There was a rather remarkable speech by Sen. Hagel (Rep. Nebraska) concerning the congressional action to curtail the US effort in Iraq.

He alludes that the present administration wishes to act like a monarchy, that Blackwater, Inc. has become some sort of rogue force, that the National Guard is ruined, that we are perceived at war with “Muslims”. But so far, the Iraqi elected government has not asked us to leave, which we will any time they so request. Regional states have not expressed such a desire–other than Iran and Syria. The National Guard is tired but hardly ruined. We must watch private contractors, but the fact is many of these brave security personnel risk their lives daily on behalf of securing Iraq. Threatening to veto a bill is hardly monarchal.

The other theme of the anti-war speeches was constant castigation of the Iraqis, as if the elected government risked nothing for something new, as if 11 million did not risk their lives to vote, as if thousands of women and the formerly despised did not risk their lives in the dangerous hope of something better, as if daily thousands of Iraqi soldiers don’t hunt down terrorists in the face of terrible dangers.

So I am somewhat confused how liberal Democrats can so easily castigate liberal Iraqis, while the supposedly illiberal George Bush defends the liberal vision abroad. I know appealing to national self-interest is a better campaign strategy than sounding anti-military (e.g., these Iraqis are ingrates who don’t deserve the blood and treasure we sacrificed for them), but by the time Sens. Durbin and Levin spoke, the trope was old and embarrassing.