Charles Krauthammer calls the Iraqi government “a failure,” and Fred Barnes agrees: “Maliki has had his chance, he can’t do it.” Barry McCaffrey expects a new campaign after the election, and the routing of Moqtada al-Sadr. Bill Kristol thinks Maliki’s down and Rusmfeld is out—this year. Brit Hume trounces expectations of a change of course in Iraq. Bob Novak thinks “it’s a nice thing” for Nancy Pelosi to be Madame Speaker. Charlie Cook sees a huge victory for the Democrats.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Well, I think we have to have and we will have a change of strategy. But I don’t think it has to do with our tactics, military or otherwise. I think it has to do with the central fact that our objective in Iraq was to establish a democratic, self-sustaining government and the Maliki government is a failure. It’s had six months in office and the fact that it cannot function is what’s changing people’s minds here. Not the upsurge in violence. Not the upcoming election.FRED BARNES: I agree with Charles, the fundamental problem is the Iraqi government. And we knew that the Maliki government wasn’t going to do any good when Maliki . . . said, oh, no, no, we’re not going to try to take out the militias, which are the problem. Maybe we’ll get to that next year. You knew that it was a completely feckless, dysfunctional government when he said that. . . . It needs new leadership there. Maliki has had his chance, he can’t do it. He’s not a strong leader and that’s what’s needed.
BARRY MCCAFFREY: Chris, we’re going to take significant casualties trying to create law and order in Baghdad, 72 dead so far [this month], probably several hundred wounded. We are losing a battalion a month. So Maliki has got until Christmas, in my judgment. . . . Current strategy is unsustainable. Once the election is passed, the American people will walk away from the war. It is $7 billion a month. I think we’re going to reassess this. . . . We have got to regain control in Baghdad in the Sadr City, and in Ramadi, without which I think it’s going to increasingly escalate. We have got to dampen this thing down. It may be U.S. combat power that does that in a short run, 60, 90 day campaign. I’d be unsurprised. If that does not happen once the election is over, as well as calling up U.S. National Guard brigades for subsequent combat tours. . . .
I think the rumor right now floating around is we are going to overthrow the Maliki regime, install another one. We’re not going to do anything of the sort.
CHRIS WALLACE: Are we headed for a big course change in Iraq?
BRIT HUME: No. The people who are talking about that fall very clearly into the category of nondeciders. . . . [I]n this instance, [Bush] said he isn’t going to change. I think he’s unlikely to change. Now, there are people who say, you look at a poll like that one with the 73 percent number who want a change in course in Iraq. That doesn’t necessarily mean what you suggested, which is a major change in strategy. It may mean a major adjustment in tactics in pursuit of the same policy. . . . WALLACE: [D]o you think the president still has confidence in Nouri al-Maliki?
KRISTOL: I don’t know. I mean, clearly Secretary Rumsfeld doesn’t. He basically attacked the Iraqi government on Friday and said they’ve got to get their act together, it’s up to them. The president called Maliki this week to reassert confidence. I don’t know. Maybe he doesn’t have much confidence in Maliki. Maybe he doesn’t have much confidence if Rumsfeld anymore. There will be a change, of course. There will not be—Rumsfeld will leave after the election.
. . . I’m worried that the change of course will go in the wrong direction. I think the conservative position—I do not think a lot of conservatives around the country, a lot of hawks, will support more of the same for the next two years, or even more of the same with minor tactical variations. I think the conservative view will become, in effect, win or get out. And I think there will be support for a real serious effort to win, resurging of troops and a change—a willingness to really fight to win. I’m worried that Rumsfeld’s not for that, Baker’s not for that . . .
TIM RUSSERT: Bob Novak, Barron’s writes for tomorrow that they did an analysis of how much money each candidate has raised and will spend on the election and didn’t look at any polls, and based simply on money being raised, they predict the Republicans will lose eight House seats, a maximum of 14, hold the House, hold the Senate. ROBERT NOVAK: That’s a ridiculous method of, of forecasting the election strictly on the money. Money is important, but it’s not everything. The interesting thing to me is that we—everybody thinks that it’s going to be a narrow Republican—a Democratic victory in, in the, in the House, the Senate almost too close to call, maybe a narrow Republican victory. Why is it narrow with those huge gaps in the polls? Because the president is very unpopular and the war is very unpopular, and those are the two issues that are killing Republican candidates. So there must be some voter resistance to the Democrats, and I think that’s what the problem is. . . .
There’s going to be a subpoena onslaught [when the Democrats win the House], which may or may not be politically beneficial. I have never found in my, in my time in Washington that these congressional investigations are that effective. I, I know that in six years of, of investigating everything possible in the Clinton administration, the Republican Congress was not all that effective. . . . So I don’t think much is going to happen, substantively. It is a nice, it’s a, it’s a thing for Nancy Pelosi to be speaker of the House, but I don’t think there’s going to be much action out of it.
CHARLIE COOK: . . . I think we start at 20. I mean, I mean, look, 16 days, obviously, everything could change. I think it’s at least 20 in the House. I think it’s more 25, 30, 35. It, it could go, this could get bad, particularly if Republican turnout really drops.
RUSSERT: They need 15 to take control.
COOK: They need 15, and I think 20 is the starting point, unless something big happens. And voter turnout, I mean, Republican voters right now are depressed. And Democrats are spitting nails. And, wow, that’s—if Repub—I mean, when you see these wave election, midterm elections, it’s when one side’s voters are energized and the other side’s are disillusioned.
JOHN HARWOOD: My gut tells me 20 is about right, and that in the Senate, maybe five seats for the Democrats, and you end up with 50/50.
NOVAK: . . . [Missouri, Tennessee, and Virginia] are extremely close and I would say right now, in all three of those, I would give the edge right now to the, to the Republicans. I wouldn’t bet a lot of money on it. I, I think very—New Jersey’s very interesting because Menendez has proved a very poor candidate, a very unstable candidate. And if he can survive, appointed senator in that state against Tom Kean Jr., that, that will mean this is really some Republican—some Democratic year.
COOK: Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, Missouri, gosh, it’s, it’s really close. Maybe McCaskill ahead a tiny bit more than behind, but it’s close. Then as John said, those rural areas help—how bad—how far are they going to go for Republicans. Tennessee, absolutely right. I mean, Ford’s been ahead, but it’s been closing. Corker pulling up. Virginia, George Allen is up a little bit, but I think if a feather landed on his head, it’d probably knock him out.
Comments