She had a recent column in USA Today that I had saved to savage. Power Line saved me the trouble.
I must thank them since I somehow feel cheapened taking the time to take issue with her words.
A crud, I can't help myself. This is the paragraph that finally put me over the edge after enduring idiocy that only set the stage for the extreme idiocy of this:
As grim as the situation is, the United States should stay focused on how to achieve success in Iraq, not simply declare it. We owe that to our armed forces and to the Iraqis who believed in us. The bad guys in Iraq are truly bad and cannot be allowed to win. But to have any chance of turning things around, the administration must do what it has steadfastly refused to do — admit mistakes;
emphasize a political instead of a military strategy; do what it takes to secure the cooperation of Iraq's neighbors; hold senior officials accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and other blunders; and launch, finally, an economic reconstruction program that puts paychecks in Iraqi wallets and food in Iraqi
stomachs.
I could probably take issue with every key stroke, including the spaces between words, but let me just note that she advises that we need a political instead of a military strategy. I do agree. Our military is buying time for the Iraqis to join the fight. Which is why I don't panic at the enduring Baathist insurgency. We are standing up Iraqi security units and Iraq is building a new government that will began the path to democracy. Once these are truly begun, Iraqis will move to the front and we will pull back. So what is my problem with her saying this? Becasue prior to this she said we lack a military strategy that makes sense and that we don't have enough troops. But by the end of the article she complains that we wrongly emphasize a military strategy.
The Senate confirmed this woman. I'm just noting that fact. And yes, I do feel sullied even bothering with this.
