Monday, August 14, 2006

Bush's Iraq fiasco: "sensible" defense policy.

For crying out loud.
MICHAEL BARONE thinks a McCain-Lieberman ticket would be well-nigh unbeatable. I'm not sure how I feel about that -- they're both nanny-staters with whom I'm deeply uncomfortable, but at least they're sensible on defense -- but Barone's analysis is interesting.
Can someone out there please explain how the war in Iraq could be in any way, shape, or form, described as sensible?

This is a war that is going to last longer than WWII, will cost over half-a-trillion dollars, over 2600 American lives, some 20,000 American wounded, and caused 40,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.

This is war that has made Iran the strongest country in the Middle East, has badly damaged the United States' reputation and moral standing around the world. A war that conservatives like Brent Scowcroft and William F. Buckley have already deemed a failure. This is a war hatched by neoconservatives, who George Will just called the most "radical people" in Washington, DC.

This is a war which has less popular support than Vietnam.

Sounds pretty sensible, doesn't it?

No comments: