No, Mr. Cohen
Every once in a while, Richard Cohen gets something right.
This is not one of those times.
We are hardly getting "mauled" in Afghanistan- though our refusal to commit the necessary resources may yet snatch defeat fromt he jaws of victory. And even in Iraq, it's a lack of leadership on the part of an administration unwilling to put the case clearly and strongly to the American people, to ask us to pay the price- and to respond with the necessary levels of force that has created the hole we've dug for ourselves. Reversing these things might yet get us out of that hole.
Cohen raves about "the administration's mauling of the truth" in its "mad rush to war." The rush took twelve years- and in case Cohen doesn't read the newspapers, not only has the Wilson/Plame/Corn slander been exposed for the falsehood it is (Wilson, not Bush, lied), but Mr. Bush's claim about Saddam seeking yellowcake in Niger has been vindicated. Moreover, Saddam- for the millionth time- did have those WMD's; we've found many of them, and the rest- whether destroyed or (as the Israelis think) redeployed to Syrian and/or Lebanon, it was only the imminent threat of military force that made it happen. And again for the millionth time, those seventeen UN resolutions and the treaty which ended the 1991 war did not simply require Saddam to get rid of the WMD's he admitted having and even catalogued. They required that he destroy them under UN supervision- and he never so much as accounted for them.
As the Security Council noted more than once, and in great detail.
Cohen- talking tough, liberal-style- says that he'd love to kill Osama with his bare hands. But in the meantime, is it too much to ask that he stop providing Osama with propaganda- and such spurious propaganda as this, at that?
HT: Real Clear Politics
This is not one of those times.
We are hardly getting "mauled" in Afghanistan- though our refusal to commit the necessary resources may yet snatch defeat fromt he jaws of victory. And even in Iraq, it's a lack of leadership on the part of an administration unwilling to put the case clearly and strongly to the American people, to ask us to pay the price- and to respond with the necessary levels of force that has created the hole we've dug for ourselves. Reversing these things might yet get us out of that hole.
Cohen raves about "the administration's mauling of the truth" in its "mad rush to war." The rush took twelve years- and in case Cohen doesn't read the newspapers, not only has the Wilson/Plame/Corn slander been exposed for the falsehood it is (Wilson, not Bush, lied), but Mr. Bush's claim about Saddam seeking yellowcake in Niger has been vindicated. Moreover, Saddam- for the millionth time- did have those WMD's; we've found many of them, and the rest- whether destroyed or (as the Israelis think) redeployed to Syrian and/or Lebanon, it was only the imminent threat of military force that made it happen. And again for the millionth time, those seventeen UN resolutions and the treaty which ended the 1991 war did not simply require Saddam to get rid of the WMD's he admitted having and even catalogued. They required that he destroy them under UN supervision- and he never so much as accounted for them.
As the Security Council noted more than once, and in great detail.
Cohen- talking tough, liberal-style- says that he'd love to kill Osama with his bare hands. But in the meantime, is it too much to ask that he stop providing Osama with propaganda- and such spurious propaganda as this, at that?
HT: Real Clear Politics
Comments
I listened to the President call this a struggle for civilization, and not call for more. The Marines are saying that we're losing Anbar (politically, not militarily) to Al Queada in Iraq.
NATO is losing ground to the Taliban because, among other reasons, member nations have not their obligations to send troops.
I don't understand this man. How can he believe this is the "decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century" and not call on every last drop of effort from every man, woman and child?
And his notion of the end of the war? Some sort of liberty garden that parts the clouds of war?
I could support a President who called for more, for enough troops to get it done. I could support a President who called for leaving. Standing around as a target helps us not at all.
To call for more would be nearly impossible. "Privately, off line, what commanders, again, from Baghdad to Ramadi, will tell you is that they need at least three times as many troops as they currently have there now, be that Iraqi and American or, even better, just three times as many as American troops." [CNN via rawstory] That's adding more than 250,000 troops (which I'm pretty sure we don't have waiting in reserve), not counting replacements, armored vehicles and vests, etc.
To call for leaving would be an admission that our lofty rhetoric set our goals too high.
To stand around as a target kills our soldiers and kills our hope.
- Scott H
To call for leaving would be to call for abandoning the people of Iraq to a civil war bloodier than nearly any conflict in modern history. It would be (and is) totally irresponsible. Though I do agree that we need to drastically increase the number of troops in Iraq as soon as possible.
The President is gambling that we can keep the lid on for the year or so it will take for the Iraqis themselves to take over. I don't think it's a good gamble. Nor do we finally have any option but to send those extra troops, no matter what the political cost.