After years of struggling to define their own approach to post-Sept. 11 foreign policy, Democrats seem finally to have hit on one. It's called pandering. In those rare cases when George W. Bush shows genuine sensitivity to America's allies and propounds a broader, more enlightened view of the national interest, Democrats will make him pay. It's jingoism with a liberal face.
Ah, yes, Petey. Back to the area he feels comfortable with: no real world experience; declared for some reason a pundit from a tender age - the last of the pre-blog world; unable to win a debate against individuals with the verbal dexterity of lawn mulch; for some reason keeps getting paying gigs as Joe Lieberman with fresh pubes.
Now, it's true that Mr. Maliki couldn't exactly come out and denounce Hezbollah. However, after $400 billion (and more coming); 20,000 casualties, and all else, you think Mr. Maliki could do a little better than have as his bottom line...
That is what the criticism is Petey-boy, that all this money, all this blood, all this disaster, hasn't led to a middle east that is any better -- but worst then it ever was.
EXACTLY, the opposite of what all the pie-in-the-sky bomb droppers like George Bush, Dick Cheney, and let's see, oh yes, Peter Beinart, were saying back in the Spring of 2003.
While all those so-called panderers like Howard Dean were opposing the launch of the Clusterfuck formerly known as Iraq, what was brave, brave, prime fightin' age Beinart doing?
Oh, yes, decrying people like Howard Dean who were opposed to the invasion of Iraq as being not just a mistake but counterproductive to fighting terrorism. Guess who turned out to be right Petey?