Democrats in denial?
To me, the argument over whether or not to stay in Iraq boils down to one issue. One side thinks the war is optional, the other side doesn’t.
Indeed, going to war in Iraq may have been optional, but at this point, that’s not the question. The question is whether staying in Iraq is optional.
William Kristol is making similar points at the Weekly Standard.
…there is still a fundamental difference between the parties. Bush and the Republicans know we are in a serious war. It’s not the Bush administration that is in a “State of Denial” (as the new Bob Woodward book has it). It’s the Democrats.
Democrats admit to a belief that we can pull out of Iraq with zero, or at least bearable costs. But in the recent vote on legislation governing treatment of detainees, we see this attitude extends well beyond Iraq.
That’s why last week’s votes in Congress on the detainees legislation were so significant. The legislation had nothing to do with Iraq. It was a “pure” war-on-terror vote. And the parties split. Three-quarters of the Democrats in the House and Senate stood with the New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union for more rights for al Qaeda detainees, and against legislation supported by the Bush administration (as well as by John McCain and Joe Lieberman).
| More from Karl Lembke
Stumble It!
