who's "detached from reality"?
In an an editorial today the hawkish Washington Post argues that "The president at least recognizes, from "hard experience," how quickly progress in Iraq can unravel". They proceed to castigate the Democrats for being "as detached from reality as they accuse Mr. Bush of being when he decided on the invasion."
They're forced to say, grudgingly and with qualifications, that there might be a sign the Democrats know plans for the Mid-East are never written in stone:
If there was a glimmer of sense in Mr. Obama's speech, it lay in his acknowledgment that "we will have to make tactical adjustments, listening to our commanders on the ground, to ensure that our interests in a stable Iraq are met and to make sure our troops are secure." Ms. Clinton conceded that "the critical question is how we can end this war responsibly" and added "it won't be easy." In fact it will be terribly hard -- and it can't be done responsibly in the way or on the timeline the two Democrats are proposing. We can only hope that, behind their wildly unrealistic campaign rhetoric, the candidates understand that reality.But it's the Post that's out of touch with reality. When was the last time any President took office and did just as he pleased? Even the ones who carried out their major campaign promises had to negotiate with Congress and defer to reality.
Campaign promises are at best a sign - an indication of how the candidate is leaning. McCain will keep us in Iraq for "100 years''. Obama or Clinton will try to get us out.
That's really what it's about.
5 Comments:
-
At 11:21 PM, March 20, 2008
Unknown had this to say...
-
-
At 5:53 AM, March 21, 2008
The Ridger, FCD had this to say...
-
-
At 9:33 AM, March 21, 2008
John B. had this to say...
-
-
At 9:34 AM, March 21, 2008
John B. had this to say...
-
-
At 10:29 AM, March 21, 2008
The Ridger, FCD had this to say...
-
-
<-- Older Post ^ Home Newer Post -->Maybe I'm just cynical, but I don't think any one of the candidates will get us out of Iraq any quicker than the others-- maybe Obama, but not significantly so. When it comes right down to it neither Obama and especially not Clinton will want to risk disaster there. The pullout will be slow and cautious. I take most of their promises as mere platitudes.
I think you mean "either one", not "any one". Because either Obama or Clinton will get us out significantly faster than McCain, who won't get us out at all...
So I don't think "platitude" is the right word. Yes, neither Democrat is likely to really have us out in a couple of years total. But they want us out - Clinton, I think, possibly less so than Obama, she's rather hawkish - and that's the starting point.
That editorial was awful. Like other pro-war arguments that I have read, it fails to articulate what "victory" would be, how to achieve it, and whether it can be realistically achieved. The last question is really the most important. If the answer is "no," then further occupation is pointless, and arguments for staying are "detached from reality."
Plus the editorial gives far too much credence to the idea that the surge has been successful.
The Post has been inexplicably pro-Iraq-war since the run-up started. They've been "so wrong for so long" (as Greg Mitchell's book title puts it) that that no longer surprises me, though it did at the beginning. They're totally slurping the Kool-Ade on this one.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]