The thrust of the Vote Vets argument here seems to be that to speak about the truth of US plans in Iraq simply encourages the enemy to fight all that much harder to resist the American occupation.
But hasn't that been the Bush position right from the start? I mean when Bush said we would stay in Iraq not one day longer than necessary, he wasn't saying we wouldn't be there for decades. He was saying that he wanted people to think we wouldn't be there for decades.
Vote Vets seems to think the insurgency in Iraq isn't aware of these US plans.
Bush, on the other hand, isn't naive enough to think the people of Iraq don't know the reality. Bush's concern is that the American public can't know the reality - not yet, anyway. The idea of US troops spending decades in Iraq is a pretty big pill for most Americans to swallow. Bush has insisted that it would be easier to swallow if we all had our eyes shut, and that is the reason why he hasn't mentioned this long-term plan until now.
Why they are mentioning it now is not entirely clear. Did it just slip off the tongue of White House spokesman Tony Snow? Or is this a new strategy for winning long-term support from Congress?
In either case, for Vote Vets to be suggesting that we need to force the American public back into blindness again to protect the troops from the Iraqi resistance movement is just simple Orwellian nonsense. It's just outbushing Bush himself. It is neoconservative in nature, the wolf in sheep's clothing.