Washington Spins â€œDemocratsâ€™ Iraq Fantasiesâ€Â
If you wander over to the Washington Post and click on the headline Ã¢â‚¬Å“The DemocratsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ Iraq Fantasies,Ã¢â‚¬Â you will be taken to Ã¢â‚¬Å“Stumped,Ã¢â‚¬Â a regular Ã¢â‚¬Å“Ask AmyÃ¢â‚¬Â type WaPo column by Andres Martinez (it should be called Ã¢â‚¬Å“Ask a MoronÃ¢â‚¬Â).
Once there, you will find this ganglia-jarring bit of stupidity:
Although invading Iraq was a mistake, pulling out hastily may only compound it. How, exactly, do Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton propose to withdraw American troops from Iraq while preventing a civil war and the ensuing instability in the region? If, in the final analysis, the conclusion is that things were better before the invasion, then the pullout will definitely mark the beginning of the end for America's leadership role in the world.
-- Carl from Caracas
This week's testimony on Capitol Hill by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker once again made clear that it is easier to criticize the status quo, and the Bush administration's past decision-making on Iraq, than it is to offer a wise exit strategy for the future.
That, folks, is called analysis-by-assertion. The testimony only showed that A) Petraeus and Crocker are bald-faced liars, but we already knew that, and B) the greatest barrier to withdrawal is, in fact, the DC political class.
While John McCain is stuck supporting the surge ad infinitum, assuring Americans that we will prevail in Iraq in this century if not the next (and don't ask him to define success, you'll know it when you see it), the two Democratic presidential candidates have now embraced campaign-driven (i.e., fantasyland-based) tidy exit timetables.