Thu Nov 9, 12:14 AM ET
Iraq. Iraq. Iraq.
Snip...
The vote was a rejection of the president's war effort.
That means more than Donald Rumsfeld's "fresh eyes."
It means more than replacing Rummy.
Changing deck chairs on the Titanic will not do the job.
If the lesson of Vietnam was that a war cannot be sustained without public support, how can this war be sustained?
If that wasn't the lesson, what was?
If John Kerry wasn't so tarnished, he might be able to point it out. But he is. Even in an excellent wave, there are casualties; in this one, he was the Democrat who got destroyed. Does he know yet? Who will tell the candidate? Candidates and would-be candidates tend to live in bubbles surrounded by people who tell them what they want to hear -- yes-men and women is what they are, and visiting yes-men -- which is the easiest thing to say anyway.
A Democratic House cannot force the president to end the war, at least not without doing the kind of harm to the troops that they would not do. But they can certainly keep the focus there, particularly with presidential politics looming in the background. With the nominations of both parties up for grabs (no incumbent, no Vice President), people are going to pay attention to the machinations between Congress and the president for only so long, which is to say, not very long. If the president doesn't start moving decisively on the war during that period, it is all you will hear about during the long presidential campaign, which is about to begin.
more...Seriously, is she serious?
:rofl: