THE SOFT BIGOTRY OF IRAQ

NOTE: Before you read this article, understand that it is an editorial. That is, it is the voice of the editors of the paper. The New York Times is generally believed to have a more left leaning editorial voice. That is to say, they generally have more sympathy with the Democratic Party's policy goals than with the Republican's.

Editorial
The Soft Bigotry of Iraq
The New York Times
Published: May 7, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/07/opinion/07mon1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Whether out of blind loyalty or blind denial, most Congressional Republicans are prepared to back up President Bush’s veto of the Iraq spending bill. It is now essential that the revised version not back away from demanding that Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, finally deliver on the crucial national reconciliation measures he has spent the last year dodging. And it must make clear that American support for his failures — and Mr. Bush’s — is fast waning.

[Why did President Bush veto the Iraq spending Bill? The New York Times suggests that there are two reasons the Republicans are still supporting Mr. Bush. What are they? And what is "national reconciliation"?]

What Mr. Maliki needs to do to slow Iraq’s bloodletting is no mystery. Iraq’s security forces must stop siding with the Shiite militias. Iraq’s oil revenue must be apportioned fairly. Anti-Baathist laws now used to deny Sunni Arabs employment and political opportunities must be rewritten to target only those responsible for the crimes of the Saddam Hussein era.

[How many things does the New York Times say that Mr. Maliki needs to do slow the Bloodletting? Do you think any of these would help? Why or why not?]

Without these steps, Mr. Maliki and his allies cannot even minimally claim to be a real national government. With them, there is at least a chance that Iraqis can muster the strength to contain the chaos when, as is inevitable, American forces begin to leave. Mr. Bush acknowledges that these benchmarks are important. Yet he refuses to insist, or let Congress insist, that Baghdad achieve them or face real consequences. Each time Baghdad fails a test, Mr. Bush lowers his requirements and postpones his target dates — the kind of destructive denial Mr. Bush called, in another context, the soft bigotry of low expectations.

[Was does the New York Times say is "inevitable"? Do you agree? What is a benchmark? This is a difficult question, but what is the "soft bigotry of low expectations"?]

Consider the Baghdad security drive. Last week, The Washington Post reported that Mr. Maliki’s office had helped instigate the firing of senior Iraqi security officers who moved aggressively against a powerful Shiite militia. After betting so many American lives, the combat readiness of the United States Army and his own remaining credibility on this bloody push to secure the capital, it is a mystery why Mr. Bush would allow the Iraqi leader to undermine it.

[What is undermining Mr. Bush's credibility?]

Then there is the endless soap opera that is one day supposed to produce a fair share-out of Iraqi oil revenues. The Bush administration prematurely popped champagne corks in February when Mr. Maliki’s cabinet agreed on a preliminary draft. Now, in May, there is no share-out, no legislation and even the preliminary agreement is starting to unravel. The leading Sunni Arab party in Mr. Maliki’s cabinet is now threatening to withdraw its ministers, declaring that it has “lost hope” that the Iraqi leader will deal seriously with Sunni concerns.

[What is the metaphorical languange in this paragraph? What is happening, or rather not happening, with the Iraqi oil revenues?]

Mr. Bush, by contrast, sees “signs of hope” in the Baghdad security situation, urges Americans to give his failed policies more time and seems offended that Congress wants to impose accountability on Baghdad and the White House.

[How are the Democrats trying to "impose accountability"? There is at least one excellent example of metonymy in the above paragraph. What is it?]

The final version of the spending bill should include explicit benchmarks and timetables for the Iraqis, even if Mr. Bush won’t let Congress back them up with a clear timetable for America’s withdrawal. If Mr. Maliki and Mr. Bush still don’t get it, Congress will have to enact new means of enforcement, and back that up with a veto-proof majority.

[What does it mean "not to get it"? In the opinion of the New York Times what must happen "If Mr. Maliki and Mr. Bush still don't get it"? What does a "veto-proof majority" mean? And finally (and this is a big question), what do you think is going to happen in Iraq?]