An article in today’s Gloucester County Times talks about how NJ Congressman Rob Andrews is now critical of Bush’s Iraq policy. This is significant because he was possibly the strongest Democratic advocate of a preemptive war on Iraq, and even helped draft the resolution authorizing the President to go to war.
Andrews is calling for Bush to replace Donald Rumsfeld with someone with more credibility in the Arab world. That should be an easy job for Bush, considering about 6 billion options meet these qualifications.
More importantly, Andrews correctly points out that the artificial milestones touted by the administration as positive signs of success aren’t actually proof of progress:
Terror attacks on U.S. troops and on Iraqi civilians, Andrews said, had intensified after each milestone heralded by the Bush administration: after the end of major combat operations; after the Coalition Provisional Authority transferred political power from U.S. diplomats to Iraqi leaders; and after free elections were conducted throughout Iraq on Jan. 30, 2005.
Andrews claims Bush now is wrong to herald the Oct. 15, 2005, vote in favor of the Iraqi constitution, which was defeated in two Sunni provinces, as yet another marker of progress.
“Does anybody really believe that we’re going to be more effective in preventing violence because the constitution passed? I don’t.”
I applaud the Congressman for making these statements. It is difficult to criticize the results of a war that you were instrumental in starting, but I have some disagreements with the rest of Andrew’s criticisms: