Posts
The Dems have their own
problems, but two Republican Senators who may run for president were on the ABC Sunday Morning Show and though I missed most of McCain [except his somewhat impolitic endorsement of the Colts over the Bears in vote-rich Chicago], Hagel came across as querulous and defensive on his answers to GS's pointed questions about "what exactly are you for?"
Hagel almost resented the question, and when GS prodded him for specifics, started to retort in a three-octave range that made him sound like Dennis Kucinich. Truth is, Hagel has no answer to the NIE report that American withdrawal will leave Iraq and the whole region in a complete shambles and perhaps region-wide war.
And Hagel mentioned "McCain" several times in a somewhat disrespectful way, not calling him "Senator McCain," while giving other Senators their due as "Senator Clinton" and "Senator Biden." Not to mention Hagel's evasive answers to GS's points, which he answered by "read the [Levin/Hagel] proposal," without spelling out the specifics which would answer GS's queries. Methinks this gruff and unready persona won't play well in a national contest for pres, which GS asked Hagel about and which Hagel dodged. Could be a one-hit wonder.
And the Dems refuse to answer this elephant-in-the-living-room question. Yes, we are in the middle of a civil war [or several civil wars, as Iraq devolves into a Hobbesian war of all against all], but the implosion of an early American exit would bring in overt Iranian support for the Shi'ites, Saudi/Egyptian/Jordanian support for Sunnis, and a possible Turkish incursion into Kurdistan. The US "occupying forces" are now actually desired by most Iraqis, if only to avert an even worse situation. A recent poll studiously ignored by the ultra-left MSM demonstrates that most Sunnis and half the Shi'ites and all the Kurds support the US presence.
And a participant in the NIE exercise told me he spent months in hammer-and-tongs robust debate in the composition of the Estimate, classified Top Secret, only to see not only the unclassified but some highly classified material on the front page of the Washington Post on Friday morning. The Post, of course, emphasized the negative half-empty glass. For its ultra-left reasons, the Post avoided mentioning much about the catastrophe awaiting the region should the US heed the Kucinich/Edwards wing of the Democratic Party.
2 comments :
I don't think you can call the Post "ultra-left" on this issue. They supported the invasion and really have not substantially wavered from that position, despite the absence of WMD, Al Qaeda, etc. Their reporters are probably on the left, but the editorial position is not. (BTW, I'm on the left on this issue, pretty much General Odem's position.)
The US "occupying forces" are now actually desired by most Iraqis, if only to avert an even worse situation.
I do not care if the Iraqis want us there. Is it good for the U.S. or bad for the U.S. to be there?
My response would have been: Yes, if we withdraw, Iraq will likely collapse into shambles and ignite some sort of regional conflict. Nothing we can do by staying will prevent that. I'd rather get it over with now than stay another five years and eventually have the coppalpse come while we have large, large numbers of troops on the ground.
Besides, if preventing a region-wide conflict were really so important to the pro-warriors, they wouldn't be pushing to expand the war to Iran and Syria.
Post a Comment