Two good posts today from Josh Marshall at Talking Points.
One addresses the “flypaper theory” of why Iraq was a good idea. But the point he makes that Kerry can’t seem to articulate is this: “…the notion that there are a finite number of ‘terrorists’ who we can kill and be done with.”
What puzzles me is people saying that every terrorist we kill makes us safer. Not if it creates two more. Bush likes to brag that three-quarters of the Al Qaeda leadership have been killed or captured. Yes, but they probably all have been replaced. They’ve had three years to rebuild their network and will likely have many more years as we stay bogged down in Iraq.
The other post Marshall has is about what Iraq has become and how that confoundedly helps Bush. Kerry has been unable to articulate a different policy. Indeed, we are in a position now that we must see it through and nobody knows how we make it succeed. Certainly Bush can’t. U.S. casualties are rising. Many more areas of Iraq are now controlled by insurgents. How does Bush get a pass? He has no clear plan to get our troops out. And the most important matter is this: Why do we want to reward the guy who got us into this fiasco in the first place? If nothing else, he needs to be replaced because if he could screw this up so bad, what will he screw up next?