NBC’s Meet the (de)Press(ed) today included conservative host Tim Russert interviewing the two candidates for a US Senate Seat in Ohio – a slot until recently thought to be an easy repeat for current Republican Senator Mike DeWine. The interview sections on foreign policy were awful – in terms of substance – with DeWine and challenger Democrat Congressman Sherrod Brown constantly berating each other with half-sentence short hand barbs and sounding frankly like little brats throwing sand at each other: “I can’t believe you said that; no I didn’t; yes you did; no, you’re wrong; yada, yada, yada.”
I miss the days when Meet the Press would have one political figure or expert guest interviewed by multiple, different journalists and the whole affair was conducted respectfully in civil tones. Alas, call it the CNN “cross-fire effect,” where the TV “news” media feeds us more vapid cock-fights than substance.
I woke up from my disgust with the MTP format when Russert asked about the growing majority Iraqi sentiment in favor of prompt US military withdrawal from Iraq. Read carefully Senator DeWine’s reply: (this is from the NBC transcript)
MR. RUSSERT: Here’s two poll questions that I think caught the attention of a lot of Americans. Let me start with Senator DeWine.
“Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout.” “Most Iraqis.” “A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.”
And then this poll. “Iraqis back attacks on U.S. troops. About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces … [according to] the poll done for University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes.”
Senator DeWine, if they want us out, and they’re in favor of attacking us, why are we still there?
SEN. DeWINE: Tim, I was shocked by that as well. But you know, on reflection, this is their country. There’s a lot of things going wrong. You blame someone who is there. Still does not change that we’re not in Iraq primarily for the Iraqis. We’re in Iraq for us. We’re–have to do what we have to do, and it goes back to what the three generals–three military leaders said. It would be a total disaster for us to leave. It is in our self-interest, the interest to protect American families, that we are in Iraq. That’s why we’re there.
Come again? Its “their country” – but, if they don’t want us there, then oh never mind, “we’re not in Iraq primarily for the Iraqis. We’re in Iraq for us.”
Let’s see now, whatever happened to promoting democracy? Was that just for us?
Y’all remember that Administration/neocon thematic cause don’t you — that the American imposition of democracy upon Iraq would become the beacon that would spread across the region and spark the proliferation of peace-loving democratic countries that would love us – and Israel too – as fellow democracies?
Nope, according to Senator DeWine, we’re in it mostly for us – and if they don’t want us, well, too bad. We’re there for “our self interest” – “our” oil, the security of our friends (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc) too. Oh, and “we’re in it for the security of our families” too – but guess Iraqi families don’t count.
Congressman Brown missed a chance to hit DeWine’s whopper “out of the park.” Instead, he focused narrowly on his opponent being unaware that the Iraqi people are increasingly unhappy with the American military occupation of their country. :
REP. BROWN: I, I guess I’m surprised that Mike DeWine is shocked by that. He sits on the Intelligence Committee, sat there 12 years. He’s shocked that the Iraqi people think it’s time to–that, that, that troops be pulled out of Iraq? We’re in the midst–we’re–what we’re doing in Iraq now, all intents and purposes is we’re refereeing a civil war. That’s why we need to push the Iraqi military forces and police forces to build their own security units to protect their country, to make themselves more secure. And that’s the, that’s the solution, not “stay the course,” not just status quo.
Ah well, not everybody is fast on his feet when on national TV. I hope we’re not back to the days when US politicians can only repeat the realist mantra – that anything our country does abroad can only be to serve our NATIONAL INTEREST.
Later in the debate, Senator DeWine again caught my attention when he repeatedly expressed “no confidence” in Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. Wow. If a prominent Republican Senator in a dogfight for re-election refuses to stand by the President’s man in charge of the military, it ordinarily would seem that Secretary Rumsfeld’s days are numbered. Then again, if the revelations in Woodward’s book are to believed, Rumsfeld’s serves at the pleasure of the Vice President….
Last thing, both candidates did appear to agree on one issue – that any leader in the House who knew a year ago of salacious e-mails to a minor page by now resigned Congressman Mark Foley (R-Fl) should also resign. DeWine hedged a bit, wanting to know more of who knew what, when. But that’s another subject….
Postscript: Speaker Hastert wants to have a Justice Department investigation of Rep. Foley and his own party’s handly of the matter. Shrewd move…. That oughta take at least six weeks, eh?
Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
Henry Kissinger’s protege, Paul “what missing 9 billion dollars?” Bremer said that “we” — meaning America, one supposes — intended to “impose our will” upon Iraq. Then he did some really stupid stuff. Then he said a whole bunch of different stupid things. Then he called a five-minute “sovereignty” meeting with some appointed Iraqi puppets and hauled ass out of Iraq. Then all the shape-shifting talk about “democracy” began. Then things in Iraq just fell apart in a continuing downward spiral of chaos and violence.
But things will magically get better someday. Really. Just look at the trends. As Michael Kinsley wrote recently in his Slate.com essay “Yrotciv,” George W. Bush’s backwards war on Iraq has gone from “mission accomplished” to “barely begun” in only three-and-a-half increasingly miserable years.
How much more backwards things can get before Iraq implodes into a black hole remains for us to contemplate with equanimity. After all, George W. Bush has two-and-a-half more years in office. Or does he?