January 29, 2007

Warner

WaPo:

Virginia Sen. John W. Warner's words betray the guilt he still carries about the Vietnam War and help explain why this pillar of the Republican establishment is leading a bipartisan revolt against the war plans of a president in his own party.

"I regret that I was not more outspoken" during the Vietnam War, the former Navy secretary said in an interview in his Capitol Hill office. "The Army generals would come in, 'Just send in another five or ten thousand.' You know, month after month. Another ten or fifteen thousand. They thought they could win it. We kept surging in those years. It didn't work."

Is that a lesson for what's going on in Iraq?

"Well, you don't forget something like that," he answers. There is a long pause, he closes his eyes and his voice gets softer. "No. You don't forget those things."

More:

Warner's resolution gives some of his Republican colleagues a politically safe position to take on a war that is increasingly unpopular with the American public. "When John Warner decides that these issues have seriousness . . . there are a number of people who come with him," said Warner's new Virginia colleague, Sen. James Webb (D).

But to conservatives, the effort is nothing but folly.

William Kristol, founder of the Weekly Standard, calls both resolutions "wrong, foolish and irresponsible."

Kristol is careful to say of Warner that "I think he's sincere." But he said the effect of the resolution passing will be to weaken Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who was confirmed Friday as the top U.S. commander in Iraq and will implement Bush's surge.

"John Warner can be a patriot and still do something foolish that hurts our foreign policy," Kristol said.

Few criticisms aimed at Warner seem to have much effect on him these days.

But one has.

At an Armed Services hearing last week, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) prompted Petraeus to express concern about the passage of a Senate resolution.

"A resolution -- a Senate-passed resolution of disapproval for this new strategy in Iraq -- would give the enemy some encouragement, some feeling that, well, some clear expression that the American people are divided?" Lieberman asked.

"That's correct, sir," Petraeus replied.

When it was Warner's turn to speak, he was clearly upset. He called the exchange "personal" for him and said forcefully that support for the resolution should never be taken as a lack of support for soldiers in the field.

"We're not a division here of patriots who support the troops and those who are making statements and working on resolutions that could be translated as aiding and abetting the enemy," Warner told Petraeus and his colleagues. "I hope that this colloquy has not trapped you into some responses that you might later regret."

A few days later, in his office, Warner made it clear that he's unwilling to give in.

"Those who say we're not doing the right thing, tell me, what is the obligation of the Senate?" he asked. "Do nothing?"

Question to commenters: Does John Warner give the slightest damn whether Bill Kristol thinks he's sincere or not? [Yes, that's a rhetorical Q].

all these opinions are marvy. driven by......electoral politics?

the opinions I care about on the conduct of our war are those of our enemies: bin laden, zawahiri, achmedinejad, al sadr, assad...

if they are happy about something we contemplate, it's the wrong thing to do.

Posted by: neill at January 29, 2007 05:28 AM | Permalink to this comment

By all means, Neill, present us with some evidence that they're NOT happy about what we're doing now.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at January 29, 2007 06:11 AM | Permalink to this comment

contemplate, mon ami, contemplate.

Posted by: neill at January 29, 2007 06:39 AM | Permalink to this comment

I believe William Kristol is entirely insincere.

If anyone can offer an example that may cause me to reverse my impression of Mr. Kristol's absence of sincerity, I would greatly appreciate it.

Also, if anyone can ever point out one item authored by Mr. Kristol that proved to be correct, I would welcome that as well.

Posted by: Mark Raven at January 29, 2007 05:16 PM | Permalink to this comment

I believe William Kristol is entirely insincere.

If anyone can offer an example that may cause me to reverse my impression of Mr. Kristol's absence of sincerity, I would greatly appreciate it.

Also, if anyone can ever point out one item authored by Mr. Kristol that proved to be correct, I would welcome that as well.

Posted by: Mark Raven at January 29, 2007 05:18 PM | Permalink to this comment

Contemptate? Contemptate?

Contemptible.

Posted by: J Thomas at January 29, 2007 06:29 PM | Permalink to this comment

Why do people still pay attention to him?.....other than the fact the most powerful man treats him as an oracle.

Posted by: centrist at January 29, 2007 06:30 PM | Permalink to this comment

Some people are slow to catch on to the idea of not feeding trolls.

Posted by: David Tomlin at January 29, 2007 08:45 PM | Permalink to this comment