The New York Times has a large piece in tomorrow’s paper that delves into the wide divisions of the Republican Party on the Iraq Study Group’s report. I have to say, it’s quite satisfying to finally see the GOP divided. That said, the divisions exist only to the extent to which the various Republicans, notably Rush Limbaugh, don’t actually read the report and realize it’s effectively the same policy position as the Bush administration vis a vis timeline and benchmarks. I don’t see how talking to Iran constitutes a major divide in policy; immediate withdrawal would have fallen into that category, but opening a dialogue in the region, even if Bush doesn’t want to hear about it, doesn’t cut the mustard for me. I wasn’t looking for a report about dialogues - I wanted to see major policy changes.

Even if the report is a clear rebuke of the current Bush administration policies, the inability of the authors to offer the only course of action that can actually undo Bush’s failed policies constitutes a failure of this report to stand in opposition to Bush. If Republicans are too enraged by the nominal opposition to Bush policies in the report to see that they will get everything they want - war for the duration of the Bush presidency and a politically-neutered Democratic Party on the Iraq issue - well, then that’s their problem.

Lastly, can the NY Times stop quoting Rush Limbaugh as a source on the validity of America’s foreign policy?

Mr. Limbaugh, who commands a large conservative audience on talk radio, said the commission was peopled with out-of-touch weaklings who placed a higher value on bipartisan comity than on winning the war.

“You know, bipartisanship simply means Republicans cave on their core principles and agree with Democrats,” Mr. Limbaugh said on his program this week. “That’s why everybody is praising the stupid report. Because there’s nothing in this about winning, there’s nothing in this about victory. There isn’t anything in this about moving forward in a positive way. This is cut and run, surrender without the words.”

Since when does “out-of-touch weaklings” constitute rhetoric that’s fit to print when describing major American political figures? Name calling adds nothing to the many available critiques of this report - why would the Times feel compelled to add Limbaugh’s ad hominems to their report? I’m getting really tired of the paper of record using Rush Limbaugh as a source for political analysis.

Technorati Tags: , ,