The bio says it all: “Witcover is one of the nation's leading political columnists. Author of 15 books on American politics and history, Witcover has covered the Beltway beat for 50 years, giving his Baltimore Sun column considerable historical perspective. He is one of the most critical voices in American journalism of the radical turn in U.S. foreign policy. Witcover's liberal column is an aggressive, outspoken examination of politics and foreign policy.” It is no wonder then that in his Dec 10 column Bush clings to unreality in Iraq (via TMS) that Witcover himself is the one that finds him self clinging to “unreality.”

How can one honestly respond to the conclusion’s Witcover presents when his argument is couched in terms of Bush’s “grandiose visions of spreading democracy through the Middle East…” and that the only solution is “to find not ‘victory’ in his terms, but an honorable way out of his muddled foreign-policy overreach[?]” When those terms are used how is it even possible to escape “unreality,” when Witcover and the rest of the liberals have all determined that their reality is the only correct version? For a group that has constantly been harping about an honest accounting and dialogue on Iraq , they sure seem bent upon framing the discussion in terms of failure and totally ignore the possibility of any type of victory...


Read the Rest