Here's what I thought you'd like to hear about today:

1. Clinton & McCain Preen - The positioning of the 2008 candidates in front of the cameras
2. Should We Leave Iraq now? - If it is a civil war?
3. Looking to Syria - Daniel Pipes on a way out for Israel

Download
Subscribe
Add Wizbang Podcast to iTunes

Clinton & McCain Preen for the Cameras

ABC World News Tonight on Thursday lead with the story of the generals and the secretary of defense appearing at a hearing called by the Senate Armed Services Committee on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the War on Terrorism. Out of the three and a half hour session, ABC chose the news that sectarian violence has the potential to lead to a civil war. Or in the words of Diane Sawyer, an "all-out civil war". Listen to the segment from Thursday now, and I'll come back with some discussion.

Play clip.

What bugs me about this story, in addition to the seriously sad expression on Diane Sawyer's face whenever she spoke, was their inclusion of the remarks of only McCain and Clinton, without a real chance to hear the responses. These hearings have nothing to do with the conduct of the war. They are simply an preening exercise by the senators. Clinton gets to show that her previous support for the war was only for an abstract "war" that never existed. Sure she was in favor of invasion, and funding, and fighting the global war against Islamic fascism. But to position herself with the rapid Democratic left, she needs to oppose the "conduct" of the war. As Kim Priestap at Wizbang noticed:

Hillary takes the plunge into anti-war, moonbat extremism and says Donald Rumsfeld should resign:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called Thursday for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, hours after excoriating him at a public hearing over what she said was a ``failed policy'' in Iraq.

``I just don't understand why we can't get new leadership that would give us a fighting chance to turn the situation around before it's too late,'' the New York Democrat told the Associated Press. ``I think the president should choose to accept Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation.''

Maybe what the far left is doing to Joe Lieberman has her spooked.

You got that right. She has decided that the only way to look good to the moonbats now trashing Lieberman is to stake out a position as the leader of the invasion-was-right-but-they-blew-the-execution position in the Democratic Party. That was Kerry's position too. He was for the war, but not the one that was conducted. He was for the one where we went in for a week and cleaned up the mess and got out. You know, the one where you get to wear your sandals, where you get to go out to lunch, as Goldie Hawn said in Private Benjamin.

Well, war is hell, ladies and gentlemen. As Jay Tea at Wizbang said Friday:

The temptation to demand solid plans, concrete commitments, and definite timelines is understandable. War is a hideous thing, and no one in their right mind wants it to continue an instant longer than necessary. But to insist on such things is to invite defeat.

I'm going to play the actual interchange between Clinton and Rumsfeld now. It's much more than the sound bytes played on ABC World News Tonight. Listen to the entire litany of lefty talking points from Clinton, including the canard of not enough troops, that the U.S. "disbanded" the Iraq military, and the claim that Rumsfeld promised a rosy scenario. Bolderdash. Then listen to Rumsfeld take each point down one by one. This is great political theater. Thanks to C-SPAN for the complete story.

Play clip.

All is clearly not well in Iraq. But to say that Rumsfeld has painted a rosey scenario is a flat out lie. No one is more cautious in public statements than he is. I await Clinton's production of clips of Rumsfeld saying that everything is wonderful.

Should we Leave Iraq?

During the three and a half hour senate hearing, there were calls by the Democrats for the head of Donald Rumsfeld, and calls by the Republicans for support for the President's policy. No surprise there. But what do the generals really think we should do? They are in charge of the military operations there. They are quoted in the ABC piece as saying at current course and speed the situation could lead to a civil war. But will it? Can we stop the devolution? What should we do about it? If devolution into civil war is inevitable, with Sunni fighting Shia, the Iraqi military gaining strength, and the U.S. increasingly less involved in day to day front line fighting, what is our role? Democratic Senator Bayh and Republican Sessions probed this area of discussion in his questions, at the 2 hour 45 minute point in the hearing. Listen to the interchange.

Play clip.

It doesn't sound like cut and run is the general's preferred course of action, or that a civil war is inevitable. But that narative is no where near as interesting as the one that ABC chose for their World News Tonight segment.

Looking to Syria

This week's C-SPAN podcast was a discussion titled "Who is Behind Hezbollah?" at the Heritage Foundation on July 26 as the conflict in Lebanon was just heating up. C-SPAN describes it:

The Heritage Foundation hosts an event on "Who’s Behind Hezbollah? The Role of Syria and Iran." Speakers include Patrick Clawson, Deputy Director, Washington Institute for Near East Policy; Aaron Mannes, Author, Profiles in Terror; Daniel Pipes, Director, Middle East Forum and Ariel Cohen, Heritage Foundation

I'm going to play an excerpt which has Daniel Pipes setting forth four straw men solutions, and a fifth that appears to be best the way out of the current situation.

Play clip.

As of Friday, Syria is indeed offering to take a lead role in the conflict. Today on Instapundit, guest blogger Michael Totten writes:

BELIEVE IT ONLY WHEN YOU SEE IT: Syria says it kinda sorta maybe, if it's not too much trouble and if they get something juicy for doing it, just might consider playing a "constructive role" in pressuring Hezbollah to agree to a ceasefire on Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Seniora's terms.

Here's hoping. According to Ynet News:

Siniora's plan called for a ceasefire; the return of refugees; the exchange of Lebanese and Israeli prisoners; the need to settle the issue of the disputed Shebaa Farms region; extending the state's control over all national territory; limiting arms possession to state institutions; boosting UN peacekeepers in south Lebanon; and reviving the 1949 armistice agreement between Lebanon and Israel.

Those sound like reasonable terms. I don't know the text of the 1949 agreement. The real question I have is whether the UN peacekeepers are willing to shoot Hezballah's fighters disguised as civilians, and face the global outrage as the Hezzie's parade the victims in front of CNN as they did at Qana. We shall see.