Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Withdrawing from Iraq
Posted by: Dale Franks on Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Everyone's favorite commenter, MKUltra, couldn't restrain himself from commenting to this post:
But that has been the criticism on this website for years, Dems are losers because, unlike Republicans, they don’t stand for anything. Now, when the activists in the party are trying to do the very thing they have been criticized as not doing, they get criticized for doing it.
This is about par for the course for this commenter, and those who agreed, for whom the concept of "nuance" seems an impenetrable mystery.

Yes, I have repeatedly criticized Democrats for their cowardice in refusing to put forth a comprehensive vision of where they think the country should go. Criticism, as we have all said here repeatedly, is not a policy.

The corollary to this criticism, however, is that the policy that is articulated must be one with which a majority of Americans can be reasonably expected to agree. The Democrats might, after all run on a national policy of beating puppies to death. They might, in fact, be unified in such a policy at every level of the party.

I doubt it would win many elections, however. Unity is a wonderful thing, perhaps, but unity around policies that recent electoral results indicate a majority of the electorate rejects isn't particularly helpful either.

I know the sine qua non of the "progressives" nowadays is a rejection of the war in Iraq. And they point to polls showing that the electorate is unhappy with the situation in Iraq as an indicator that they have a policy—Retreat, Withdraw, Surrender—that will resonate with the public.

I doubt it.

That fact that the electorate recognizes that the Bush Administration's efforts in Iraq have required a superhuman effort to rise above the Keystone Kops level of competence, doesn't necessarily mean that they are willing to unilaterally withdraw from that country without a reasonable expectation that the withdrawal won't result in an orgy of destruction to US interests.

Irrespective of whether invading Iraq was a good idea, the nature of our withdrawal must be based on some sort of realistic expectation that to do so won't unduly damage our interests, or security.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
This is about par for the course for this commenter, and those who agreed, for whom the concept of "nuance" seems an impenetrable mystery.

Yes, I have repeatedly criticized Democrats for their cowardice in refusing to put forth a comprehensive vision of where they think the country should go. Criticism, as we have all said here repeatedly, is not a policy.

The corollary to this criticism, however, is that the policy that is articulated must be one with which a majority of Americans can be reasonably expected to agree.
Dale, you are bright, obviously well educated. Well informed too. But nuance is hardly your baliliwick.

Your definition of "vision" requires that the "vision" be one which the majority of Americans already agrees with. Dale, that’s kind of the opposite of how the term is used in politics. As used in politics, "vision" denotes some kind of intelligent foresight that is unusual or uncommon, otherwise we wouldn’t call a person "visionary." In other words, having a vision often means leading people where they are not currently inclined to go.

All of what I said would matter if - and I do mean if - a majority of or at least half of the American people were not for a fixed date for withdrawal. But the polls show that at least half of Americans are for a fixed date of withdrawal. I showed this a post or two ago. If you want me to cite the polls again, I will.

"Well stand down as the Iraqis stand up" has is exactly backwards. The Iraqis won’t stand up until we stand down.

The problem, Dale, for your position, is that Americans like timelines and demands. Americans go to work everyday. The work under deadlines. Every day. Deadlines make sense to them. "I have to do X by Y date or I will lose my job." Makes sense. We all have deadlines. Makes us work. Makes us get the job done.

Your side of the debate does not believe that deadlines work. It’s a weird position. Very touchy feely. "Ward, don’t you think you are being a little hard on the Beaver in demanding he clean his room before dinner time?" Kind of reminds me of how hippies "educate" their kids. "Grades and goals and timelines and demands are so artificial and so patriarchcal! Summer must be allowed to develop at her own pace."

That’s the most odd part about the withdrawal debate. The wingers have all of a sudden got so librul.

Look, Americans are practical people. They don’t like foreigners dictating how our government operates. The idea that what we will do is dependent on what some foreign government is able to accomplish is anathema to most Americans. I love the phrase "We will stand down as the Iraqis stand up." If I was Dem, I would run on that phrase. I would remind voters that the phrase makes America look impotent. The idea that the greatest country in the history of mankind will act only when it gets the greenlight from some third-rate government infected with Shia radicals who are tied to the radicals who took our people hostage in Teheran in ’79 is insane. Americans get this. They distrust most of the Middle East. They certainly don’t like the idea that our boys will be tied down until the Iraqis get their sh*t together.

Dale, you are on the wrong side of the debate. It would be hard for you to admit that, and I understand. Your contempt for the left is as much a symptom as a cause. But I do thank you for your service.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Your definition of "vision" requires that the "vision" be one which the majority of Americans already agrees with.
Well, unless getting elected is not necessary to accomplish that vision...yeah.
The problem, Dale, for your position, is that Americans like timelines and demands. Americans go to work everyday. The work under deadlines. Every day. Deadlines make sense to them. "I have to do X by Y date or I will lose my job." Makes sense. We all have deadlines. Makes us work. Makes us get the job done.

Your side of the debate does not believe that deadlines work. It’s a weird position.
Yes. I’m sure we all remember President Roosevelt’s stirring words:
Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan...

The American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory, or until January 1st, 1943. Whichever comes first.
Because the American people always have to have those deadlines...
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Dale, you are on the wrong side of the debate.
I recall mkultra pushing this same idea, insisting he knew what the majority of Americans thought of the war and citing various polls, in the summer and fall of 2004. Right up until the only poll that counted.
 
Written By: zg
URL: http://
yeah, man proposes, but God disposes
 
Written By: Sam
URL: http://www.travel2china.us
"The American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory, or until January 1st, 1943. Whichever comes first."
BWAHAHAHHAHHH!!!HAHAHH!H!H!HHHAAAHAHA



Oh my god! That’s funny.

So are you MK.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Yikes!!!

I think this is the first time I’ve seen anyone trying to make a corallary or analogy between cleaning ones room by dinnertime, and leaving Iraq on a date certain.

So, let’s try this.

Let’s say the Beav’ mearly swept the mess under his bed. Do you think Ward would accept that as a proper outcome, or whip Beav’s butt and send him to his room without apple pie???

If setting a date certain means short-changing the effort, I doubt most Americans would support it.

Now, I wont be suprised, if at the end of this year, the Iraqi security forces are standing largely on their own. And so, because of the conditions on the ground, we will be able to gradually reduce our combat posture their.

And that is both my hope, and a prediction.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider