When the President gives a speech announcing he is going to send 20,000 more troops to the quagmire that is Iraq, when even Republicans are abandoning the President's side, Rep. Jim Marshall, "D"-GA has a unique take on the President's plan: he says "this is a plausible thing to try."
After watching President Bush’sspeech Wednesday night in his office on Capitol Hill, Marshall told me, "The most significant thing is that this is an Iraqi plan. If you think about it, what has the government of Iraq tried to do or suggested doing anything as significant as this, with Iraqis attempting to take the lead? This is a big deal."
"There’s going to have to be one heck of a great speech by Maliki to the Iraqis — because this is Maliki’s plan," he said, referring to the prime minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki. "And that’s wonderful, frankly, that this is an Iraq plan to secure Iraq."
But he said, "This is a plausible thing to try."
But if there is one thing Rep. Marshall brings to the table on the issue of Iraq, it is credibility. Back in late 2005, when Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, began to ramp up their criticism of Bush's conduct of the war, Marshall correctly noted that by doing so they were endagering their push to take control of Congress.
Strong antiwar commentsin recent days by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have opened anew a party rift over Iraq, with some lawmakers warning that the leaders' rhetorical blasts could harm efforts to win control of Congress next year.
Several Democrats joined President Bush yesterday in rebuking Dean's declaration to a San Antonio radio station Monday that "the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."
The critics said that comment could reinforce popular perceptions that the party is weak on military matters and divert attention from the president's growing political problems on the war and other issues. "Dean's take on Iraq makes even less sense than the scream in Iowa: Both are uninformed and unhelpful," said Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), recalling Dean's famous election-night roar after stumbling in Iowa during his 2004 presidential bid.
Unfortunately it is not possible to travel back in time, but as many of us look in retrospect on Rep. Marshall's sage advice that Democrats win through muting their anti-war criticism, the person who is probably happiest that we didn't take it is certainly Speaker John Boehner.
Seriously, though, folks, this Marshall guy is an unmitigated idiot. In the same article in which Marshall professes his ardor for the President's speech, there is this:
Will Bush’s address shore up support for the president’s policy in Marshall’s district in Georgia? "I don’t think the speech itself will change anything. The effect on the ground, the perceived success or failure — it is perception here that rules — that is what’s going to determine whether people think this was the right move or the wrong move, at this point," he said.
He noted, "The president’s credibility is so low with those he has to persuade that words alone won’t push it."
So apparently the President's credibility is too low for Rep. Marshall's constituents to buy what he is saying, but it is good enough for Representative Marshall himself to buy the President's latest plan to win the war?
It get's worse. This guy's thinking is so muddled, get this, he actually claims to support a reduced US presence in Iraq, but supports the President's plan nonetheless although it does just the opposite.
Unlike some Democrats, Marshall does not support complete exit of U.S. troops; but he also doesn’t think an increase in the number of U.S. conventional forces in Iraq is a good idea.
Not a good idea, except when it is?
And he acknowledged after hearing the speech that Bush is taking the contrary approach by sending more troops.
Despite this, Marshall still thinks a smaller, long-term commitment of U.S. forces in Iraq is the best strategy. "That may be where we wind up," he said.
And so Bush is taking a fundamentally different approach than the one that Marshall thinks would be a good idea, but he supports it anyway because...Does anyone understand this man's thought process?
And finally, the saddest part:
Risk of entanglement in ethnic strife
He did admit that there’s the risk that in some joint U.S.-Iraqi patrols American troops might unwittingly get drawn into ethnic settling of scores, Shiite vs. Sunni, or vice versa.
"That’s entirely possible that will occur," he said. "It’s extraordinarily difficult for soldiers in our circumstances to fully appreciate all the dynamics of what’s happening around them — we don’t know the culture, can’t speak the language, we have to rely on interpreters."
There's a big risk the soldiers are going to die, and this is an entirely different plan than my ideal plan, but I am going to support it anyway, even though my constituents don't by it. I am Jim Marshall, "D"-GA.