Bill Emmott’s gone, but the Economist still loves the Iraq war


The Iraq disaster continues, with an ongoing occupation unable to stop continuing violence. America and Britain are in a mess and need to withdraw. Voters in Connecticut’s Democratic senate primary chose antiwar Ned Lamont over neoconservative Joe Lieberman, so now Lamont is taking the party that direction, as noted in the Washington Post:
“Democratic Senate nominee Ned Lamont will launch a general election bid in Connecticut next week with an expanded campaign operation of Washington-based reinforcements, in preparation for a bitter brawl with Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman over the Iraq war and national security.
Lamont’s upset of the three-term senator and former Democratic vice presidential nominee, who is now running to keep his seat as an independent, has forced a hasty reordering of political alliances, as prominent Democratic leaders and organizations shift their support to Lamont. The political novice is seeking help from party veterans in fundraising and communications, and in answering Lieberman’s increasingly aggressive war defense.”

But many magazine and blog writers are still lifting pens and typing keys for the “grand vision New Middle East democratization etc.” project and straying into delusion. Outside the Economist offices, is anyone else disputing whether
Iraq is in a civil war? Referring to Iraqi prime minister al-Maliki:
“But he still needs the Americans badly, especially in
Baghdad, where he has called them in as reinforcements to staunch the sectarian bloodshed; without them, it would be even worse, and civil war might indisputably arrive.” So Bill Emmott is gone but the war still has supporters down in St. James. Very well, if increasingly irrelevant. Now to the right-wing blogs–as usual reprinting administration propaganda, this time directly via Byron York on the National Review online:
“‘And I think that’s in part because at the end of the day people look at the consequences of failure and the consequences of victory, the consequences of withdrawal and the consequences of finishing the fight, and they draw very important lessons about what it means to our country.'”
So as long as the administration is still talking about the “consequences of victory,” no real discussion can occur, but it’s all..very..bizarre..and shameful.
[photos: Bill Emmott by bsme.com, Iraqis by AP]

Leave a Reply