal the identities of industry executives who helped the administration develop its energy policy at the outset of the Bush Administration.

In declining to do so, and in dismissing Walker’s suit, Judge Bates said that granting the G.A.O. chief’s request “would fly in the face of the restricted role of the federal courts under the Constitution.”

In equally convoluted, hypocritical logic, Judge Bates wrote in the Plame case:

[T]his Court must look beyond the alleged disclosure of Mrs. Wilson’s covert identity and assess whether the underlying conduct was of the type defendants were employed to perform. The proper inquiry in this Court’s view, then, is whether talking to the press (or, in Cheney’s case, participating in an agreement to do so…) in order to discredit a public critic of the Executive Branch and its policies is within the scope of defendants’ duties as federal employees.

The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson’s comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory. But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush Administration’s handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants’ duties as high-level Executive Branch officials. Thus, the alleged tortious conduct, namely the disclosure of Mrs. Wilson’s status as a covert operative, was incidental to the kind of conduct that defendants were employed to perform.

In much simpler language, what the Judge said here is that regardless of how “highly unsavory” the methods, you’re okay as long as your intention is merely “to discredit a public critic of the Executive Branch and its policies.”

That pretty much sums up the Bush Administration philosophy, wouldn’t you say?

Judith Warner, author of “Perfect Madness” and a guest columnist for the New York Times, summed up in one paragraph why the past six years have been so devastating for the United States, its citizens and its standing in the world – and why there are very few left that aren’t convinced that George W. Bush will go down in history as the worst president to ever hold the office.

Noting that “his often cocky — and defensive — public demeanor” undercuts his attempts to show sympathy for the families and friends of those who have died in Iraq, Warner writes: “It’s hard to imagine much sympathy emanating from a man who admits to no soul-searching on Iraq, who vacationed through the panic and devastation of Hurricane Katrina and who recently shrugged off the issue of health care reform with the line, ‘I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room.’”

Warner also sums up the frustrations our congressional representatives and most Americans feel over how King George tramples the U.S. Constitution and then snubs his nose at those who cry foul.

On the web site “ Bush and Cheney’s Scandal List,” the author lists 189 scandals that can be attributed directly to Bush and Cheney – any one of which, I might add, would eclipse a blowjob.

On Chris Matthews “Hardball” recently, Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson, mayor of Salt Lake City, was a guest, mainly to speak to the changes in position Mitt Romney has made in his presidential race. When he started to talk about his efforts in the movement to impeach President Bush, he was cut off by the guest host, Mike Barnicle, saying, “Forget that because it isn’t going to happen.”

It is precisely this attitude by those in the mainstream media that have led to the mess we are in. Impeachment, in Bush’s favorite phrase, is hard work – but it can be done.

In his remarks before the Washington State Senate, which may pass a joint legislative resolution next month calling on the US House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney, Anderson said “Never before has there been such a compelling case for impeachment and removal from office of the president of the United States for heinous human rights violations, breaches of trust, abuses of power injurious to the nation, war crimes, misleading Congress and the American people about threats to our nation’s security and the supposed case for war, and grave violations of treaties, the Constitution, and domestic statutory law.”

According to by Dave Lindorff of the Baltimore Chronicle and Sentinel, it is now “clear that even if the Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) says impeachment is “off the table,” a sizeable hunk of the American public is hungering for a taste of it.”

Lindorff writes that “Washington is one of a group of states where a serious effort is underway to pass joint legislative resolutions that, thanks to Rules of the House penned by Thomas Jefferson and in effect for nearly length of the Republic, would put impeachment back on the table at the House right under Speaker Pelosi’s nose.”

Lindorff explains that, “It seems likely that if Washington [passes the joint resolution which currently has eight co-sponsors], or if one of the ones moving through the legislatures of Vermont or New Mexico were to pass, the other states might follow suit. As well, representatives in Congress could feel emboldened to submit their own bills of impeachment.

“In other words, the dam will burst, and impeachment will be underway.”

In the words of Mayor Anderson, “To restore some modicum of decency and accountability for our nation, and to protect our nation against those who would rule without regard to established law, we must commit ourselves to the rule of law and call for the impeachment and removal from office of President Bush.”

I have been taking some time off for summer vacation. But I thought today’s editorial in the New York Times was worth quoting, both for its depth and its strength:

It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.
•
Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.

At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq’s government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq. When it became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow.

While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs — after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost.

The political leaders Washington has backed are incapable of putting national interests ahead of sectarian score settling. The security forces Washington has trained behave more like partisan militias. Additional military forces poured into the Baghdad region have failed to change anything.

Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nation’s alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles.

A majority of Americans reached these conclusions months ago. Even in politically polarized Washington, positions on the war no longer divide entirely on party lines. When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda.

That conversation must be candid and focused. Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.

The administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress, the United Nations and America’s allies must try to mitigate those outcomes — and they may fail. But Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse. The nation needs a serious discussion, now, about how to accomplish a withdrawal and meet some of the big challenges that will arise.

The Mechanics of Withdrawal

The United States has about 160,000 troops and millions of tons of military gear inside Iraq. Getting that force out safely will be a formidable challenge. The main road south to Kuwait is notoriously vulnerable to roadside bomb attacks. Soldiers, weapons and vehicles will need to be deployed to secure bases while airlift and sealift operations are organized. Withdrawal routes will have to be guarded. The exit must be everything the invasion was not: based on reality and backed by adequate resources.

The United States should explore using Kurdish territory in the north of Iraq as a secure staging area. Being able to use bases and ports in Turkey would also make withdrawal faster and safer. Turkey has been an inconsistent ally in this war, but like other nations, it should realize that shouldering part of the burden of the aftermath is in its own interest.

Accomplishing all of this in less than six months is probably unrealistic. The political decision should be made, and the target date set, now.

The Fight Against Terrorists

Despite President Bush’s repeated claims, Al Qaeda had no significant foothold in Iraq before the invasion, which gave it new base camps, new recruits and new prestige.

This war diverted Pentagon resources from Afghanistan, where the military had a real chance to hunt down Al Qaeda’s leaders. It alienated essential allies in the war against terrorism. It drained the strength and readiness of American troops.

And it created a new front where the United States will have to continue to battle terrorist forces and enlist local allies who reject the idea of an Iraq hijacked by international terrorists. The military will need resources and bases to stanch this self- inflicted wound for the foreseeable future.

The Question of Bases

The United States could strike an agreement with the Kurds to create those bases in northeastern Iraq. Or, the Pentagon could use its bases in countries like Kuwait and Qatar, and its large naval presence in the Persian Gulf, as staging points.

There are arguments for, and against, both options. Leaving troops in Iraq might make it too easy — and too tempting — to get drawn back into the civil war and confirm suspicions that Washington’s real goal was to secure permanent bases in Iraq. Mounting attacks from other countries could endanger those nations’ governments.

The White House should make this choice after consultation with Congress and the other countries in the region, whose opinions the Bush administration has essentially ignored. The bottom line: the Pentagon needs enough force to stage effective raids and airstrikes against terrorist forces in Iraq, but not enough to resume large-scale combat.

The Civil War

One of Mr. Bush’s arguments against withdrawal is that it would lead to civil war. That war is raging, right now, and it may take years to burn out. Iraq may fragment into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics, and American troops are not going to stop that from happening.

It is possible, we suppose, that announcing a firm withdrawal date might finally focus Iraq’s political leaders and neighboring governments on reality. Ideally, it could spur Iraqi politicians to take the steps toward national reconciliation that they have endlessly discussed but refused to act on.

But it is foolish to count on that, as some Democratic proponents of withdrawal have done. The administration should use whatever leverage it gains from withdrawing to press its allies and Iraq’s neighbors to help achieve a negotiated solution.

Iraq’s leaders — knowing that they can no longer rely on the Americans to guarantee their survival — might be more open to compromise, perhaps to a Bosnian-style partition, with economic resources fairly shared but with millions of Iraqis forced to relocate. That would be better than the slow-motion ethnic and religious cleansing that has contributed to driving one in seven Iraqis from their homes.

The United States military cannot solve the problem. Congress and the White House must lead an international attempt at a negotiated outcome. To start, Washington must turn to the United Nations, which Mr. Bush spurned and ridiculed as a preface to war.

The Human Crisis

There are already nearly two million Iraqi refugees, mostly in Syria and Jordan, and nearly two million more Iraqis who have been displaced within their country. Without the active cooperation of all six countries bordering Iraq — Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria — and the help of other nations, this disaster could get worse. Beyond the suffering, massive flows of refugees — some with ethnic and political resentments — could spread Iraq’s conflict far beyond Iraq’s borders.

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia must share the burden of hosting refugees. Jordan and Syria, now nearly overwhelmed with refugees, need more international help. That, of course, means money. The nations of Europe and Asia have a stake and should contribute. The United States will have to pay a large share of the costs, but should also lead international efforts, perhaps a donors’ conference, to raise money for the refugee crisis.

Washington also has to mend fences with allies. There are new governments in Britain, France and Germany that did not participate in the fight over starting this war and are eager to get beyond it. But that will still require a measure of humility and a commitment to multilateral action that this administration has never shown. And, however angry they were with President Bush for creating this mess, those nations should see that they cannot walk away from the consequences. To put it baldly, terrorism and oil make it impossible to ignore.

The United States has the greatest responsibilities, including the admission of many more refugees for permanent resettlement. The most compelling obligation is to the tens of thousands of Iraqis of courage and good will — translators, embassy employees, reconstruction workers — whose lives will be in danger because they believed the promises and cooperated with the Americans.

The Neighbors

One of the trickiest tasks will be avoiding excessive meddling in Iraq by its neighbors — America’s friends as well as its adversaries.

Just as Iran should come under international pressure to allow Shiites in southern Iraq to develop their own independent future, Washington must help persuade Sunni powers like Syria not to intervene on behalf of Sunni Iraqis. Turkey must be kept from sending troops into Kurdish territories.

For this effort to have any remote chance, Mr. Bush must drop his resistance to talking with both Iran and Syria. Britain, France, Russia, China and other nations with influence have a responsibility to help. Civil war in Iraq is a threat to everyone, especially if it spills across Iraq’s borders.
•
President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used demagoguery and fear to quell Americans’ demands for an end to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has already happened — the result of this unnecessary invasion and the incompetent management of this war.

This country faces a choice. We can go on allowing Mr. Bush to drag out this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist that American troops are withdrawn as quickly and safely as we can manage — with as much effort as possible to stop the chaos from spreading.