More elections, please, in Iraq.

More elections, please, in Iraq.

More elections, please, in Iraq.

A mostly political Weblog.
Dec. 20 2005 3:15 AM

More Elections, Please!

Four years is a long time in Iraq.

(Continued from Page 11)

Yikes. Who knew? That's the sort of alarming macroeconomic information investors can use to make millions--and yet this wasn't even a TimesSelect article. They charge for Bob Herbert but they're giving away Bijaj's explosive contrarian insights for free! The hapless Pinch Sulzberger misses yet another revenue stream. ...

Update: Only a paranoid right-wing blogger would suggest that the NYT's editors are so eager to explain away any positive economic news because the healthy economy is the one remaining prop holding up Bush's presidency, and they can't believe his policies haven't produced another recession yet. Easterbrook's Bad News rule indicates that they'd have written exactly the same piece if a Democrat were in the White House. ... 1:20 A.M.


I don't understand why Hillary Clinton's finish-what-we-started statement  on Iraq is the brilliantly nuanced "Recalibration from Lieberman's Hard-Line Camp to the Middle-of-the-Road Camp" that ABC's The Note thinks it is. The Note writes:

"I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end. Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately," Clinton wrote in a letter to supporters yesterday. ...  Her eagerness to signal that the commitment is not open-ended is new and Noteworthy even though she continues to reject an immediate pullout. [Emph. added]

Did Hillary previously favor an "open-ended commitment without limits or end"? Does even the Hard-Line Lieberman favor an "open-ended commitment without limits or end"? Here's what Lieberman wrote this week:

If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come.

Is that different from Hillary's position? I'd say no. Hillary surely contemplates a presence--at least a presence "nearby"-- for years to come. Nor is Lieberman suggesting a "commitment without limits or end." The two are certainly not in different "camps." ... Either a)the Note is treating as a major shift what is a meaningless rhetorical bone to the left--Hillary saying she's not for something (a "commitment without limits") that nobody is for; b)The Note wants us to value rhetoric and "tone" (i.e. BS) over substance; c)The Note has been talking to Chris Lehane again. Or someone like him!*

*--Someone so proud of their subtle little insidery P.R. moves that they have lost touch with the outside (i.e., voters') reality! ... 4:30 P.M.

Smoke is not a plan! Q.: If you're making a five point presentation, where do you hide your weakest point? ... Q: Why number four? ... General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner has outlined the five big product bets GM is making. Bets 1-3 seem plausible. But Bet 4--

4. GM can fix -- not kill -- its damaged brands.