Refusing To Deal With Reality
Even the Washington Post is having a very hard time with the refusal of the Democrats running for the presidential nomination to deal with the reality of improvements in Iraq. They point out that the candidates appear to be unable to acknowledge the improvements and are, in fact, lying when they talk about Iraq these days. Pretty strong, especially for a major media outlet.
A reasonable response to these facts might involve an acknowledgment of the remarkable military progress, coupled with a reminder that the final goal of the surge set out by President Bush — political accords among Iraq's competing factions — has not been reached. (That happens to be our reaction to a campaign that we greeted with skepticism a year ago.) It also would involve a willingness by the candidates to reconsider their long-standing plans to carry out a rapid withdrawal of remaining U.S. forces in Iraq as soon as they become president — a step that would almost certainly reverse the progress that has been made.
What Ms. Clinton, Mr. Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson instead offered was an exclusive focus on the Iraqi political failures — coupled with a blizzard of assertions about the war that were at best unfounded and in several cases simply false. Mr. Obama led the way, claiming that Sunni tribes in Anbar province joined forces with U.S. troops against al-Qaeda in response to the Democratic victory in the 2006 elections — a far-fetched assertion for which he offered no evidence.
Mr. Obama acknowledged some reduction of violence, but said he had predicted that adding troops would have that effect. In fact, on Jan. 8, 2007, he said that in the absence of political progress, "I don't think 15,000 or 20,000 more troops is going to make a difference in Iraq and in Baghdad." He also said he saw "no evidence that additional American troops would change the behavior of Iraqi sectarian politicians and make them start reining in violence by members of their religious groups." Ms. Clinton, for her part, refused to retract a statement she made in September, when she said it would require "a suspension of disbelief" to believe that the surge was working.
Of course, the Post and the rest of the media helped create the toxic atmosphere that the Democrats were so happy to posture about and pander to when things were not going so well, so they are not above all this. But still, even at this late date they realize that it would be a disaster for America and for the Iraqi people if the US simply walked away. That's a start. It doesn't seem likely the Democrats will acknowledge the real gains, though. At least until after the primaries.
Other Links to this Post
-
Polimom Says » Moot promises — January 8, 2008 @ 10:25 am
-
Blue Crab Boulevard » Getting It Right In Iraq — January 10, 2008 @ 8:30 am
By Sam L, January 8, 2008 @ 9:13 am
So…does it mean anything that Hillary is “Ms.” and Obama is “Mr.” and
Edwards is “John” and Richardson is “Bill”? I have to think so.
By martian, January 9, 2008 @ 10:30 am
“They point out that the candidates appear to be unable to acknowledge the improvements and are, in fact, lying when they talk about Iraq these days.”
The Democrats have been lying about Iraq and progress made there since the week after the initial invasion. They have gone out of their way to exagerate problems and negatives, leave out facts, refuse to acknowledge any positive information and even make things up when necessary. It has been part of their “Prime Directive” of “Destroy Bush at any cost” since day one. The MSM, icluding the Post, have been eager and willing collaborators and partners in this endeavor. For them to act surprised at this point is rather disingenuous of them.
In order to hang onto support from the nutroots, the candidates have to continue the charade because the nutroots themselves don’t acknowledge that there has been any progress. If a candidate doesn’t go along with this, the nutroots will ignore that candidate along with the facts and the candidate then loses all support from the far left base.