On Sunday's Meet the Press, Sen. Lindsey Graham said “Congress should sort of shut up and not empower Qaddafi” by discussing the possibility of cutting off funding for military operations there. He also said it was a boo-boo for Republican candidates to think that getting “to the left” of Obama on war is a path to victory in the GOP primary. At National Review's The Corner, Mark Steyn joined Mark Levin in disparaging Graham. (Levin calls him "Goober.") Laura Ingraham has also mocked his previous "shut up" comments:
Daniel, re Lindsey Graham’s suggestion that everyone should just “shut up” about the Libyan Non-War, you’ll recall that the last time the Senator attracted any attention in these parts he was also telling everyone to shut up – this time about Islam. Maybe it would be easier if he just issued the rest of us with an approved list of conversational topics. Alternatively, here’s a suggestion for Senator Graham: Why don’t you shut up? Not permanently, but just long enough to:
a) reflect whether this apparently reflexive response of yours is really appropriate for a citizen-legislator in a self-governing republic;
b) articulate a rationale for the Libyan mission that would be so persuasive it would save you the trouble of making a fool of yourself by insisting that those who have the temerity to disagree with you are beyond the bounds of public discourse;
and c) spend ten minutes in a darkened room with a nice cup of herbal tea and ponder, re your assertion that those who won’t “shut up” are “empowering Qaddafi”, whether that line has any credibility coming from a member of the Congressional jet set who only two years ago was ”empowering Qaddafi” by taking tea in the pock-marked transvestite’s tent as part of some greasy little Senatorial outreach mission.
It's not easy being on the other side of Mark Steyn, especially when you're flip-flopping. Steyn concluded:
It was striking that, at Monday’s debate, even the more hawkish candidates were unable to articulate a rationale for the present Afghan mission. It’s hard to win a war when you don’t have war aims, and, as I wrote in National Review a couple of weeks back, America has gotten into the habit of unwon wars – in part because a buffoon like Graham and his dictatorial air miles are what passes for geostrategic “expertise” in Washington.
