Keeping "Our Word"

Where most Americans part company on the War in Iraq ishow long we should stay. After all, since was no discussion about whether or not we'd go little disagreement about whether we could,confusion about what the vote meant, no oversight on how we'd wage it, and increasing disillusion about support for it, we have few remaining discussion items left.In my view, the two sides break down along a simple, mutually exclusvie fault-line (no pun intended). EITHER we pull out (admit defeat, withdraw the troops, and make it "go away"), OR we stay for as long as "it" takes (support the effort, re-build the region until it can stand on its own, and let freedom ring).

Here's the chasm both sides want to avoid: how do we "keep our word" without losing face and extract ourselves from an unacceptable situation?

It's a dilemma this Administration has faced before. Often. Surely Republicans must be feeling a strong case of battle fatigue by now from having to defend this President, his Cabinet, his staff, his cronies, his enablers, his supporters, and so many of his failed policies.

Yet the mantra, though shaky, is still "operative" on the right: "We must keep our word." Other variances of this same meme are: "Stay the course"; "We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here"; We can't cut and run"; and the ever popular but clichéd, "Support the troops," as well as its latest morphing: "To leave would dishonor those who've already died."

Bush's latest attempt to offer a "rationale" is even less convincing:

(Well, . . . that's what he said. See if you can follow the logic.)

Does this mean the President has been "outframed"? We're staying because he's letting the terrorists frame the war? (Can you say "blame game"?)

Accepting this frame, however, is no better than Bush's promise frame: Whose word are we keeping by staying? Did the Congress understand fully--at the time they were asked to vote to "let the President decide"--what that vote promised? Were the American people told what that decision was based on or what it would mean? When the justifications for the war fell away like the petals of a dying rose, did the commitment behind that promise shift?

Here are a few questions someone should ask Bush the next time he's unprotected by scripted speeches, responses, and fake audiences, and before Rove interrupts his latest fundraising to re-stoke the message machine:

Since you didn't keep your word to us about the reasons for waging this war, how is it that we are still bound by your "word"?

If you don't speak for 63% of the American people on this issue, how is it that the 32% who approve of how you're handling Iraq can demand that they speak for us?

Is it fiscally responsible to promise money we don't have to re-build a country we blew up, while Americans can't afford housing, healthcare, food, and education?

Can we afford to keep your word to the Iraqis by staying longer than they want us to?

How can we trust any Administration officials to "finish the mission" when you've already claimed "Mission Accomplished"?

(And, by the way, off topic, I know, but will competent applicants, with appropriate experience and qualifications for the job, ever again be appointed to positions of authority and power in your Administration?)

And if you can't answer those questions, Mr. President, I'd rather you no longer try to keep your word. Like you, I am a parent. And parents know we sometimes make promises we can't keep. We don't mean to, but sometimes we do. But when we do, we need to admit it--and not make those kinds of promises again.

Rather than staying this reckless course, I'd rather you just said,

"Thank you for your support. But I was wrong. I messed up. I made a promise I couldn't keep."

However, as long as we're on the subject, there are a few thousand people on the Gulf Coast who would like to see you keep some other promises you made.