Senate Votes 50-48 For Surrender Timetable; Chuck Hagel Provides Crucial Vote

This guy is running for President? Really?

If so, he's running third party -- I think he's deliberately considering playing the spoiler to drain away isolationist conservatives from the GOP and insure a Democratic victor.

Here's the thing. The whole idea of a timetable is moot for all practical purposes at this point. Either the war will be become clearly winnable in the next several months -- which seems to be happening -- in which case only the hardest core anti-American Democrats will demand a unilateral and unncessary surrender, or it won't be, in which case the American public will so sour of it they'll believe anyone who tells them "We've won! Now let's go home!" so they can surrender without acknowledging they're doing such.

But that doesn't mean there's nothing at stake.

What's the point of forcing a timetable? To reassure American liberal voters that they can trust the promises of the Democratic Party.

Waht's the point of resisting a timetable? To reassure Iraqi civilians, and Al Qaeda terrorists, that they can trust, or fear, as the case may be, the promises of the American government.

It's largely a symbolic matter. But whose symbolism is in the American interest, and whose symbolism in only in the interests of a political party and, not coincidentally, Al Qaeda?

posted by Ace at 08:40 PM

| Access Comments