Oh, Really?
Beinart:
In fact, if you think there is no hope in Iraq, it's better that Bush not fire Rumsfeld. That way, Bush supporters won't be able to pawn off blame on people who took over too late to do any good. Imagine, for instance, if John Kerry had won in 2004. It's unlikely Iraq would be any better today than it is now, but it is very likely that Republicans would be blaming Kerry for the mess. Keeping Rumsfeld has the virtue of clarity. Sending him off to his New Mexico estate--with a "thanks-for-a-great-career" pat on the back, if not a presidential medal of freedom (L. Paul Bremer and George Tenet both have them)--would almost be too kind. Simply serving as secretary of defense in the ugly days to come might be the worst punishment of all.
What a load of shit! "Unlikely"?
Tell us, Peter: How exactly would President John Kerry have worsened circumstances in Iraq? Surely you'll back up that baseless assertion with some facts...
In fact, if you think there is no hope in Iraq, it's better that Bush not fire Rumsfeld. That way, Bush supporters won't be able to pawn off blame on people who took over too late to do any good. Imagine, for instance, if John Kerry had won in 2004. It's unlikely Iraq would be any better today than it is now, but it is very likely that Republicans would be blaming Kerry for the mess. Keeping Rumsfeld has the virtue of clarity. Sending him off to his New Mexico estate--with a "thanks-for-a-great-career" pat on the back, if not a presidential medal of freedom (L. Paul Bremer and George Tenet both have them)--would almost be too kind. Simply serving as secretary of defense in the ugly days to come might be the worst punishment of all.
What a load of shit! "Unlikely"?
Tell us, Peter: How exactly would President John Kerry have worsened circumstances in Iraq? Surely you'll back up that baseless assertion with some facts...
4 Comments:
I've heard some Republicans, and even some Democrats, say that they're glad that Kerry lost because now no one will be able to pin any of the blame for how badly Iraq turned out on him.
Of course, that's not entirely true - there are plenty of Republicans who are willing to put all kinds of bad bad on Dems for speaking out against the war. It's like a drunkard getting behind the wheel, then blaming his passenger for causing an accident when he was screaming at him to pull over.
It's not shit, I don't think. It's absolutely true. John Kerry vs two hostile houses of Congress? Kerry is not Clinton. And I don't think he could have improved the Iraq situation simply because he would have had the Republican Congress fighting him every step of the way. On every single issue. Yes, I still wish Kerry had won. I think some issues would have been improved, especially our relations with other countries, the environment, the radical redistribution of wealth to the "haves," the assault on our Constitution--I know, it sounds like I'm refuting my own point. But, I still think we'd be in the shit on Iraq.
If Kerry had gotten elected and Iraq was still going as badly as it is (which it would have, there's not much that can stop the sunnis and shiites from killing each other) then the Republicans could either keep silent (almost impossible) or complain about it endlessly, which would undermine everything they ever said about criticizing the president during wartime. There wouldn't be enough time between the two and it would be the same war, unlike Kosovo, where partisan Republicans repeatedly critized the war and the president during the conflict, then 4 years later say that do to so constitutes sedition and/or treason.
??
The point is. Starting the war was a huge mistake that costed and will cost for a long time. Once the war was started there wasn't much you could do to "make it better."
Kerry saw that and that's why his lame ass bowed out quickly when he saw that Diebold won in Ohio.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home