Why Are We Not Done With Dionne?

E.J. Dionne gets under my skin because he's a man with little common sense who has been given a massive soapbox to say what he will. The WaPo columnist had this to say on Real Clear Politics this a.m.:

The challenge to critics of the war is to make the debate about Bush, not themselves, and to make clear that the president has rebuffed all efforts to pursue a bipartisan path out of Iraq, beginning with his rejection of the core recommendations of the Iraq Study Group headed by James A. Baker III and Lee Hamilton.

What a breakthrough! Make the war about Bush! Why hadn't the Left thought of that before? Brilliant!

Dionne is hanging out with former DC mayors if he thinks there's a crack-smoke-thin whiff of bipartisanship in the Dem party. Hasn't been since Florida in 2000. Their definition of bipartisanship is "My way or the highway, Bub."

If there were bipartisan leadership in the Dems, there wouldn't have been a Resolution to Show No Resolve. There might have been a non-binding resolution saying timelines and performance milestones need to be imposed on the Baghdad government, but not a no confidence resolution like the House and Senate bills.

And Dionne's reference to the Baker-Hamilton report, which has been shown to be deeply, mortally flawed, is about as compellling as a third-rate hack spinning for a losing cause. Waving that report under our noses may influence some, but most of us just smell a stink.

Of Jack Murtha's proposed end-around -- support the troops by making it impossible for them to fight by enforcing "term limits" on their action in Iraq -- Dionne says:

The Murtha measure would at least force a much-needed debate on the damage this war has done to our armed forces and the extraordinary burdens being borne by the brave minority of Americans who serve. It would also sidestep the political damage of doing anything that could be construed by Bush's supporters as "failing to support our troops.''

Granted, Dionne goes on to say Murtha's approach is doomed, but does he think we voters would actually buy Murtha's approach as anything but a slap in the face of the soldiers? We're too smart by far. We know that Murtha's measure isn't based on concern for the troops or their families -- if he's even talked to them, he knows the majority are there for the long haul -- it's just political sidestepping and cowardness.

I could go on, but I have to be 50 miles from here in an hour, so I'll just leave with this: Dionne may be a fool, but he's a fool to millions. Throughout Iraq are U.S. soldiers who are nobody's fools, certainly not his, and they would like to be able to get on with their mission without the knowledge that they are fighting to protect the liberties of liberals with oversized influence and undersized appreciation.