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.<\/p>\n
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:<\/p>\n
* On Sept. 2<\/b>, 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<\/a>. “In a matter of weeks, we’re going to have a major breakthrough in Baghdad on items of political reconciliation \u2014 the benchmarks \u2014 because the Iraqi people are putting pressure on their politicians,” Graham said. That was nine weeks ago.<\/p>\n * On Sept. 16<\/b>, Graham set a 90-day deadline<\/a> 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.)<\/p>\n * On Sept. 26<\/b>, Graham told Time magazine’s editors that unless there was political reconciliation in Iraq within 90 days, Americans should give up hope<\/a>. “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.<\/p>\n Now, Graham is pretty shameless, so it’s not hard to imagine him announcing in late-December that he wants to give Iraq another<\/i> 90 days to get things straight. But how will he defend himself, given his specific comments in September?<\/p>\n