Kos is out for blood. But ignoring technicalities for a moment, Joe Klein opposed the old (a.k.a. failed) spending bill that would have ended the war next year, saying, "I'm for a careful departure from Iraq, and an immediate disengagement from the areas of most intense factional fighting like Baghdad." The implication is, I guess, supposed to be that speedier plans like Feingold's are careless. Obviously, that's not an implication that I think can be defended. After all, the choice was never between the date-certain plan and Joe's plan. It was between the date-certain plan and the president's plan. And I don't see how it makes any sense--if you profess opposition to the war--to oppose a real plan to end that war on the grounds that a different, non-existent plan (a plan that may well never exit) wasn't on the table.
But, playing devils advocate for a moment, I want to pretend that the choice was between two different war-ending proposals: the date-certain plan and Joe's hypothetical plan. Joe ought to at least explain why his is the better plan. There's no explanation like that in his post. So, if you're listening Joe, I want to hear why you think that four months isn't enough time to prepare for the first troop withdrawals. I want to know how many months would constitute enough time. And I want an analysis that explains those conclusions.
(Oh yes. And I want a gig at Time, if you could arrange such a thing.)
Comments