For reasons that I’ve never entirely understood, the media establishment decided a few years ago that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is a “serious” lawmaker whose opinions on Iraq necessarily have merit. It’s not clear why — Graham has been wrong about Iraq policy every step of the way for five years.
But lately, Graham seems intent on giving up his “serious” reputation, making fairly ridiculous claims and predictions that make him look ridiculous. Consider the recent track record:
* On Sept. 2, Graham said we need not worry about Iraq failing the vast majority of the agreed upon benchmarks for progress, because a major step forward was near. “In a matter of weeks, we’re going to have a major breakthrough in Baghdad on items of political reconciliation — the benchmarks — because the Iraqi people are putting pressure on their politicians,” Graham said. That was nine weeks ago.
* On Sept. 16, Graham set a 90-day deadline for Iraq: “[I]f we don’t see progress on two of the three big issues — oil revenues, de-Baathification, provincial elections — in the next 90 days, it may not happen. And Iraq could be a failed state.” (David Broder hailed Graham’s “realistic” assessment.)
* On Sept. 26, Graham told Time magazine’s editors that unless there was political reconciliation in Iraq within 90 days, Americans should give up hope. “If they don’t deliver in 90 days, I will openly say the chances for political reconciliation are remote,” Graham said, adding, “If they can’t do it by the end of the year, how do you justify a continued presence?” The 90 days are almost up, and I doubt Graham will keep his word.
Now, Graham is pretty shameless, so it’s not hard to imagine him announcing in late-December that he wants to give Iraq another 90 days to get things straight. But how will he defend himself, given his specific comments in September?
Graham gave us a hint yesterday.
He’s not going to give up on Bush’s ineffective policy; he’s going to give up on Maliki.
Graham said he is disappointed with the political reconciliation efforts in Iraq and is considering influencing alternatives to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government if the country does not make strides toward that goal.
“If his government has not delivered meaningful political reconciliation by the end of the year, given the success of the surge and better security, I will consider [Maliki’s] government a failure,” Graham told The Hill. “And then we look for other horses to support.
“It would be foolhardy to continue to throw money at a group of people who have had an opportunity to produce and have not,” he said. He added that he is “not going to sit on the side” if the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions fail to implement reconciliation measures that could bring the country together.
Graham, who is up for reelection in 2008 and will likely face a primary challenge from the right, has been in discussions with the White House about his possible move, said a source familiar with Graham’s plan. “They are familiar with his line of thinking,” said the source. “The White House has its own problems with the Maliki government.”
I try to avoid predictions, but this one’s easy. Graham’s talk about 90-day deadlines sounded like deadlines for Bush’s policy, but he secretly meant that he was giving Maliki 90 more days. He just didn’t say so. Therefore, Graham will no doubt call for Maliki’s ouster, and then announce, “We need to give the new Iraqi government time to reach political reconciliation. Anyone who dare disagrees with me is a cut-and-run defeatist.”
I have a pre-emptive question for DC’s media establishment, which tends to love Graham: how, exactly, will the South Carolinian support the overthrow of a democratically-elected government in a sovereign nation?