Cokie and Condi

Here's why I've always hated NPR's Cokie Roberts:

"Public opinion on the question of whether we should withdraw from Iraq is unambiguous and it has been for a long time. Large majorities of the public favor withdrawal regardless of whether we're "winning." To say otherwise -- as establishment journalists like Roberts continuously do -- is just rank deceit."

What did Cokie Roberts say to provoke Glenn Greenwald to call her a liar?  This, to Katrina Vanden Heuvel on George Stephanopolous' Sunday show:

"Convincing the electorate of that I think would be very difficult, and I also agree that the notion that Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham you heard this morning putting forward, that Americans would prefer to win... ."

**************************

Whether Condoleeza Rice believes that the American people "would prefer to win" in Iraq is open to question.  But she does support the Bush war strategy.

So would she be a good vice-presidential choice for unabashed warrior John McCain?  I don't think so.  Most Americans do want troops withdrawn from Iraq.  Rice doesn't.

Neither does 9/11 widow and former Bush supporter Kristen Breitweiser.   Breitweiser, the brightest of the "Jersey Girls", refers to Rice as

"...the disgraceful, incompetent former Bush Administration National Security Advisor... ."

For obvious reasons, Kristen Breitweiser has little respect for Bush's current Secretary of State.  Nor for Barack Obama, whom she accuses of sounding like Condi on the "predictability" of the 9/11 attacks.   Kristen supports Hillary.

I don't have much respect for Rice either.  BUT...  I'm starting to lean heavily toward Barack in the Democratic presidential race.

With reservations, certainly.  Kinda like Steve Novick, who ended up endorsing Obama anyway. 

 

Comments

[marcia]

win what?

[Terry]

Since we already won the Iraq War back in 2003, I presume Cokie means Americans would prefer to win the "occupation", hopefully before it bankrupts the country.

[Craig]

I'm not sure there is a contradiction between Americans wanting to pull out of Iraq and also wanting to "win." If the question were asked this way: "Would you rather we 'win' or 'lose' the war in Iraq?", most Americans, I'm sure, would vote for "winning."

The problem, as you've pointed out, is that "winning" has no sensible definition and never has. Most Americans want out of Iraq, not because they don't want to "win," but because they can't see what winning would look like and suspect, correctly, that there never will be a satisfactory definition.

[Steve R.]

The way to "win" is to declare victory, then pull out.

Considering Sadr's Shiite rebels control half of Baghdad, even after the "surge," that's the best we can hope for.

If we don't do this, Sadr is likely to lift his cease fire, which will plunge Iraq into it's darkest, bloodiest days yet.

Any way you slice it, we've created a de facto Shiite republic of Iraq, allied with Iran, with an autonomous Kurdish region and a restive Sunni minority. Lengthening the occupation won't change these basic facts, and will only make matters worse.