OFF THE RESERVATION, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT HE'S ON IT -- WELL, NOT EXACTLY ON IT, MORE LIKE NEAR IT...
You know the classic definition of a liberal or a Democrat -- someone who's too polite (or broad-minded) to take his own side in argument? Well, as The Washington Times has just learned, the problem with getting a disaffected old-school Democrat to try to undermine his party's nominee (as that nominee makes an apparently quite successful overseas tour) is that the Democratic turncoat is going to be just too polite (or broad-minded) to fully adopt the anti-Democratic side in the argument.
I'm talking, of course, about Lanny Davis. Here's Davis's latest Washington Times column:
I remember the exact moment I had my first serious doubts about whether I was 100 percent right that the U.S. pre-emptive invasion of Iraq and the take-out of Saddam Hussein was a serious mistake.
I had been strongly opposed to the U.S. intervention from the start.
...why risk the uncertainties of a pre-emptive invasion, loss of life and treasure, and diverting our attention from 9/11 and the war against terrorism, which most U.S. intelligence indicated had nothing to do with Saddam?
Of course, all these remain good reasons for opposing starting the war, even as I look back now.
Damn, he's setting us up for a really melodramatic Saul-on-the-road-to-Damascus moment -- and then he wimps out by saying he was probably right in the first place!
No, wait --
But ... then came my first moment of doubt.
... there was that indelible image -- an older woman shrouded in a carpetlike cape, smiling gleefully and holding her purple finger in the air for the TV cameras, purple with ink showing that she had voted....
Wow, I thought. Is it possible I was wrong?
This does lead Lanny to spout every right-wing talking point from the purple-finger era ever....
Is it possible, I wondered, that Iraqis truly did want democracy and freedom and the right to vote and government of the people, just as we Americans do? And were willing to fight for it, with our help?
... Maybe another democracy, however imperfect, other than Israel in the Middle East could lead to more moderation, possibly other democracies? Democracies that could serve as bulwarks against al Qaeda-type of terrorist states?
BUSH WAS RIGHT!!!
No, wait --
...Then in 2005-06 came the increased violence from the Sunni insurgents against American kids, then the sectarian civil war between Sunnis and Shi'ites, with young Americans caught in the crossfire. My certainty in opposing the war and supporting a deadline for getting out re-emerged.
So the war was a bad idea, hunh, Lanny?
No, wait again --
And then in early 2007 came the surge, which so many of us in the antiwar left of the Democratic Party predicted would be a failure, throwing good men and women and billions of dollars after futility. We were wrong....
So this op-ed is, at long last, a stinging rebuke to the Defeat-o-crats and their defeat-obsessed message of defeat? So BUSH WAS RIGHT!!!?
I think there are a lot of antiwar Democrats who, like me, are impressed by these facts and who now see a moral obligation, after all the carnage and destruction wrought by our military intervention, not just to pick up and leave without looking over our shoulders.
Surely we owe the Iraqis who helped us, whose lives are in danger, immediate immigration rights to the U.S. Yet the shameful fact is that most are still not even close to having such rights....
Dude! Why are you talking about the refugees, fer crissake? WE'RE WINNING!!! U-S-A! U-S-A!
Surely we owe the al-Maliki government and the Shi'ite and Sunni soldiers who put their lives on the line against Shi'ite and Sunni extremists and terrorists at our behest some continuing presence....
The only question is, for how long?
Forever? No. 100 years? No.
But for how long? I don't know....
Damn! You're almost making the case for McCain ... and then you make the case against McCain! Lanny, what is your problem?
And what do you mean, you "don't know" how long? Everybody knows the answer to that -- until VICTORY!!!
So it appears that Lanny Davis (unlike, say, Dick Morris or Tammy Bruce) is a real Democrat after all -- as a traitor, he doesn't even have the courage of his enemies' convictions.