Roll Call reports today that "Senate Democrats emerged Wednesday from a closed-door meeting with details of a new Iraq resolution calling for phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from that country beginning within three months."
This brings to mind a number of questions. Were I a Washington-based journo, here are 10 I'd think to ask:
1) Yes or no: Is victory in Iraq possible?
2) If no, What does it mean that America can conquer the Axis Powers of World War II but not Iraq-based Islamic insurgents?
3) If yes, Is victory an outcome you favor?
4) If it is, How does a phased withdrawal help achieve victory?
5) If it is not, Is failure consistent with upholding America's national security? If so, how?
6) A recent Pentagon statement credits heightened Baghdad patrols for insurgent attacks falling off 80 percent. If, then, the "surge" is working, why demand its end?
7) What's the worst that could happen from a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq?
8) What are Democrats planning should such a contingency arise?
9) If Osama bin Laden says Iraq is the central front in his Jihad versus the West, how does withdrawal advance the War on Terror, or, less specifically, America's general national security?
10) According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plan for withdrawal, the latest possible date American troops could remain in Iraq is September 2008. Is there anything significant about this date, other than the fact that it's two months prior to America's next presidential election?
These questions are fairly basic. I'd like to think any halfway serious journalist would ask at least a couple of them. So why is it we won't hear the answers to any?