I can’t believe that a guy as sharp as you can’t see the BHO administration’s virulent investment in failure in Iraq. He campaigned on the hollow “I was against the war from the beginning” plank (without having to answer for how he would contain Saddam who attacked CF over 500x in the UN mandated No Fly Zones in 2002 alone – we had 90,000 forces in the region already committed to the region to contain Saddam) and voted AGAINST the Surge. His vapid plan to redploy all US forces from Iraq in 16 months has been universally panned by everyone with a brain in the Pentagon.

Nominating a loser like Hill to be ambassador to Iraq is his slithery, serpentine way to ensure Iraq fails and that he can conveniently blame Bush for ever going in in the first place.

Bush gave us Crocker and Petraeus – clearly the drean team for victory in OIF. Obama is giving us Hill and shaky policy on redployment of US forces from Iraq – neither which anyone can lay at the foot of the GWB administration.

Hill gave away every last ounce of leverage to the DPRK and got zilch in return. Appointing Ambassador to the infant Republic of Iraq government is the fastest way to undo historic progress in the middle east.

I’m Obama — if I think Hill is a successful diplomat through his work the last couple years on North Korea policy — then I keep him on there. It is obvious Hill was a major factor in Bush reversing course on NK and that Hill was leading the direction of the change in course. So, if I think he did the right thing and has been doing a good job —— why replace him at this point? Why have to search for someone else to take his place and have to go through the trouble of getting to know the North Koreans and getting up to speed on everything else?

If I’m Obama — and I think Hill’s North Korea policy — which has Hill’s personal stamp on it, as mentioned above — has been a failure —– why send him to Iraq?

It seems to me this shows a disregard for either North Korea or Iraq policy. Either he’s replacing a good man at North Korea with something new at a time when things are gridlocked – or – he is placing in a key position (Iraq) someone he doesn’t trust to handle tough issues.

It seems it might also fit with his choice of Panetta for CIA. To me, both say, “I don’t really care about the CIA or Iraq.”

(loud thudding sound as KCJ collapses on the floor…)

What can the thinking be?

If you have faith in the man, why not keep him on for NK policy? He’s obviously up to speed with what has been going on and familiar with all the players since he’s been the man in charge for the last couple of years…..

….if you don’t care much for his diplomacy with North Korea but want to give him a senior post, why Iraq? Why not give them the ambassadorship of France or Germany or whatever since he’s a Euro expert….

Why Iraq?

I give the Ayatollahs a year to negotiate their way to power.