I just had to lead off with that funny little piece from The Onion. So old Rummy is out. All joking aside, I'm quietly optimistic that this Gates fellow may actually have some sensible ideas about how to proceed in Iraq. Especially after this morning, when I read that many right wingers, including former Senate majority leader Tom DeLay are up in arms about Gates' nomination. DeLay claims that Gates will "negotiate with terrorists".

In my view, if DeLay doesn't like him, he's probably at least honest. I can think of only one reason why DeLay would dislike a fellow conservative, and I'm betting it's because Gates is one man DeLay and his cronies won't be able to buy off. Oh, and I love this quote:

If the President is going to work with the Democrats, I want the President to tell those of us that have supported him and supported his leadership in fighting this war and winning this war that we’re not going to see a war run by consensus and committee like we did in Korea and Vietnam and Central America.

So in other words, the former right honorable douchebag from Texas believes that Bush owes DeLay and his fellow stepford congressmen something for allowing the President to run the war in Iraq like his own personal game of capture the flag for the past three and a half years. And in what version of reality are we or have we ever been "winning the war"? I dislike that term at any rate. Just what are we supposed to win? If by some miracle the situation in Iraq cleared up and it didn't collapse into chaos and civil war, will Monty Hall step out and show us what's behind door number two? And yes, I can definitely see how having a bipartisan group with a common goal running the war would be extremely dangerous. After all, it might challenge the Republican mantra that Democrats are weak on defense, and they wouldn't be able to fall back on armed conflict to get elected anymore!

So in short, we'd love to listen to you Tom, but unfortunately we don't negotiate with criminals.

Categories: Politics, Opinion