Robert Costa's "How Republicans hope to turn Islamic State into a problem for Democrats" is a grimacing portrait in GOP desperation, yet another sign that the party has nothing else to offer:
After more than a decade bearing the political burden of Iraq, Republicans are making a dogged effort to shed it by arguing that the Islamic State’s gruesome ascent is a symptom of Obama’s foreign policy, rather than a byproduct of the 2003 invasion they once championed….
The rapid move to shift responsibility is at the core of the GOP’s plan to define 2016 as a foreign-policy election. Anxious about demographic trends and the leftward drift of the electorate on social issues, many Republicans hope to seize on global unrest and offer voters a steady hand.
Picture for a moment that "steady hand" juxtaposed with the GOP's disorderly minds and overactive glands: Jeb Bush destroyed by a 19-year-old college student; Marco Rubio flustered by a Fox News host, of all people; Lindsey Graham shadow-boxing with the world. These are but a few of the bumbling apologists, quoted by Costa, for a war that should never have been. For them to now shovel blame for the conflict's inevitable outcome on its unfortunate inheritor is a trick so shoddy even the "everyday" American voter can see through it.
Yet, as Costa observes, what else do Republicans have? Their hardcore geezers are dying off and a younger electorate is drifting left (relative to American politics). Plus, most voters care far more about jobs and the economy than they do about Ramadi, Iraq — and jobs and the economy are both headed in a positive direction.
Which leaves Republican presidential candidates in 2016 with the same strategy they tried and failed at in 2012: taking calamitous events they created and heaving the blame on others. In 2012 they tried it with the economy (without offering intelligent alternatives) and they failed; in 2016 they'll try it with foreign policy (without offering intelligent alternatives) and fail.
A certain amount of pity should be allowed, however. They really do have nothing else to offer.
So....they've all been backed into the same corner about going into Iraq in the first place. Next question will be about putting ground troops into Iraq and/or Syria. The correct answer to that will also be no but it may take a few consequential examples and public polling for that to sink in. Finally we'll get to using US air and intelligence and non-combat advisers to aid the Iraqis in retaking their country from ISIS. To which the answer will be yes. You mean just like Obama is doing and Hillary suggests? NO NO NO NO! I didn't mean that at all. I meant....Benghazi!
Posted by: Peter G | May 21, 2015 at 02:35 PM
So expect the fear and loathing that we saw in the run-up to the 2014 elections, but about an order of magnitude more hysterial.
Posted by: shsavage | May 21, 2015 at 02:49 PM
Pity is not appropriate. In the service of the loopy ideology of PNAC to build a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity, whatever the hell that might mean, and defense contractor profit, Bush II is responsible for around 4500 American and possibly over 1 million Iraqi deaths that Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz estimates will eventually cost 5 Trillion dollars. Democrats were somewhat complicit, but there's no reason to think a Gore administration would have chosen the same path.
Posted by: Bob | May 21, 2015 at 03:59 PM
I hope with everything that I'm made of that the electorate sees through this. And I think they do. If for no other reason than the prospect of their children having to pay the price by signing up for military service for lack of any other career opportunities if these fools get their way again.
Posted by: Anne J | May 21, 2015 at 07:37 PM
The problem is the young folks don't vote. We old geezers do. Until we're dead the US will continue to be screwed up
Posted by: bpuharic | May 22, 2015 at 08:05 PM