Pelosi/Sanchez; bedfellows of defeat

Jonathan Weissman of the Washington Post writes the page one story entitled “Politics Creates Odd Pair; Sanchez and Democrats“ ;

It may be among the strangest of political alliances: a former commanding general in Iraq, blocked from a fourth star and forced into retirement partly for his role in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, and the speaker of the House, desperate to end a war that the general helped start.

But in partisan Washington, the enemy of one’s enemy can quickly become a friend, and nowhere is that more obvious than in the new marriage of convenience between Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez.

On Saturday, Sanchez delivered the Democrats’ weekly radio address. He excoriated what he called the Bush administration’s “failure to devise a strategy for victory in Iraq,” then embraced Democratic legislation linking continued war funding with a timeline aimed at ending U.S. combat operations by December 2008.

Hmmmm. No agenda there, huh? The Democrats want the war ended on their terms…rather than an actual victory. Sanchez wants to clear his name (the name that Democrats sullied, by the way).

For Democratic leaders, Sanchez’s address has been a triumph, covered by the media nationwide. It interrupted a stream of stories about declining violence, which had stalled efforts to force a shift of war policy.

A triumph? Today is the first I’ve heard of it. I’ve been on all of the right’s blogs all weekend (fighting off this stupid flu) – unless it’s a triumph among the nattering nabobs of negativity (to borrow Spiro Agnew’s phrase) at Code Pink and the DailyKos. And I guess this pretty much proves that Democrats aren’t interested in winning the war against terror since they’re looking for some distraction from the good news to put the focus back on Sanchez’ tenure. Democrats are trying to recall the past – leadership is about the future.

“I’m beyond perplexed,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), who criticized Sanchez at Senate Armed Services Committee hearings in 2004. “He’s chosen to play politics here. He’s opened himself up to what happened on his watch. He’s made himself a political figure, and I hope he understands that those of us who were on the ground watching at that time are going to push back.”

Graham said that he repeatedly asked Sanchez in private whether he needed more troops to pacify the fledgling insurgency, and that Sanchez always said no. “He never said any of these things when it could have made a difference,” Graham said of Sanchez’s criticism.

So I guess Sanchez’ complaint is that the Bush Administration is culpable for the situation on the ground in Iraq during Sanchez’ stint because they hired an incompetent…Sanchez.

Wolf Howling astutely observes an apt comparison of Sanchez to “Little Mac”;

While the Democrats of today may be enamored of General Sanchez and his message, history should provide them a cautionary note. Despite McClellan’s outspoken criticism of Lincoln for his poor prosecution of the war, the rhetoric failed once it became apparent that Union forces were succeeding and that victory was possible. In the end, the American electorate punished the Democrats for their anti-war stance in the 1864 election and for several decades afterward.

Prairie Pundit doubts his expertise;

He has already demonstrated a lack of understanding of counterinsurgency operations when he had the opportunity so there is little reason to think has acquired expertise since leaving.

Even the Left doubts the wisdom of linking their cause (such as it is) to a former target;

I can understand the cold political calculus that leads one to believe that getting a news cycle out of this is a benefit, but I think the long-term implications of this will prove much more harmful.

My guess is that the Democrat “leadership” is getting real bad advice from a Karl Rove wannabe.

Category: Politics, Terror War