How would the Rightwingbase react if bush pulled out of Iraq July 5 or so?

[salin]

Kevin Drum (formerly calpundit - now on the WashingtonMonthly blog)

Raises the question of the Straw, Bremer and Powell statements late last week that essentially say the "hypothetically... if the new government of IRaq asked us to leave after the elections... yes, we would leave". Strange back and forth comments - raising the question - folks speaking out of turn? folks floating trial balloons? or folks being foolish in using rhetoric to appease Iraqis but that have no rooting in reality?

Let's say its a trial balloon, based on Rovian calculations that unless we pull - things just get worse and worse for bush - with the belief that they can "spin" the pullout to appear not to be in contradiction with bush's rhetoric (his ... we will stay as long as it takes, but not a day longer...)

So how does his base react? He didn't find those WMDs - but he keeps telling them they still exist (we just haven't found 'em yet) and they believe him. So how do they read his hypothetical withdrawl - which would suggest... they don't care that the WMDs (that they claim are there) are still there... or that "oops guess they weren't there all along..."

Excerpt from his post:
SOVEREIGNTY UPDATE....On Wednesday I mentioned that the UK foreign secretary had told a talk show host that if the Iraqis wanted us to leave after June 30, then we'd leave. I was....surprised.

Then, on Thursday, a State Department lackey said that was our policy too. However he was contradicted shortly afterward by Lt. Gen. Walter Sharp, the policy and plans director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

On Friday, Paul Bremer contradicted Sharp's contradiction: we'll leave if the Iraqis ask us to, he said. Finally, later on Friday, Colin Powell, echoed by the foreign ministers of Britain, Italy and Japan, confirmed that this was everyone's policy: the Iraqis are in charge after June 30. If they want us to leave, we'll leave.

Like me, Spencer Ackerman wonders what the hell is going on here:

more - skim half way down the page: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com

[leftofthedial]

1. the RW base doesn't care.

the RW base is about power, not about principle

[salin]

3. you are right about the strategists and politicians

that is why Newt kept ascending even after bush1 got defeated. But the voters turned on bush1 and for years moaned about not having taken care of the job (getting saddam) when the chance was had. I think there is a huge potential similar reaction were he to do this - largely due to the images/rationales he and his admin used to sell the war in the first place.

[Sagan]

2. I keep saying this...

They can't do it. The Chimpministration categorized the Iraq War as a war against Terror. If we leave, we lose the battle and Chimpy is the man who lost Iraq to Al Queda.

Also, the Iraq war was justified by mixing in 9/11, which a LOT of Repugs will throw at you if you mention how stupid the war is. If Chimpy bugs out, then 9/11 is "unavenged".

The Chimpministration is cornered by its own false rhetoric.

[salin]

4. agreed

but these folks are so arrogant, they continue to believe that they can continue to spin the public and that the public will follow. It astounds me the arrogance that they demonstrate - and pulling back and believing that their own web of rhetoric can be spun and the public will buy it would be an example of it. Until readiing Bremer AND Powell saying this, I would never have even entertained the thought that they might do this - for the very reason you suggest.

But suddenly... have to wonder...

[ZCFlint05]

5. The reaction...

I honestly think there would be some backlash, and I don't think Bush will folllow through with this promise. He'll find a "convienent" excuse, and I highly doubt the hand pick Iraqi government will find a reason to make the US leave. This will all but assure more US deaths in Iraq, and there will be enormous backlash from the Iraqi citizenry after these elections are over and the US is not gone.

[SilasSoule]

6. The risk is too high of the whole situation turning into a deeper

regional destablizng quagmire. All out civil war, Iran Invading in an attempt to seize IRAQ's Shiite's strongholds, Kurds fighting Sunni's etc. They won't do it.

[salin]

9. I don't think they will do it - but for political reasons

* keeps saying "I say what I mean and I do what I say..."

And while you are correct about the chaos - the current pentagon and admin strategists have already demonstrated time and time again that they are not really concerned about the potential fractional war/chaos that results from their actions. That seems not to figure in to their decision making process.

[NNN0LHI]

7. 1000s of US casualties. $200 billion spent. To put an ayatollah in charge?

If Bush does this he will not be running for president. This is why Kerry needs to stay hawkish for the time being.

Don

[submerged99]

8. It would split the True Believers from the Neo-cons

I don't think the True Believers would care what Bush does. They believe he has been annointed by God and, therefore, his decisions are infallible. The Neo-cons, on the other hand, would be livid if he were to pull out of Iraq. They would denounce him as a "cut and run appeaser" for pulling out of Iraq. As it is, they want him to invade Syria and Iran--pulling out of Iraq would be the tipping point for the neo-cons. Rove would have to weigh whether or losing the Neo-cons would be worth it to win back over the Paleos who are wavering. I think they would most not pull out because there exists and uneasy truce between all right wingers at this point. To pull out would force the issue and result in splits.