The Sanchez Strategy

I suppose I agree with what he's saying, and I certainly understand the logic of using former military officers as spokespeople on national security issues, but I'm really not sure General Ricardo Sanchez is the best front man for an Iraq-related PR drive. I'm just trying to think of what I'd be writing if the Republicans were putting this guy out front and center to be their spokesman. I think what Spencer Ackerman said back in October still applies.

Comments

Why stop at half-measures? Aren't Bill Kristol and Richard Perle pretty critical of Bush's performance these days?

The Democrats should make *them* the Democratic spokesmen on Iraq...

Posted by RKU | November 25, 2007 8:54 PM

Just like the Democrats to take the biggest failure as a US military commander in the last, what, 35 years? 70 years? and make him their military spokesman. Unbelievable.

Posted by Al | November 25, 2007 9:13 PM

This is typical.

There are a dozen well-regarded generals out there highly critical of Iraq. But the Dems want somebody who represents the incompetence and the toadying nature of the Pentagon to represent them.

Naturally, since the Dems are incompetent toadies.

Scratch that. The Dems are STILL behind the Iraq war. They're now talking about not refusing to fund the war regardless. They're now talking about how the Iraq war is going so well that we need to keep supporting it.

When are you so-called "liberals" going to get the picture? They didn't "sell you out" - they NEVER BOUGHT IN, except with a little rhetoric during an election to make sure they got re-elected.

And I'll bet all the liberal pundits will act so surprised when the Dems get behind the Iran war soon.

Like Justin Raimondo always says, the Dems and the Repugs are just part of the single "War Party".

Suckers.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 26, 2007 1:18 AM

Lieutenant General Sanchez is almost a tragic figure. In peacetime his ethic background and inspiring rags-to-general's-rank life story would have made him a favorite to eventually be appointed Chief of Staff of the Army. Even if he had just handled his wartime command semi-competently like Gen. Casey, his career would have still been on track. But instead, his career was effectively ended by having the Abu Ghraib fiasco happen on his watch.

He's obviously a bitter man -- consider his recent tirade at the Press Club. Still, it's amazing that Dems would pick a general who, with Paul Bremer, oversaw what is now considered the clueless phase of the Iraq War to critique the competent phase. It's hard to think of an analogous example of political tone deafness.

Posted by Fred | November 26, 2007 3:24 AM