# Posted 8:53 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

Hadley on NBC: B-. Hadley's strength is that he rarely stumbles into exaggerated or indefensible statements. But under pressure from Russert, he began to seem more and more evasive, rather than addressing the questions head on. Yet even though Russert's tone was confrontational, he didn't have any trump cards to play in terms of substance. If Hadley chose to engage directly rather than looking for a way out, I think he could've prevailed.

Levin: B. Levin is a confident and aggressive spokesman for his point of view, comparable to Chuck Schumer. Yet his analysis of the situation in Iraq is not nearly as sharp as his attacks on the President. For some time now, Levin and other Democrats have latched onto the slogan that "that there’s no military solution to Iraq." The proper meaning of that statement is that there is no purely military solution to the situation in Iraq. Yet Levin aggressively insisted that because "there's no military solution", our troops are irrelevant to the situation on the ground. By extension, there's no reason to keep our troops on the ground.

But that's nonsense. Even if we pursue a primarily diplomatic solution to the situation in Iraq, our military presence will provide critical leverage. In addition, even if there's no military solution, our military forces can do things such as prevent large scale massacres or hunt down terrorists.

Although one might say that Levin's rhetoric is just the result of his striving for partisan advantage. I disagree. I think he really means what he says and that it reflects the distressing inability of liberal Democrats to accept that raw power remains indispensable to success in international relations.

John Warner: B. Inoffensive. He exerts influence via his stature as an elder statesmen of the Senate, but his contributions as a pundit are rather light.

Jimmy Carter: D-. There would be considerable justification for giving the 39th president OxBlog's first "F", but I'm not feeling vindictive at the moment. Thankfully, Carter's polemics don't require much commentary on my part. For example:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me read from page 215 of your book. “A system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights. This is the policy now being followed.” And last Sunday you told Louisville Courier-Journal, “I would say that in many ways the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli occupying forces is as onerous—and in some cases more onerous—as the treatment of black people in South Africa by the apartheid government.” Those are very strong words.

FMR. PRES. CARTER: They are exactly accurate

What perplexes me is why Tim Russert didn't subject Carter to any sort of vigorous cross-examination. Did Russert feel that Carter's statements were so absurd that there was no need for a response? I hope so, but Russert's unusually deferential tone suggested that he respected what Carter had to say.

Hadley on CBS: B+. As mentioned above, Hadley lost his rhythm when confronted by Tim Russert. But when faced with only Bob Schieffer's ambling manner and simple challenges, Hadley had no problem swatting down criticism and defending the administration.

Hagel: B. Fairly reasonable, as always. But I find Hagel far too willing to invoke certain simplistic nostrums of realpolitik. For example, he quoted Talleyrand to the effect that states have no permanent friends, only permanent interests. But that old cliche ignores how shared values create permanent friendships, for example between the US and the UK. Or how shared values prevent armed conflict between liberal democracies.

The reason Hagel quoted Talleyrand was to support his argument that national interest would compel Syria and Iran to cooperate with us in Iraq, even though their governments would never consider the United States to be a friend. Yet just as Hagel fails to recognize how shared values can create shared interests, he also fails to recognize how opposing values can generate opposing interests.

Lieberman: B. His arguments occasionally veered toward the simplistic, but he clearly made one very important point that seems to elude almost everyone who insists that Iran and Syria would help resolve the situation in Iraq if we invited them to an international conference. As Lieberman observed, both Syria and Iran have much to gain from ongoing chaos in Iraq. Ultimately, they want to be the United States battered and humiliated and understand that driving out of Iraq is the best way to achieve that objective.