See, it's one thing to be Republican/conservative. It's another thing to be willfully blind and mendacious. Debra Saunders manages to cover all the major food groups.
In today's column, "With friends like these", Saunders accuses the Democrats "and their surrogates" of flinging about insults against our fearless leader, Bush, Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi, and our willing coalition partners, and she asserts that they "make it harder for Iraqis, Americans and U.S. allies to win the war. Then they call themselves patriots."
Apparently in Saunders' world, what people say about a war has more impact on its success or failure than the rationale, planning and execution of such war. Never mind Abu Ghraib, the dismantling of the Iraqi army, the lack of security and electricity, the hundreds of other miscalculations... we need a little positive thinking here, people!
Does she even care that most of Bush's statements on Iraq's progress are demonstrably false? That a number of the U.K. military deaths in Iraq were from "friendly fire"? Has she bothered to compare the Iraq II coalition to that of Iraq I?And why doesn't she care about Allawi's past?
Her implication that we'd call the Iraqi civilians who have tried to become security force members in their country and been killed for their trouble "puppets" makes me angrier than anything else, I think. Well, right back atcha, babe. Would you call all the civilians, the women and children killed in this war, "terrorists", too?
I suppose I agree with her on one thing. Extreme language isn't going to win us anything. Only honest and good policy. Sadly, she supports the team that gives us anything but.
Edited to add: Y'know, somehow I don't think having the CIA meddle in the new "free elections" helps the American cause in Iraq either. Call me negative. Credit goes to Juan Cole for pointing it out. (I also appreciate his taking issue with the language about Pelosi coming "unglued" when she was merely and rightfully outraged.)
