For some reason, The Washington Post continues to employ Robert Novak, who publicly identified a covert CIA agent in the newspaper, and Charles Farthammer. The gist of Farthammer’s column today is that the war in Iraq is, um, “turning around,” and that Nancy Pelosi still says the policy is not werking.
Farthammer writes: “It does not have the drama of the Inchon landing or the sweep of the Union comeback in the summer of 1864. But the turnabout of American fortunes in Iraq over the past several months is of equal moment—a war seemingly lost, now winnable. The violence in Iraq has been dramatically reduced. Political allegiances have been radically reversed. The revival of ordinary life in many cities is palpable. Something important is happening.
“And what is the reaction of the war critics? Nancy Pelosi stoutly maintains her state of denial, saying this about the war just two weeks ago: ‘This is not working. . . . We must reverse it.’ A euphemism for ‘abandon the field,’ which is what every Democratic presidential candidate is promising, with variations only in how precipitous to make the retreat.”
Farthammer of course misses the mark from where I’m sittin’. But I reckon Charles Farthammer and I disagree on the most basic of premises. I don’t believe the Untied States of America had any business invading a sovreign nation had never threatened nor attacked. I assume that Charles Farthammer thought that was okay.
But Farthammer goes much further and works much harder to miss the point. Leaving Iraq is not a retreat. You can’t retreat from an occupation. It’s merely a withdrawal. Whatsmore, it’s not a defeat. It’s a strategy to win, to allow this country to sort out its shit without us as lightning rod. Bush’s occupation has had plenty of time. And now most Americans are behind getting the hell out. Hey. Charles Farthammer. I don’t think it’s the Speaker who’s in denial.