Did Hackett Just Flip Again on Iraq?

Last time I was here, I didn't touch on Hackett at all. I honestly wasn't planning on doing it during this stint, but I haven't been viciously flamed yet, so I figure it's about time.

So why is Paul Hackett now trashing timetables for withdrawal?

"Iraq: Paul says he can't envision permanent bases in Iraq. From what he saw in his tour of duty there, there are absolutely no plans or preparations for long-term settlements. And although he is in favor of getting out, he doesn't like the timetable idea -- with an interesting twist I hadn't thought of before: 'I think eventually all of our soldiers will be redeployed back home. It could happen by the end of next year, but the timetables -- especially those being suggested by members of Congress who've never been in the armed forces -- are wrong. What's the significance of, say, June 31st? Maybe the marines will be ready to leave and maybe they won't. It's too arbitrary. It could happen on December 31st. You never know what situations will arise, so the strict timetables are meaningless.'"

Well, it looks like we've got a real distinction. 39 Democratic Senators yesterday endorsed a timetable. It appears that Hackett would have voted no on that plan. And while AnthonySF portrays this as an interesting twist, it's really not that different from the arguments used by The New Republic or the Bush Administration (it is, I'll grant, better in tone if not in substance).

But what I don't understand is that this is from the same guy who asked me to sign a pledge stating that I would only support candidates "responsible leaders" who "advocate for a responsible exit plan with a timeline." But suddenly, timetables are "wrong" and "meaningless."

Did Paul Hackett have me pledge that I would support his opponent?

Unfortunately, this is only the latest in a series of twists, turns, and gyrations on Iraq policy that would leave anyone's head spinning. I mean, this is the same guy who earlier said, "If I were the president, I'd tell the military to figure out how we systematically and in organized fashion get our troops out of there, because the war's over." That strikes me as being a call for withdrawal ASAP. But he's also said that the Bush Administration needs to craft an exit strategy and that the U.S. can't cut and run.

So we need to get out, but we can't cut and run. We need a responsible timeline, but we can't have a meaningless timetable.

I really have no idea what Paul Hackett's stance on Iraq is, so I'll just ask a simple question and if someone from his campaign wants to email me, I'll be more than happy to post an answer. Would Paul Hackett have voted for the Levin Amendment yesterday?

--Matt Singer

COMMENTS: Go to Sirota's Working Assets site to comment on this entry