[UPDATED]
[and UPDATED again!]
Be careful what you wish for…
Democrats wanted power in 2006, and vowed to end the war if they got it. They got power, and showed that they had no clue how to end it, and no intention of doing so in any event. There was talk of cutting funds for the war, and they could have done that, but instead chose to push their party agenda rather than make concessions needed to pass a funding cut measure in a bi-partisan way. Instead they tell their constituents that the Democratic Party needs more power. They need enough power to override vetoes and opposition to measures that would leave Iraq in chaos; they need unchecked political power.
On the Presidential campaign trail, we’ve heard all kinds of positions from the Democratic Party candidates; from vowing to stay in Iraq until 2013 to ordering an unconditional withdrawal on day 1. Two things are clear:
1) The Democratic Party has no idea what to do with the Iraq War
2) The Democratic Party must continue to tell their base that they are against the war
It’s quite the catch 22. Democratic Party candidates can’t possibly get the support of their base if they say they’ll do what’s necessary to succeed in Iraq, and they can’t succeed in Iraq while advocating defeat.
The so-called Surge offensive makes this even more difficult since the majority of Americans now think that success is possible. So what is a Democratic Party leader to do? Do they:
- go against their base and advocate a strategy for success,
- go against the American people who see success as possible now that the surge offensive is working (both militarily and politically)
- go with their base and advocate a withdrawal that will leave Iraq in a chaotic condition that would require a third invasion of Iraq?
When posed with the question at the latest Democratic Party debate, Senator Obama said he’d withdraw from the fight against Al Queda in Iraq, and then (when the expected chaos happens), he’d re-invade. Senator McCain pointed out the ignorance of this strategy the following day, and in response to having his stupid strategy pointed out, Senator Obama (who has made his campaign “a choice between the future and the past”) decided to ignore the fact that his strategy is stupid, and instead he ranted about decisions from 6yrs ago regarding Iraq. It was a good distraction. The crowd applauded, but one wonders if anyone in the room noticed that his reply was not about his plan for Iraq (unless Sen Obama plans to use The Wayback machine).
…and so the question goes either unanswered and ignored or it goes to the worst military strategy in history (retreat, deliberately let the enemy regroup, and then attack them again when they’re better prepared rather than continue the fight that is succeeding). One wonders what strategy Senator Obama and other Democratic Party leaders will have next week? Will they continue to demand a withdrawal that started last September? Will they advocate a faster withdrawal despite all military and logical expectations for the chaotic consequences? Will they join Americans and seek success, or pander to their politically partisan base rather than to patriotic duty?
Perhaps more importantly, will the American people believe the “vote for us and we’ll end the war regardless of effect” theme work in 2008 given the so blatant lie that it was in 2006?
On thing is certain, this must CHANGE or the party will be even more torn than it already is.
UPDATE:
It’s as if the Hillary Clinton campaign isn’t even bothering with common sense anymore.
“We’re going to inherit so many challenges from President Bush. When you think about it, we have two wars, not one. We don’t talk about Afghanistan enough. We’ve got two wars. We’ve got to end one, we’ve got to win the other.”
Why not support the idea of success (as most Americans do now) rather than support the idea of defeat (which is her party’s position)? Oh yeah, cause she’s more interested in her party than her national patriotism.
UPDATE 2
WOW! What a difference a few hours makes.
Anti-War Movement seeks
to relive 1968
vs
The Timidity of Despair
John Edwards joins MoveOn.org
vs
Hillary Clinton Video
suggesting there’s a dire threat that comes in the night
(beware the Boogieman!!! Nope, no politics of fear here.)
a Failure
vs
Majority of Americans
anti-war effort
vs
Joint Chiefs say precipitous
withdrawal leaves Iraq in chaos
Author of “Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War
Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War: Malensek, Scott: 9798864028674: Amazon.com: Books
Starting with Korea, quit just when victory was in sight, was the motto of the Democrapic party. We watched as the (led by the swimmer Ted Kennedy) Democraps stabbed the Viet Namese people in the back, so why should anyone think that they should be different now. What a pack of traitors under the guise of lets all get along. Bullcrap.
Agree or disagree with that J, the question I have is can they afford to continue that in 2009? If Obama becomes President, and he orders a withdrawal that is too fast=chaos breaks out, can he afford to continue and retreat, or does he have to send forces back in? For example, he takes office in Jan 09, appeases his base and gets every last soldier out of Iraq by the end of the year, when chaos breaks out as the last chopper leaves and the last HUMMV drives out, can he afford to have 3yrs of chaos in Iraq, or does he have to push for a third invasion? I think he can’t afford to withdraw faster than what is needed. How would that work for a 2011 re-election campaign: “vote for me because I ran away from Iraq, let it collapse, and will leave it in chaos forever?” I don’t think the pandered position of getting out in 2009 is tenable or realistic. Not sure, but I don’t think there’s a single military advisor or retired officer who thinks it’s a good idea. Right now, it seems like the current strategy is the best if for no other reason than any other strategy brings worse consequences.
If you think Obama or Hillary would actually pull out, you’re as dumb as their supporters.
Well, thanks IR, but I don’t think they’ll pull out. That’s the point. And if they won’t (or can’t) pullout, then what’s the fear in terms of Natsec? Bill Clinton was able to avoid long protracted wars like Iraq and the war on terror by a combination of procrastination and fighting lots of small wars. I think since 911 and the invasion of Iraq, that kind of foreign policy can’t happen. Not realistically. Threats can’t be blown off for later Presidents anymore because they’re already being engaged.
This is delicious, who do you want to answer the WH phone @ 3:00am when the withdrawal from Iraq goes BAD? One of the two candidates that supported defeat of your country?
If Mccain can’t manage to win in November, we will just have to start over.
My vote for POST OF THE DAY AWARD goes to GI Joe!!!!!
“who do you want to answer the WH phone @ 3:00am when the withdrawal from Iraq goes BAD? One of the two candidates that supported defeat of your country?”
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 02/29/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
“Bill Clinton was able to avoid long protracted wars like Iraq and the war on terror by a combination of procrastination”
Bill Clinton just used the War on Terror to to drum up votes for his wife according to this WSJ Story
“Given all this, why would Bill Clinton, who had ignored the 3,226 clemency petitions that had piled up on his desk over the years, suddenly reach into the stack and pluck out these 16 meritless cases? (The New York Times ran a column with the headline, “Bill’s Little Gift.”)
Hillary Rodham Clinton was in the midst of her state-wide “listening tour” in anticipation of her run for the U.S. Senate in New York, a state which included 1.3 million Hispanics. Three members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus — Luis V. Gutierrez (D., Ill.), Jose E. Serrano, (D., N.Y.) and Nydia M. Velazquez, (D., N.Y.) — along with local Hispanic politicians and leftist human-rights advocates, had been agitating for years on behalf of the FALN cases directly to the White House and first lady.”
“FALN bragged about the bloodbath, calling the victims “reactionary corporate executives” and threatening: “You have unleashed a storm from which you comfortable Yankees can’t escape.” By 1996, the FBI had linked FALN to 146 bombings and a string of armed robberies — a reign of terror that resulted in nine deaths and hundreds of injured victims.
On Aug. 7, 1999, the one-year anniversary of the U.S. African embassy bombings that killed 257 people and injured 5,000, President Bill Clinton reaffirmed his commitment to the victims of terrorism, vowing that he “will not rest until justice is done.” Four days later, while Congress was on summer recess, the White House quietly issued a press release announcing that the president was granting clemency to 16 imprisoned members of FALN. What began as a simple paragraph on the AP wire exploded into a major controversy.”
You have to read the entire article to understand just how vicious the killers Bill Clinton released were and just how far the American leftist politicians will go to show their contempt and hatred for America’s law enforcement and/or military personnel. Bravo to the brave American lady who wrote it.
Sorry Pagar…FREE PASS. He’s a (D) next to his name=above questioning
I just posted this on another thread but this satire is much more relevant to the topic here:
http://www.imao.us/archives/009710.html
The civil war in iraq is ONLY at the levels of 2005. And any sort of stable central government in Baghdad is years, if not decades, away. Finally the Iraqi government that does exist is preparing to sign friendship agreements with the government of Iran (President Bush’s “Axis of Evil” might come to pass after all).
And Conservatives are high-fiving themselves about what a heckuva job the Bush Administration is doing.
What ever happened to, “if we’re there [Iraq] for six months, that will be too long”? (President Bush’s Secretary fo Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the man VP Dick Cheney identified as ‘the greatest Secretary of Defense in History”).
Or are Conservatives not permitted to remember that?
The only “Civil War” on the scene is the one hatemongers like Philly Steve practice against their own countrymen.
Was it worth it?
http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9781846141287,00.html?breadcrumbList=stiglitz&bcPath=c590614%2D00000000%23%23%2D1%23%23%2D1%7E%7Eq737469676c69747a&searchProfile=UK-590614-global&strSrchSql=stiglitz