On my blog, I take aim at a recent column by Peter Hoekstra.  On a broader note, I find it mildly disturbing that in the current political climate, we Americans focus excessively on rights, but we seldom take into account the corresponding responsibilities, or even ruminate on the perfectly resonable consequences of those rights.  Avery Doninger, recently cited by Ron Coleman, is a prime example.  When you call somebody by that kind of epithet in a public forum, you face consequences that flow from the exercise of that speech.  And the student there disagrees.

 Why is there so little focus on responsibility?  Is this endemic to some sort of “rights culture” or an entitlement complex among the younger generation?  Is it endemic to Americans?  Or is it just people with not enough time on their hands?

This morning, three different national editorial pages offer three different perspectives on the Iraq war five years on, but only one newspaper offers a dollop of common sense. The New York Times excoriates the Bush administration for not paying attention to facts. At the Wall Street Journal editorial desk, hope springs eternal. And the Washington Post bursts with righteous anger as it calls Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and President Bush to task for living in fantasy worlds.

Of the three, the Post makes the most sense. Five years into the invasion and occupation of Iraq, this nation’s leaders owe it to their constituents to move beyond swapping blame for the Iraq situation and arguing about how we got there. As the Post urges, they also need to move beyond the idiotic dichotomy of “stay the course” vs. “withdraw now” that has dominated airwaves for the past five years. Neither blame nor fantasies serve the American electorate.

I do not argue that America should not reflect on the Iraq invasion and its consequences. But with the exception of a few bright spots, the intense partisan rhetoric has shed much heat and little light on the Iraq situation. Moreover, the “lessons learned” examination of Iraq can wait. More immediate and more essential is coming to grips with reality. The United States toppled the Iraqi government and has continued interests both in that nation and in the greater region. How will it manage those interests going forward?

First off, I’d like to thank Ron Coleman for inviting me to post occasionally on Likelihood of Success. It’s definitely an honor.

Second, we’ve got an exceptionally snarky Today’s Papers segment in Slate today. Reviewing a New York Times story on the Democratic Party superdelegates’ hand-wringing on the Obama vs. Clinton question, Slate encourages the superdelegates to just “[p]ick a candidate.” Slate adds:

As the Times says, “[I]t is a virtual certainty that neither candidate will win enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination,” so the decision will come down to the votes of the superdelegates. But many of them are “hoping they will be relieved of making an excruciating decision that could lose them friends and supporters at home.” A true profile in courage.

Slate has a point. Shouldn’t these so-called “superdelegates,” who are supposed to be drawn from the Democratic Party’s leaders, put on their superdelegate tights and be leaders instead of waiting around for the decision to be made for them? And a broader question: Does this superdelegate superangst point to a leadership vacuum among America’s politicians?