The story below on Iraq went up yesterday, but the Vegas debate took the air out of the room in my world.
Seriously, this simply cannot happen.
The Iraqi defense minister said Monday that his nation would not be able
to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012, nor be able
on its own to defend Iraq’s borders from external threat until at least
2018. … ..Pentagon officials expressed no surprise at Mr. Qadir’s projections,
which were even less optimistic than those he made last year.President Bush has never given a date for a military withdrawal from Iraq
but has repeatedly said that American forces would stand down as Iraqi forces
stand up. Given Mr. Qadir’s assessment of Iraq’s military capabilities
on Monday, such a withdrawal appeared to be quite distant, and further away
than any American officials have previously stated in public. … ..
Well I guess we should be happy that it’s not 100 years. Republicans are such
a nightmare it’s hard to know where to start on the dissection of their foreign
policy delusions.
That is not to say that we will not have troops in Iraq once a Democratic president comes in January 2009. We will, but all of our candidates realize that we simply have to redeploy and readjust where and how our force structure is pointed and located. If you heard my interview with Rep. Joe Sestak, you certainly understand what we’re facing.
This leads me to something Olbermann keeps talking about that Clinton has brought up. He continually draws out her remark about what happened when the new British prime minister Gordon Brown came into power, with the failed double bombing attempt on London and Glasgow, saying that she’s fearmongering.
“I don’t think it was by accident that Al Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister,” she said. “They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do…. Let’s not forget you’re hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a president to be there when the chips are down.” – Hillary Clinton (1.07.08)
I’ve got a different take on this. First, what Clinton said is absolutely true, but not in the way Clinton framed it. It’s not just a “new prime minister.” It’s any newly elected candidate in the era we face today. The same thing happened when Bill Clinton took over, which she witnessed as first lady. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing happened in February 1993 just after Bill Clinton took over from George H. W. Bush. The same thing happened to George W. Bush in 2001. I don’t see this as a small point. The changing of parties and presidents (or prime ministers) is a very vulnerable time for any incoming leader. It’s not the fact that he was inexperienced or “new” that got Britain hit. It’s that our enemies thinking strategically can obviously figure out that’s when a country is most vulnerable. In addition, I also believe that all of the Democratic candidates should be talking about this issue, though slightly different than Clinton framed it. The truth is that we’ve been extremely lucky for a very long time. A Democrat who sees himself or herself taking over in ’09 has got to be a bit concerned that our luck may run out, especially considering how poorly Bush has run our homeland security, as well as how much hatred his Administration has inspired around the world. I think Clinton is correctly bringing up a stark reality for the next president who is very likely to be a Democrat. I think implicit in this danger we face is the underlying, abject truth that whoever is our nominee will face a very vulnerable time as president upon walking into office. In 2009, when a Democrat likely takes over and George W. Bush leaves office, there can be no question that this country will be vulnerable. Our recent history proves this out. As for Rachel Maddow’s comments last night about how primary voters will react to Clinton’s comments on this, saying it won’t be good, I can’t tell you. Obama and Edwards will certainly hit it in the days to come. But Clinton is on to something, though I think her framing needs to shift. But maybe you agree with Maddow. I simply do not, because I think the average voter gets the underlying message, which is that these are dangerous times, if only for the obvious reason that Bush’s incompetence puts the next president and this country in a tenuous position that terrorists could exploit. I submit this is inarguable. Pointing out what has happened in recent history brings up challenges for Hillary, but her surrogates, even Bill, could do it. I also think many are starting to look out towards the general election, where language about a dangerous world resonates because it has the virtue of being true.
Those are my thoughts on this. What are yours?
Comments are closed.