Confrontation trumps compromise on Iraq

Libby Spencer

I didn't have the stomach to even read Broder's drivel this afternoon but fortunately my man Fester at Newshog has the story covered. I think he has the quote of the day on the ridiculous premise that Democrats need to cut some kind of deal with the White House in order to protect their own political interests.

There will be no such thing as a bipartisan agreement on letting George W. Bush waste lives in Iraq. You are either for it, or working towards ending this waste. No pundit plan for bipartisan collegiality of blue-ribbon panels and outside experts will advance the end date of the American combat involvement in Iraq. We have already tried that, and Bush tossed Baker-Hamilton overboard. Hardball political confrontation and brinkmanship is the best potential avenue of managing the disaster that is Iraq for American foreign policy.

That nails it. I'm all about consensus building but compromise becomes impossible when you're dealing with a President so intractably fixed on a fantasy victory, especially when he is so horribly ill-equipped to define its meaning.