The Boston Globe:
With the media at last paying attention to the progress in Iraq, shouldn't leading Democrats think about doing the same? Perhaps this would be a good time for Hillary Clinton to express regret for telling Petraeus that his recent progress report on Iraq required "a willing suspension of disbelief" - in effect, calling him a liar. Perhaps Senate majority leader Harry Reid should admit that he may have been wrong to declare so emphatically: "This war is lost, and the surge is not accomplishing anything."
All of the Democratic presidential candidates have been running on a platform of abandoning Iraq. At the recent debate in Las Vegas, they refused to relax their embrace of defeat even when asked about the striking evidence of improvement. They continued to insist that "the surge is not working" (Bill Richardson), that "the occupation is fueling the insurgency" (Dennis Kucinich), and that the "strategy is failed" and we must "get our troops out" (Barack Obama).
Blind opposition to war that seems lost is understandable. But can Democrats be so invested in defeat that they would abandon even a war that may be winnable? With developments in Iraq looking so hopeful, this is no time to cling to a counsel of despair.
Hillary yesterday:
"I think the American military, if you put enough forces anywhere, is going to score successes,” Clinton said. “That’s not really the question. The question is whether there is a military solution, engineered by the American military, for the problems in Iraq, and I don’t believe there is a military solution."
Monday, November 26, 2007
Invested in Defeat?
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 6:37 AM
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
|