Imagine that same person expressing befuddlement over the criticism of Donald Rumsfeld all the while Iraq was going up in flames, going so far to ridicule and condemn those who did so.
Imagine that same person excidedly report that WMD had been found in Iraq, if only the Bush-hating, terror-emboldening press would report it.
Imagine the same blogger wondering why we weren't invading Iran, given the obvious success of Iraq.
Now that same "war blogger" offers oh-so-authoritatively to conduct a symposium on Iraq. Where do I sign up?
IF THE LEAKS ARE TO BE BELIEVED -- and given such a group of experienced leakmeisters, I suspect they are -- then the Iraq Study Group's recommendations are likely to be weak tea indeed: Basically, we shall continue to muddle through, while rededicating ourselves to finishing the job at a time, and in a manner, not clearly specified.There are people who've been suggesting something beyond "cut and run" or "stay the course" (both Republican slogans) for months: they're called Democrats, you know, the people Putz calls seditious and unserious. Google Kerry, Murtha, Clark or Biden and you'll find plenty of alternatives to those two vapid Rovian marketing phrases.
Well, muddling through is underrated as a tactic, actually, and it's no surprise that a bunch of old-time Establishment guys haven't come up with anything revolutionary. In fact, it seems as if Donald Rumsfeld, judging by his classified memo thoughtfully leaked to the New York Times, remains more open to new ideas than many of his critics, who often seem stuck in 1968.So can the blogosphere do better? I'm going to try a blog symposium on Iraq, Iran, and Syria. I want some new ideas -- beyond "cut and run" or "stay the course" -- on things we're not doing that we should be doing.
Two points here. One, there is no solution to Iraq. Two, if there was one, it sure as shit wouldn't come from Putz.