The Single Worst Moment of the Debate
The single worst moment of the debate? They were asked about their opposition to the "surge." Both essentially accepted John King's premise that it's working. Here was a moment for Hillary Clinton to show what her experience has taught her, and that she's ready to lead on day one. Here was Barack Obama's chance to prove that his 2002 opposition to the AUMF was more than mere rhetoric, and that his understanding of the war represents change we can believe in. Here was a chance for both of them to draw a clear distinction between their own visionary leadership and the simplistic thinking of the John Kings and John McCains of the world. They were both right to oppose the "surge," and McCain was wrong to support it; but for some reason, neither could say that and defend it. They both blew it. Badly. It's not difficult. I offer some of my own recent posts:
And because it needs be hammered into everyone's heads, my post from yesterday, in its entirety:
In December, it was clear that reports of the "surge" working in Iraq were vastly overstated. At the beginning of this month, there were ominous signs that things were getting worse. The key has always been the unilateral cease-fire, called by Moqtada al-Sadr, but that looked to be ending, in late January. Well, guess what...
A few days ago, Agence France-Presse had this bad news:Radical Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's movement Sunday announced it was cancelling a pact it signed four months ago with its main Shiite rival aimed at reducing tension between the two groups.
The agreement between the Sadrists and the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council (SIIC) of Abdel Aziz al-Hakim "has failed and is cancelled," Nassar al-Rubaie, spokesman for the Sadr bloc in parliament, told AFP.
The two groups, which have clashed repeatedly in the past as each sought control of Iraq's majority Shiite community, signed a pact last October 6 aimed at ending the violence between their two militias.
So, the Iraqi civil war may soon get much worse. With our troops caught in the middle, and our presence in Iraq fueling it. But that's not all. The Associated Press is now reporting:Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has threatened to lift by the end of the week a six-month cease-fire widely credited with helping reduce violence in Iraq, officials said Wednesday.
Sheik Salah al-Obeidi, a spokesman for al-Sadr in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, said that if the cleric failed to issue a statement by Saturday saying that the cease-fire was extended "then that means the freeze is over."
The cease fire was declared in August and due to expire at this month's end.
Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army is among the most powerful militias in Iraq. The crux of the message being sent by the organization was that al-Sadr followers would be free to resume their activities if no message was sent by the cleric on Feb. 23.
So, while we're all focused on last night's big wins for Barack Obama, and the possibly determinant March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas, the date we really should be focused on is Saturday. Because if al-Sadr doesn't renew his cease-fire, the Iraq War will soon be again exploding in unfettered fury. And a lot more people will suffer and die.
It's not difficult to explain. The surge hasn't worked. A conjunction of different circumstances helped diminish the violence in Iraq for a few months- relative to the horrendous violence of the previous year, but not even close to the levels of violence before Bush invaded! And the violence was back up, in January! And it may be on the verge of again exploding- soon!
Was that so hard?