The New York Times has two interesting editorials today, one by Nicholas Kristof entitled "An Escalation of American Blood," and another by the paper's eeditorial board, "Past Time to Get Real on Iraq." The gist of these two editorials is simple, that Bush's planned "surge" of troops in Iraq is a classic case of "too little, too late." Or, to put it another way, Busy's plan, if one can call it a "plan," is merely a warmed over version of the "same old, same old." Have we missed any cliches here? How about "we won't be fooled again?" Hell, we could even slip into French for a moment ("Plus +ºa change, plus c'est le meme chose"), in honor of the country that American right wingers used to ridicule for their craaaaazy skepticism over our Iraq invasion. Yeah, those crazy French with their crazy French ideas. Heh.
Anyway, I definitely recommend the two New York Times' editorials. Since they're behind a "firewall," here are the key 'grafs from Nicholas Kristof's op-ed:
A surge in the number of troops in Iraq might have helped in 2003 or early 2004.But in 2007, President BushGÇÖs plan seems to represent a warmed-over variant of approaches that have already been tried and mostly failed, that are opposed by some top American military commanders and ordinary Iraqis alike, and whose most likely outcome will be many more Americans in body bags or wheelchairs.
Now, the New York Times' editorial board's thoughts:
WeGÇÖve been down this road before. This time, it has to be different.There have been too many times that President Bush has promised a new strategy on Iraq, only to repeat the same old set of failed approaches and unachievable objectives. Americans need to hear Mr. Bush offer something truly new GÇö not more glossy statements about ultimate victory, condescending platitudes about what hard work war is, or aimless vows to remain GÇ£until the job is done.GÇ¥
If the voters sent one clear message to Mr. Bush last November, it was that it is time to start winding down AmericaGÇÖs involvement in this going-nowhere war.
Going-nowhere is right. But does Bush have any clue on this, or is he still stuck in the "State of Denial" that Bob Woodward wrote about in his recent book? More to the point, what happens if when Bush doesn't listen to the voters, when he tells us we WILL get fooled again, and when he lays out a plan for more of the same? Will Congress stand up to him? Can it do so effectively under our constitution, which gives wide latitude to the Commander in Chief? Is cutting off funding for Bush's escalation a political non-starter? I don't know the answers to these questions, but one thing I can say for sure: "same old, same old" won't work in Iraq. Unfortunately, that's all that Bush appears to be offering us. Too little, too late.
P.S. By the way, isn't "doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result" one definition of insanity?
The only name that any one could come up with was JIM WEBB.
Holy Cow, VA voters, did we ever score big in National Politics with our candidate/winner.