Update on my political post from yesterday. I was thinking that the Democrats might change their behavior regarding Iraq now that they are in power and are ultimately more responsible for what happens from here on out. They’ve been criticizing Bush for years about not listening to the military and the generals regarding strategy in Iraq, but the recent hearings where the generals argued against timetables for withdrawal.
So, as Glenn Reynolds points out, either the Democrats were keeping hush hush about what the generals and the military in general actually thought about strategy in Iraq and went with the populist cut and run rhetoric, or they are ignorant as to what military thinking is currently and should have kept their mouths shut.
And now they govern.
Seriously, though, I hope these hearings and commissions are an excuse for the Democrats to get more serious about the war effort. I’m sure they’ll be able to spin their past behavior in a better light and move on (so to speak). But if they don’t, what credibility do they have left on the issue?
And read down on the Instapundit post, where Glenn prints part of a letter that indicates rank and file non-coms feel like getting the Iraqi army ready to take over for themselves will take up to 5 years.
And despite this, Senator Reid is STILL calling for withdrawal!
Note this ABC post reminding us that some Democrats, including Harry Reid, also took money and gave favors to Jack Abramoff. How refreshing not to have those corrupt Republicans in power now, isn’t it?
Update: Also, don’t forget that Nancy Pelosi seems to want to put Alcee Hastings on the Intelligence Committee as chair. This is the same Alcee Hastings that was impeached from the federal bench for corruption, taking bribes from the mob. From the New Republic.
There's ample reason to think that Americans cast a negative vote last week--not so much for Democrats as against Republicans. Over the next two years, voters will be watching to see whether Democrats are up to the responsibility of governing, and doing so with the national interest in mind. If Nancy Pelosi bases her decision about such a critical position on a combination of personal feuding and identity politics, she won't just do Republicans a favor by giving them a readymade bogeyman to attack. She will have shown voters that she's unable to push aside petty institutional politics in the name of the national interest.
Not a good sign when you’ve just been elected into the majority on the basis of criticizing the other party of corruption and there are already corruption issues in your own party that you have to deal with.