Of course, he doesn't give a rat's fanny about Iraq or the United States or winning the war on terror, or anything else that one should care about. He's worried that the Democrats rush to surrender strategy will marginalize the party for generations.
In all likelihood, when the Democratic president pulls US troops out in summer of 2009, all hell is going to break loose. The consequences may include even higher petroleum prices than we have seen recently, which at some point could bring back stagflation or very high rates of inflation.
In other words, the Democratic president risks being Fordized when s/he withdraws from Iraq, by the aftermath. A one-term president associated with humiliation abroad and high inflation at home? Maybe I should say, Carterized. The Republican Party could come back strong in 2012 and then dominate politics for decades, if that happened.
It is all so unfair, of course, since Bush started and prosecuted this disaster in Iraq, and Bush is refusing to accept responsibility for the failure, pushing it off onto his successor.
And then comes this howler:
As for Iraq itself, the best hope for the Dems may be that Gen. Petraeus actually succeeds, over the next year, in significantly reducing ethnic tensions. It is a slim reed to hold onto, as they recognize.
Now that would be a bitter pill - the Democrats' only escape from the corner they've painted themselves into is for the US to win?
Talk about ironic.
No comments:
Post a Comment