The following passage by Fred Hiatt the Washington Post got a strong response from Daily Kos’s frontpage blogger Armando:
. . . Congress . . . pours most of its Iraq-related energy into allegations of manipulated intelligence before the war. “Those aren’t irrelevant questions,” says Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.). “But the more they dominate the public debate, the harder it is to sustain public support for the war.”
What Lieberman doesn’t say is that many Democrats would view such an outcome as an advantage. Their focus on 2002 is a way to further undercut President Bush, and Bush’s war, without taking the risk of offering an alternative strategy — to satisfy their withdraw-now constituents without being accountable for a withdraw-now position.
Many of them understand that dwindling public support could force the United States into a self-defeating position, and that defeat in Iraq would be disastrous for the United States as well as for Mahdi and his countrymen. But the taste of political blood as Bush weakens, combined with their embarrassment at having supported the war in the first place, seems to override that understanding.
Here’s what Armando wrote in response:
You no good SOB Hiatt. You have been irresponsible, grossly negligent, ingenuous and a Bush lackey on Iraq for 4 years now and you have the gall to write those words. You despicable McCarthyite cretin.
We’re not supposed to say this anymore – but eff you [Kos bloggers have been debating the use of the F-Word this weekend]. How dare you question the patriotism of people who are doing what YOU have failed to do – hold the Bush Administration to account? How dare you?
Your editorial page has always “clapped louder” at the behest of the Bush Administration. Now you dare to SMEAR Dems at the whistle of the worst President in history? How dare you sir?
He continues:
Fred Hiatt should immediately resign his position. He has no credibility to comment on any issue.
Actually, Armando posted the final paragraph cited from the Washington Post column in all bold:
Many of them [Democrats] understand that dwindling public support could force the United States into a self-defeating position, and that defeat in Iraq would be disastrous for the United States as well as for Mahdi and his countrymen. But the taste of political blood as Bush weakens, combined with their embarrassment at having supported the war in the first place, seems to override that understanding.
Armando is wrong to be so upset about Hiatt telling the truth. Bush fucked up, big time. The war was wrong to enter into, and is wrong to keep going. The Democrats also fucked up, big time. They were afraid that Bush’s rhetoric would blow them out of the water, and unsure of how things would go in Iraq. So they went with the safer political route of lining up behind Bush. 2002 and 2003 were tough political times, and Bush is to blame for exploiting the conditions following 9/11. But the Democrats were outplayed, and that marks a basic failure on their part as the opposition party. Moreover, Bush is extreme, calling for an extreme response that the Democrats failed to muster when it was most critical.
Democrats are still playing it safe, as Hiatt points out. I am not sure if we can expect anything more, given the political realities Democrats face. That Democrats are fucking up by playing it safe isn’t enough to make me outright reject the Democrats, especially given the alternative. But that doesn’t’ t mean that I am going to stick my head in the sand and ignore what is plainly obvious.
The best people in place to change the course of the war are Democrats in Congress and in the national spotlight. They’re the best we’ve got. So I’ll keep backing them, as they try to navigate dangerous political territory of opposing a war while it’s being carried out. And since they are all we’ve got, let’s not use their past failures prevent them from voicing concerns now.
Cross posted: Political Porn
