Famous Last Words

Jason Zengerle today:

Worst op-ed of the (admittedly still young) year? Liz Cheney's Hannity-esque effort on Iraq in today's WaPo. It's a really thing of wonder.

And it really is a sucky op-ed. That said, I'm not sure how it differs in substance from what I believe is The New Republic's most recent editorial on Iraq from November just after the election:

Many Democrats have embraced a proposal called "phased redeployment," a politically expedient way of saying immediate withdrawal. Their proposal, which calls for departures beginning in four to six months, doesn't allow the time and space for the arduous work that a political settlement requires--the kind of agreement that will ultimately allow us to leave with the least damage to the Iraqi people and our own interests. Proponents of "redeployment" might argue that the president will enact any new course as ineptly as he did before--a very reasonable fear. But, having achieved new majorities, the Democrats must use their oversight capability to ensure that this does not happen. This can no longer be a one-party war.

Obviously, this is written with a more TNR-style sneer than a Hannity-style one, and those are different brands of sneer. The substantive points, however, strike me as very similar. And more important, the policy objective -- supporting Bush and his open-ended military commitment to Iraq -- are actually identical.

Comments

Comparing the leading 'liberal' magazine to the scribblings of Cheney nepotism: you are hitting below the belt!

Posted by otto | January 23, 2007 10:09 AM

Nothing wrong with purely stylistic craft criticism. It’s all the more aggravating if the stupidly argued position is the one you’re trying to make look smart. Practical political consequences aside, there’s the narcissistic injury that comes with being tethered to idiots.

Posted by KH | January 23, 2007 10:39 AM

This can no longer be a one-party war.

True. The solution, though, is not to fight a two-party war, but to draw back, so we have a two-party non-war. There's no upside in giving the Bush administration any bipartisan legitimacy for an intensified war, either in domestic politics or foreign policy.

Posted by dj moonbat | January 23, 2007 10:39 AM

I'm really enjoying this new, fuck-TNR-and-the-Israel-Lobby Matt. Great going!

Posted by Marshall | January 23, 2007 11:21 AM

Tracked back. We caught oblique references to The Desert Fox: The Story of Rommel (starring James Mason) and First Blood in Libby Cheney's editorial. Delightful pop-culture fodder.

Posted by Ultima Ratio | January 23, 2007 12:10 PM

One difference I noticed is that TNR hasn't so far suggested that Clinton is willing to invade a foreign country and kill hundreds of thousands of people, including thousands of US soldiers, as part of her presidential campaign. So that's one for their side.

Posted by Hogan | January 23, 2007 12:52 PM

The TNR piece also has the decency to not make me gag with lines like this:

"Sen. Joseph Lieberman is the only national Democrat showing any courage on this issue."

Always nice when courage is equated with being blindly oblivious to, well, everything.

Posted by socratic_me | January 23, 2007 1:06 PM

In politics, it's like the famous "too thin or too rich" dictum: you can't be too simplistic.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | January 23, 2007 2:06 PM

Existential Threat? Not hardly. The administration's actions show pretty blatantly that even Cheney doesn't believe that tripe. No draft, no increase in force size (until just lately), ongoing generous tax cuts, etc. etc. As in Vietnam, they feel free to talk the war up while voting with their feet along with the majority: "this is not our war."

Quitting helps the terrorists? Perhaps. But continuing to police the sectarian civil war our stupidly ill-conceived invasion predictably unleashed arguably helps the terrorists even more.

Not really worth the effort to refute, but opponents could stand to be more direct in calling BS on the mixed messages out of the administration. "WE'RE AT WAR!!!!!!! .... um.... (here's your tax cut, sir, keep the donations coming ....)

Posted by STS | January 23, 2007 2:36 PM

"Sen. Joseph Lieberman is the only national Democrat showing any courage on this issue."

I'm pretty sure that's implied at a magazine that's been nicknamed "Joe Lieberman Weekly."

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 23, 2007 3:44 PM

I just learned that Martin Peretz is on the "Advisory Committee" of Scooter Libby's defense fund. Maybe that's well known, but I didn't know it.

Posted by Marshall | January 23, 2007 8:59 PM

The opposition to "open-ended war" is inane and incoherent. What's the virtue in determining the "closed end" to a war, short of winning it? "We'll try only this hard to win. But no harder. Just in case our enemies were wondering." If the enemy favors an "open-ended war," don't we have to fight one, too, unless the plan is to lose?

Bush can be faulted for mismanaging the war. Deeply. And Congress should've been more assertive in its oversight responsibility. But getting into the business of putting pre-conceived limits on Bush's exercise of his C-in-C duties is doomed, completely doomed, to failure and fiasco. Good politics for today, maybe (doubtful); horrible politics and even worse policy, down the road.

Posted by John S. | January 24, 2007 12:56 AM