Naive On Iraq

I think someone at the Washington Post missed the memo on not criticizing Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on their Iraq stands. Today's lead editorial in the Post is titled "Fantasies on Iraq", and skewers both Clinton and Obama's stances on ending the war and naive and short sighted.

The Post, or at least the editorial board, seem to be getting the fact that if the US leaves Iraq, someone will have to fill the security vacuum, and there aren't many good choices out there.

How bad is it for Obama and Clinton? Well, here's the best line of the editorial, and one that shows how little the folks at WaPo think of the two's withdrawal ideas.

In all, Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama speak as if they have no understanding of Iraqi leaders, whom they propose to treat as willing puppets.

It's not the first time they've spoken like that. Their stands on NAFTA and other trade agreements share that same trait. They seem to think that every leader will bend to their wishes, and there will be no repercussions from their actions.

I guess we can hope that this is all a big show to try and appeal to the base of their voters while the two are still locked in a tough primary struggle, and that after the convention the winner will gain some common sense.

Maybe, now that the Post has had the courage to call out the candidates on their stands more folks from the MSM will start asking them tough questions about it, and asking for answers, not campaign slogans.