L.A. Times Article On How Bush Wants to Leave Iraq to His Successor

The L.A. Times posted an article on its website dated September 11, 2007 on how Bush plans to leave a large military presence in Iraq to his successor. This will ensure that any consequences of an American withdrawal will be on his successor's watch, not his. The author points out that in 2003 Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, said it would take 10 years to stabilize Iraq and, according to a State Department source, that's what it is going to take.

Politically this approach also offers some political cover to Republicans. The thinking is that they will be able to argue next year that the war is winding down and troops are coming home, even though it will be less than 20% of the number of troops are scheduled to come home next year. (That 20%, by the way, apparently is 20% of the number there now, after the so-called "surge" as compared to 20% of the number that were there prior to the "surge.")

This policy is, of course, completely in keeping with Bush's character. He has always left messes for others to clean up. His whole life has been about avoid taking responsibility for his own mistakes. What is irritating about this situation is not just Bush's refusal to take responsibility, but also why Democrats don't point this out to voters. Prominent Democrats, like our presidential candidates, should point this out. They should point out that of course Bush is going to leave it to others to clean up his Iraq mess, because that's what he does and who he is.