[...] the Democratic-controlled Congress could do what Democrats say a Democratic president would do: withdraw U.S. forces. A president could simply order that; Congress could defund military operations in Iraq. Congressional Democrats are, however, afraid to do that because they lack the courage of their (professed) conviction that Iraq would be made tranquil by withdrawal of U.S. forces. (emphasis mine)
Well whaddayaknow — a baldfaced lie. The view that no positive can be salvaged from the US presence in Iraq, a majority view of the US public and consequently at the least hinted among most democrats, has been warped into “withdrawal would turn Iraq into a mega-happy place!”. The reasonings behind that view, ranging from a cold-realist type ranking of sectarian bloodbath w/o US involvement as better than sectarian bloodbath w/ the US supporting the Shiites, to a belief that the few Iraqis who don’t support attacks on US troops are using them as an excuse to not bother rebuilding their country, to the moral “we’re violating their sovereignty, that needs to stop, period” view, all go *poof*, replaced with childish nonsense.
While I agree that there’s a lack of backbone thus far on withdrawal itself (congress approves wars, logically speaking they can un-approve them, Emperor Bush can go pound sand. Faster they realize this, the better), the portrayal of the reason for it is quite the hackjob.
So, who wrote this tripe? Ann Coulter? Mark Steyn? Cal Thomas? Nope! Twas George-freakin’-Will. With “thinker” right-wingers like him, who needs partisan hacks?
