I’m kind of curious whether it makes sense for the Washington Post to refer to Mike O’Hanlon as a “Democratic defense analyst” anymore when his main agenda these days seems to be lashing out at Democrats for not forgetting that he’s gotten virtually everything wrong about Iraq. Here’s his snippet today in the Post …
Republicans were not alone in that response. Michael E. O’Hanlon, a Democratic defense analyst at the Brookings Institution who has been an outspoken supporter of the war in Iraq, said he could not believe that Obama would put such a definitive timeline into print before a trip to Iraq, where he is to consult with Iraqi leaders and U.S. commanders.
“To say you’re going to get out on a certain schedule — regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground — is the height of absurdity,” said O’Hanlon, who described himself as “livid.” “I’m not going to go to the next level of invective and say he shouldn’t be president. I’ll leave that to someone else.”
A few more points. Can we knock down the idea that dog-n-pony shows in the country in question are really the be-all and end-all of major policy making? And with his record over the last seven years, can someone pull O’Hanlon’s license to use the word ‘absurd’ or any other derivative words.
