Right out of the gate he makes a major and entirely avoidable mistake:
Now that the president has endorsed the Petraeus-Crocker plan for Iraq, it is worth noting one exchange from their Senate hearings.
As Bush once upon a time reminded us on a near daily basis, he is the Commander in Chief during a time of war. Petraeus reports to him. The Petraeus-Crocker plan is his plan. As such, the idea that he could "endorse" it is nonsense. What, does Broder really think that this "endorsement" was ever in doubt? That it was actually possible for Petraeus to show up on the Hill, deliver his very public report, and then have the president turn around and reject it? Of course not. But if not, then why frame it this way? Words matter. You would think the "Dean" of the press corps would understand this.
The rest of the column is Broder's usual nonsense about the goodness and wisdom of noble, middle of the road politicians. In this case, the hero is the oh so moderate and oh so serious Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Here's one example from Broder of what makes Graham so special:
"I am sick and tired of people posing choices between the two extremes; I want reality-based policy. [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid is as bad as Rumsfeld was in rejecting reality. He said in April that the war is lost, and he refuses to accept anything else."
But Graham said that he thought Crocker was "making a pretty major statement that the clock is running out on the Maliki government -- and we can have an effect on it by what we do here.""There are alternatives," he said -- Shiite political leaders who are willing, for example, to tour the Baghdad jails with Graham and be photographed with Sunnis who are protesting the imprisonment of so many of their coreligionists. "The good news," Graham said, "is that Kurds and Sunnis and Shiites are ready to play politics. Judges feel more secure because of the surge, and that is important, because all of them have experienced rough justice.
"What we do can affect the outcome. But if we don't see progress on two of the three big issues -- oil revenues, de-Baathification, provincial elections -- in the next 90 days, it may not happen. And Iraq could be a failed state."
So Reid is "rejecting reality" because he has reached a conclusion that Graham has not. Note, however, that Graham hints that if certain conditions are not met within the next 90 days, he too may reach a similar conclusion. I can't help but wonder - if Graham's worst case scenario comes to pass, what will he think of Reid then? Rather than see him as detached from reality, will he turn around and recognize him as a prophet, someone who was able to see the truth before him?
Graham doesn't say. Neither does Broder. That is of course to be expected. To men like them, "moderate" and "centrist" means nothing more than agreeing with their world view. Recognizing that, I can't help but wonder: is this really the best we as a nation can do?
Subscribe to this blog's feed
