One more, and then we're moving on.
To Quin's point in which he insists on comparing Brownback to Sen. John Kerry by using terms like "flip flop": Brownback was explicit about what "short term" means (three to six months), whereas the President for close to three years has used phrases like, "not open-ended." Who is to be believed?
The White House has not been honest about their timeline, let alone specific. The closest hard and fast date that seems to exist is the notion that the "surge" will go a maximum of 24 months. We don't know about Quin's datebook, but 24 months -- even in war time -- doesn't strike as "short term" and certainly not in the way that Brownback and others on Capitol Hill and the Pentagon define short term.
Brownback has fully supported the war effort as well as this commander in chief. He has explicitly discussed that beyond the military, there has to be a political and societal component. The White House has failed to successfully implement either, despite advice privately provided by those Republican Senators and a few then-friendly Democrats to the White House.
Finally, to the point of when Brownback shoulda woulda made more substantive comments. Fine, perhaps he should not have released a brief statement from Baghdad on the night of the President's speech. But would some folks have been happy with the release of an opposing, full scale plan? We doubt it. They'd be tearing him a new one, most likely singing from the song sheet provided by the BayState Tabernacle Chorus.
What all of this really means is this: the White House has lost conservatives and many Republicans on this latest turn in war stratergizing. It has been less than forthcoming, has ignored its many friends with sound advice, and moved forward with yet another flawed plan for resolution to the military challenges there. We have moved on to other issues in the hope of finding other leaders.
Share this Article
Like this Article
Print this ArticlePrint Article