On Monday, Dick Lugar gave a speech on the Senate floor criticizing the Bush administration's policy in Iraq and questioning the efficacy of the surging of reinforcements into combat operations there.
Newspapers and blogs and even some Democratic senators were abuzz with Lugar's statements.
From the Indy Star:
U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar called Monday for a change in U.S. strategy in Iraq -- a departure for the senior Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who had been generally sticking by the Bush administration.
From
Taking Down Words:
It Had To Be Said: Lugar Comes Out Against Surge, Dubya's Iraq Strategy
From
Advance Indiana:
As the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Bush administration can ill-afford to lose Lugar's support. The fact the President can no longer count on Lugar's support suggests big changes are ahead.
From
Blue Indiana:
Senator Lugar is more or less giving the Bush administration a shot over the bow, and the message is clear: "Stay the course" is no longer acceptable to Congress, and it is time to move on.
Senator Harry "The War is Lost" Reid
joined in:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called Lugar's speech "brilliant" and "courageous" and said it would later be noted in the history books as a turning point in the war.
From
USA Today:
GOP Senator rips Bush on Iraq, terrorism
Republican Sen. Richard G. Lugar said the United States isn't doing enough to stave off terrorism and criticized President Bush for failing to offer solid plans for Iraq's future.
Also from
USA Today:
Senators slam administration on Iraq
Among those harshly criticizing the White House were the two top Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: Chairman Richard Lugar of Indiana and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
Oops. I made a mistake.
Observant readers (or at least observant readers that clicked the linkage) might have noticed that those last two quotes came not from 2007, but from the summer and fall of 2004 (May and September, respectively).
That's right.
With the presidential campaign in full swing and with his party's control of the White House on the line, Dick Lugar was even then criticizing the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War.
Only Doug Masson was close in his blogging about this,
noting:
Lugar’s statement, in my estimation, is not a big deal. Sen. Lugar has often made accurate statements about Iraq and our policies there. Either shortly before or shortly after the war in Iraq started, he noted that we did not have a good plan for the occupation.
Criticism by Senator Lugar of Bush policy in Iraq is nothing new, so I fail to see why some quarters have decided to make such a big deal about it now.
It was probably a bigger deal when Lugar was saying these things in 2004, at a time (with his substantial foreign policy cred) he could well have politically damaged the President's reelection chances.
But in his criticisms, Lugar has been proven right and he has been proven wrong.
He was correct to note, as Masson points out, that the administration did not prepare properly for the aftermath of major combat operations.
He was correct to note, as one of the USA Today articles
notes, that the administration had done shockingly little to reduce unemployment in Iraq.
But he was wrong when he said, in
this PBS News Hour interview, that sovereignty probably could not actually be transferred to the Iraqis in June of 2004; in fact it was transferred earlier.
On balance, Lugar has been correct and he may well be correct now.
That is what is notable about his speech to the Senate; there is nothing exceptionally notable or even new about him criticizing the Bush administration's Iraq policy.
Forget John McCain and the "Straight Talk Express."
Dick Lugar has been something of a straight shooter on Iraq from the beginning (as straight as his tendency for diplo-speak will allow, at least), and he has been thoughtfully critical without going off of the deep end into "Peace, Love, & Withdrawal Now" anti-war nuttery.
The folks citing Lugar would do well to read more of what he has to say.
The strident, polarized nature of that debate increases the risk that our involvement in Iraq will end in a poorly planned withdrawal that undercuts our vital interests in the Middle East.
The current debate on Iraq in Washington has not been conducive to a thoughtful revision of our Iraq policy.
A total withdrawal from Iraq fails to meet our security interests.
The Administration and Congress must suspend what has become almost knee-jerk political combat over Iraq.
We need to move Iraq policy beyond the politics of the moment and re-establish a broad consensus on the role of the United States in the Middle East.
Heck, read it
all.
I did; it goes on forever but it's worth it.