During a June 2006 appearance on Meet the Press, New York Times reporter Anne Kornblut claimed that the Democrats were "bracing incredibly for the Karl Rove cut-and-run accusation."
Of course, that "cut-and-run accusation" came and failed spectacularly, as the American people overwhelmingly disapprove of the Iraq war and the Republicans' handling of it.
Yet Kornblut continues to insist that Democrats must be wary of being given the "cut-and-run" label. During a January 4 appearance on MSNBC's Scarborough Country, she declared, "I think the biggest nightmare for some of the Democrats in the Senate would be a Democratic Party that looks as though it just wants to, from -- the words from 2004 -- 'cut and run.' "
Kornblut describes "cut and run" as "words from 2004" -- never mind that those words were prominent in 2006 and that they didn't work. Never mind that Kornblut herself spoke of the attack in 2006. Kornblut simply disappears that inconvenient truth, focusing instead on 2004. We've said it before, we'll say it again: This isn't 2004 any more. This isn't 2002.
People. Don't. Like. This. War.
How hard is that to comprehend? It's been the truth for a long time. A very long time. President Bush and John McCain are pushing an Iraq policy -- escalation -- that has the support of only about 11 percent of Americans. Eleven percent! That's in "would you like to be kicked in the head" range. People overwhelmingly oppose this war; they want to end it; and leading Republicans are talking about escalating it.
Surveying these facts, pundits declare that Democrats better watch out, lest they be branded "cut-and-run[ners]." And these people get paid to utter this nonsense!
Damn I'm glad I was on vacation.