Iraq, and the Political Poseurs....

Two different columns in today's Washington Post illustrate the deeply flawed leadership we have in America today. The idea of using a war (or a natural catastrophe, like Katrina) as an opportunity for political posturing and point-scoring was once considered unthinkable, but the Democrat's sheer hatred of George W. Bush allowed them to break down all barriers in their bloodlust to, if not bring him down, at least make him bleed. And if the nation bleeds with him? Well, collateral damage is OK in politics, reasons the Left, just not in warfare...

David Broder gets the stage first:

When Lt. Gen. David Petraeus went before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week in open session, its members understandably had many questions for the new commander of American forces in Iraq.....
....A few of the questions were naive, self-serving or tangents.....

With one exception. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York used her time to make a speech about Iraq policy and did not ask a single question of the man who will be leading the military campaign.

She began by blaming the Iraq crisis on a "Congress [that] was supine under the Republican majority, failing to conduct oversight and demanding accountability, and because the president and his team, particularly the former secretary of defense, refused to adapt to the changing circumstances on the ground."
From that partisan opening, Clinton went on to decry "the failures of the Iraqis to step up and take responsibility for their own future."

Apparently, General Petraeus had a mere four word reply to Hillary's endless harraunge. She followed up with...no futher questions.

Appalling enough that this woman, who dreams of becoming America's commander-in-chief, is playing presidential politics while the most important military officer in the United States waits patiently before her. But doesn't she have the responsibility, as a sitting Senator on this prestigous committee, to ask questions of the General regarding policy, tactics, rules of engagement, and results? Or is it understood that her duty to her constituents in New York has been discharged now that she is running for president?

She can learn from John McCain, who ran out of time before he ran out of questions...Broder has an explanation for her bizarre behavior, one which I find completely plausable:

...Clinton is reverting to the mode of her ill-fated 1993-94 health-care initiative, when she gave members of Congress and other interested folks the impression that she thought she had all the answers -- so please just do as I say.

Well, lemme tell you something...Hillary ain't getting nominated. Do you know one red state that will go blue for Hillary? Yeah, me neither. And if she's so smart, how come she didn't know her husband was rogering the interns?

More on shameful wartime politics from Robert Kagen:

It's quite a juxtaposition. In Iraq, American soldiers are finally beginning the hard job of establishing a measure of peace, security and order in critical sections of Baghdad -- the essential prerequisite for the lasting political solution everyone claims to want.
Back in Washington, however, Democratic and Republican members of Congress are looking for a different kind of political solution: the solution to their problems in presidential primaries and elections almost two years off.

The most popular resolutions simply oppose the troop increase without offering much useful guidance on what to do instead ...

...supposedly braver critics demand a cutoff of funds for the war and the start of a withdrawal within months. But they're not honest either, since they refuse to answer the most obvious and necessary questions: What do they propose the United States do when, as a result of withdrawal, Iraq explodes and ethnic cleansing on a truly horrific scale begins? What do they propose our response should be when the entire region becomes a war zone, when al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations establish bases in Iraq from which to attack neighboring states as well as the United States?
Those who call for an "end to the war" don't want to talk about the fact that the war in Iraq and in the region will not end but will only grow more dangerous.

Of course, most of the discussion of Iraq isn't about Iraq at all. The war has become a political abstraction, a means of positioning oneself at home.
To the extent that people think about Iraq, many seem to believe it is a problem that can be made to go away...

But that's the same position the Democrats have taken since September 12th, 2001...standing in the rubble of the Pentagon and World Trade Center, they declare: Nothing to see here folks, just move it along! It's just a criminal problem, a quality-of life nuisance! Avert your eyes, it will all go away, so we can talk about the really important issues, like government-based heathcare, oil company profits, and greenhouse gas emmissions....

This posturing by the Democrats is the worst example of leadership failure since Emperor Nero saw the flames, and took to his fiddle....