This Wednesday, the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission — a geriatric panel of political push-overs with scant experience on Middle Eastern Affairs — will release its long-sought recommendations regarding the coming crisis in Iraq. But who’s this an exit strategy for: the American troops or the American special interest-beholden, image conscious playboys in congress? In his latest knock-out, Matt Taibbi puts it to us like this:
We may soon have to face this fact: with the midterm elections over, and George Bush already a lame duck, the Iraq war is no longer an urgent problem to anyone on the Hill who matters. The Democrats are in no hurry to end things because it will benefit them if Iraq is still a mess in’08… George Bush has already run his last campaign and he’s not about to voluntarily fuck up his legacy with a premature surrender or a humiliating concession to Syria or Iran. At least publicly, John McCain is going to head into’08 siding with those in the military who believe the problem is a lack of troops.
And now, we invite your comments: is this an act of unprecedented bipartisanship, deference to the beltway’s oft-maligned intellectual community? Or did W., McCain, and a host of presidential aspirants just drop a quagmire in the lap of Washington’s most subservient, clueless old hags?