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

 
The Democratic Political Strategy for Iraq
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, December 27, 2006

I think a close reading of what Sen. Joe Biden has had to say recently gives observers a good idea of the developing Democratic political plan for addressing the problem of Iraq:
"I think we'll only have to accept responsibility for the war if we remain silent," he said.
Or said another way, we can avoid responsibility only if we criticize and undermine.

And Joe Biden doesn't intend to remain silent. He's announced his plans to summon Secretary of State Condi Rice to testify before his Senate Foreign Relations committee next month to discuss the administration's new plan for Iraq as soon as it is made public.

Why Condi Rice? Note the name of the committee. But also remember what position Rice held prior to becoming Secretary of State - National Security Advisor. The Foreign Relations committee provides the perfect platform for both questioning the future plans of the Bush administration (although Condi Rice would have little effect or control over troop deployments) as well as the war's past controversies.

Biden is completely against further troop deployements in a surge or otherwise:
Incoming Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden, a potential Democratic presidential candidate, said Tuesday he would oppose any effort by President Bush to increase U.S troops in Iraq as part of a new war strategy.
He also issued an interesting warning:
Biden warned that congressional Republicans —- not Democrats —- would suffer in the 2008 elections if they do not join him in speaking out against Bush and opposing troop increases in Iraq.

"Absent some profound political announcement ... I can't imagine there being an overwhelming, even significant, support for the president's position," he told reporters during a telephone conference call Tuesday.

If the violence continues two years from now, "every one of those Republican senators —- and there's 21 of them up for re-election —- knows that that is likely to spell his or her doom," Biden said.
Well that remains to be seen, but there aren't many options left for Iraq. Even Robert Gates, incoming Secretary of Defense, said there were really no new ideas for Iraq. However, there are building expectations given President Bush's announced plan to study the problem and relate his plan to the American people after the 1st of the year:
He has built up expectations," said David Gergen, a former White House adviser in the administrations of presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton. "People are saying, 'OK, if you've spent all this time and effort on it, you better have a pretty darn good plan.'"

The ostensible goal of that plan will be to get Iraq on a path to govern itself and help the United States fight terrorism. Bush is also out to win back some of the American people, who want to know the war has an end in sight.
As pointed out in the article, Gergan's point is illustrated by the Iraq Study Group report and the high expectations it generated, only to disappoint almost everyone. Bush faces the same sort of expectations and most of the chattering classes are sure he will fail to meet the rising expectations with his plan.

But not so fast says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania:
"It doesn't have to be new. It has to be new for him," said Jamieson, who specializes in presidential rhetoric.

Bush and his defense team set the expectations in the first place, assuring that Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and promising that U.S. troops would be viewed as liberators. Now the president can reset the expectations.

What people want is to hear Bush explain a clear route to an honorable outcome — one in which it is clear that the war left Iraq and the U.S. better off, Jamieson said.

"There are times when a country roots for a leader. I think that's what happening with this," Jamieson said. "A lot of people who voted for Democrats want the president to succeed. I think he has some advantage coming in, because the public so desperately wants success."
I think Jamieson's point is critical. I still believe, for the most part, the American people want us to do what is necessary to succeed in Iraq. And what they are expecting is a plan which will clearly outline how that will be done and in at least a vague timeframe. Anything less will be disappointing and most likely will not garner the support of the majority of Americans that any such effort really needs to succeed.

If Bush can't deliver, Biden's warning to rival Senators may be quite true and cause a further erosion of political support from the right as those 21 Republican Senators prepare for reelection in '08.

[As an aside, I don't think he really can deliver if his plan focuses primarily on a military solution ... but that remains to be seen.]

Regardless of the Bush plan, however, I expect Biden and many other Democrats to aggressively attempt to avoid taking responsibility for Iraq by following the Biden plan.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
So much for listening to the generals...
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://inactivist.org/blog/keith_indy
The Biden/Rice thing may be more political than you think:
If Rice is at all considering a WH run herself, and Biden takes that threat seriously, what better way to cripple such a run, than to drag her up before a show trial?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
Proving once again that the left doesn’t care about the country, only their political lives....

Still, Biden’s plan won’t work. Why? Because simply put, the Dems have the numbers. People will remember that.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Regardless of the Bush plan, however, I expect Biden and many other Democrats to aggressively attempt to avoid taking responsibility for Iraq by following the Biden plan.
And I too expect you to do whatever you have to do to avoid responsibility for me not getting a Nintendo Wii from Santa Clause.
Because simply put, the Dems have the numbers. People will remember that.
They don’t have the important numbers. #1 or #2. And those are the only two numbers that matter when it comes to Iraq.

However, "if" the Dems initiated the only lever of control on the situation allowed to them, the purse strings, I have no doubt we’ll have howling indignation for the crowd here so desperate to cut loose the responsibility strings for Iraq in any way possible.
 
Written By: davebo
URL: http://
Or said another way, we can avoid responsibility only if we criticize and undermine.
What Biden is saying is that when the President is criminally mismanaging the war, it is the duty of other elected officials and Americans more generally to speak up and point out that the President is screwing the pooch.

Bush’s problem is that he is simply unable to acknowledge and understand how bad Iraq really is. He won’t admit attacks on American troops are up. He won’t admit that the government is ineffectual if not nonexistent. He won’t admit that death squads and militias infest the national security forces. He won’t admit that sectarian killings are increasing. He will not admit that the middle and professional classes are fleeing Iraq. He won’t admit that Kurdish terrorists are conducting cross-border raids into Turkey. He won’t admit that extent of the Iranian influence in Iraq. He simply will not acknowledge the problem. And therefore he cannot begin to grapple with the problem.

Since he is out to lunch, it is incumbent on the rest of us to speak up.

Now, criticizing the leadership doesn’t go over well in other countries. China comes to mind. North Korea. Given your political temperament McQ, maybe those countries would be more to your liking.

And your criticism of Biden is even more curious, considering he actually does have a plan for Iraq, one that at least acknowledges some of the realities that Bush is so out of touch with.
Regardless of the Bush plan, however, I expect Biden and many other Democrats to aggressively attempt to avoid taking responsibility for Iraq by following the Biden plan
Why do you think the Dems bear any responsibility for Iraq? What would lead you to believe that? They can’t avoid responsbility for something they were not responsible for in the first place.

Now, like the good little right wing soldier you are, you will do your level best to place the blame for Iraq on the Dems. It’s an insane assertion, really. Never mind the fact that Bush himself has said he is The Decider.

The Decider decides, McQ. Or didn’t you know that?
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
As to Jamieson’s contention that a immensely unpopular war and polling in the low 30’s is actually a good thing for Dubya.

Well, what can you say.
This one really does capture punditry at its worst: It’s completely, even laughably divorced from reality, and contains no discernible desire to root opinion in anything resembling empirical evidence. And it displays an all-too-typical refusal to acknowledge that there already is a course of action preferred by the American electorate.
And of course, it’s the light at the end of the tunnel for the Courage to Believe crowd at QandO.

Pay no attention to the train whistle.
 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
you will do your level best to place the blame for Iraq on the Dems. It’s an insane assertion, really
good of you to point out your assertion is insane, really.
Part of BDS I suppose.

As for McQ -
If Bush can’t deliver, Biden’s warning to rival Senators may be quite true and cause a further erosion of political support from the right as those 21 Republican Senators prepare for reelection in ’08.
sounds like McQ is acknowledging Biden could well be right.
Biden - "I think we’ll only have to accept responsibility for the war if we remain silent," he said.
McQ - Or said another way, we can avoid responsibility only if we criticize and undermine.
Regardless of the Bush plan, however, I expect Biden and many other Democrats to aggressively attempt to avoid taking responsibility for Iraq by following the Biden plan.
Ya know, a lot of people might read this to think McQ doesn’t think the Dems are responsible now, and are going to avoid taking any responsibility in the future (regardless of what they promised when they were campaigning).

but hey, that’s just my view of what’s written here, and I know yours is screwed up by your BDS very different.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Ya know, a lot of people might read this to think McQ doesn’t think the Dems are responsible now, and are going to avoid taking any responsibility in the future (regardless of what they promised when they were campaigning).
This might even be relevant if you had clips of dems on the campaign trail promising to "take responsibility for Iraq" if elected.

Of course, they’d have looked pretty ignorant of our system of government if they had said that, so that could go a long ways toward explaining why they never did.

The fact is, over multiple posts here, McQ has offered ideas about how the Democrats might avoid responsibility for Iraq. There’s a definite trend here.

To claim that this trend is merely an attempt to offer up a rather obtuse talking point isn’t exactly unbelievable.
 
Written By: davebo
URL: http://
Ya know, a lot of people might read this to think McQ doesn’t think the Dems are responsible now, and are going to avoid taking any responsibility in the future (regardless of what they promised when they were campaigning).
Well ya see looker, that’s because you subscribe to the non-loon version of the post which isn’t very popular on the MK side of the fence ... you know, the fence waaaaay over to the left there?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
This might even be relevant if you had clips of dems on the campaign trail promising to "take responsibility for Iraq" if elected.
Ah the retreat into literalism.

Uh, what does a discussion of Iraq on the campaign trail followed by the catchy "we can do it better" imply?

Who’s "we"?:
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Ya know, a lot of people might read this to think McQ doesn’t think the Dems are responsible now,
Nice try.

What McQ is attempting to do here is to create a narrative for ’08: The Dems promised change if they won the election in ’06. Therefore, if things don’t change in Iraq, or get worse, it is the Dems’ fault.

That’s the end goal here. This isn’t the first post from McQ in this vein. And despite the fact that any fourth grader could tell you that the President is the Commander in Chief, and that Congress really has little practical ability to change the strategy of a military campaign once it has begun, and even though Bush has repeatedly and emphatically said that he decides the strategy, no one else, McQ persists in attempting to create the narrative. He does it full well knowing it is based on a false premise, knowing it is insincere, and knowing it is cynical. But he does it anyway.

And what makes him really mad is when Dems like Biden don’t play along. See, if the Dems merely remain silent, as McQ would have them do, then in ’08, when Iraq is really in a sh*tstorm, he can look back and say: "Well, you didn’t say anything or do anything to alter Bush’s strategy. So you are responsible." McQ doesn’t want the Dems to shut up because he thinks it will help the war effort. He wants them to shut up so two years from now he, and those of his ilk, can say the Dems didn’t stand in the way or say anything critical of Bush over the last two years, therefore, the nightmare that is Iraq is their fault too.

McQ is not the only one doing this, of course. Biden isn’t reacting only to him. He’s reacting to the LimbaughHannity/O’Reily/Coulter/Malkin/Hewitt/Prager/Medved borg. McQ is just a small part of the borg. He’s on message today. Doing his duty like a good little winger.

Such a pity.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
There is no down side to his comment and he knows it. He has little to no direct affect on anything relating to boots on the ground. So why not throw a puppy to the sharks?? Good for future campaign literature.
 
Written By: coaster
URL: http://
Some random thoughts:

1. If you’re a Democrat, elected or electorate, as a practical matter why bother having a strategy on Iraq? The President has made it abundantly clear that he will do what he wants, and one of the things he has wanted for six years now is to ignore whatever Democrats thinks. There’s not a lot of evidence he’s going to change now. Figuring out something really smart to say about Iraq policy is hard, so, why waste the energy?

2. If you’re a Democratic senator, and moving from the pratical to the political, what possible upside is there to interfering with the future conduct of the war? First, zero budgeting the war is a non-starter — it could actually launch a serious constitutional crisis and the voters would have the head of anyone who voted to cut off funds for soldiers in the field. Second, the President might finally get it right! He hasn’t so far, but according to the Constitution it’s his job to flub until he’s impeached and convicted or termed out. Third, there’s plenty to talk about in the past conduct of the war that probably is actually worth investigating. There’s a boat load of money missing, for starters. And if the Congress doesn’t occasionally use its investigatory powers, people get slack. Nothing like a nice subpoena, copied to the local newspaper, to get peoples’ attention.

3. It appears to me at least that the US involvement is largely a sideshow. The various factions are in a serious power struggle and they are likely to keep at it until the usual reasons for ending civil wars roll around: exhaustion, death, lack of plunder. The very basis for our continued involvement — we’ll stand down as Iraqis stand up — presupposes the existence of an "Iraq" for people to be "Iraqis" in. Since "standing up" for a lot of Iraqi police units appears to mean the ability to form viable death squads (as opposed to operating as a more western-style police force), it looks to me like we’re at a point where US troops are more "standing around" getting shot at and blown up, than standing down.
 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
The incompetent Dem opposition needs to be told of its incompetence:
pointing out the negatives of a current plan is only 1/4 of the full discussion.

There are also the positives — and there is especially the positives and negatives of the alternative plan. The Dems dismiss any positives like Iraqis writing their own constitution, (not like MacArthur); Iraqis voting for their own MPs; Iraqis "in control" in gov’t (and controlling/ extorting vast corruption); Iraqis looking to form coalitions. Weak, young, tender positives.

The lack of a Dem alternative is the real incompetence. Wimpy Murtha style "lose fast", or "set a firm timeline for losing", which Dems are unwilling to support, are incompetent alternatives.

The failure of the Iraqi gov’t is an Iraqi failure, not a Bush failure. The Dems should be trying to say how Bush and the US can help the Iraqis succeed sooner, with fewer mistakes (and Iraqi deaths). Instead of Dem whining.

The anti-US centered press has also been incompetent; and even Bush has failed to more completely defer to the Iraqi decision makers about more Iraqi decisions.

There is and has been a failure to establish justice — to punish the mostly Sunni/ Baathist terrorists. Majority Shia death squads to revenge against unpunished Sunni terrorist supporters (maybe not guilty of terrorism, but not innocent of noticing likely terrorists w/o taking action). Shia ’death squad justice’ will be far more popular among Shia than no justice.

Justice requires force — that’s the main gov’t job.

More Dems should read pro-war Bill Roggio’s logistic complaints, and complain that Bush is obviously failing to push the Iraqis in those ways where Iraq is failing.
 
Written By: Tom Grey
URL: http://tomgrey.motime.com
Ah the retreat into literalism.
Yep, while you continue to occupy the land of the mad hatter.

But hey, if it helps ya sleep at night...

Ya gotta love your flexibility. Make a blatantly false claim (or defend one from one of your zombies), and when called on it, just point out you don’t deal with the "literal".

No wonder you guys have screwed things up so bad. Of course, it’s only screwed up "literally", not in Alices world.

It must have made life really easy when, after you set your house on fire, you were able to blame the fireman who showed up to keep the neighbors house from catching as well.
 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
Nice dodge, Davebo.

You’re improving in that area. Soon you may rank right up there with MK.

But back to the point at hand:

Again, who’s "we"?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
And what makes him really mad is when Dems like Biden don’t play along. See, if the Dems merely remain silent, as McQ would have them do, then in ’08, when Iraq is really in a sh*tstorm, he can look back and say: "Well, you didn’t say anything or do anything to alter Bush’s strategy. So you are responsible." McQ doesn’t want the Dems to shut up because he thinks it will help the war effort. He wants them to shut up so two years from now he, and those of his ilk, can say the Dems didn’t stand in the way or say anything critical of Bush over the last two years, therefore, the nightmare that is Iraq is their fault too.
Ah - see, how about an alternate view - that it makes McQ mad that Dem’s claimed they weren’t going to accept ’stay the course’, meaning they were going to force a change (which, hey, we need, right?) in policy on the war.
Pelosi talked endlessly about it in the run-up to the mid-terms (I know, I just googled a raft of her commentary on it) she backed Murtha’s plan to get out now, etc.

Maybe McQ’s mad that now that they have hopped up into the drivers seat, after reminding us constantly ’it’s about the war’ that swept them into power, now, they’re going to practice oversight without actually doing anything about it other than to criticize. I’m sure the electorate didn’t put them into power just to continue to criticize as if they’re still the minority.
Seriously, is that what you think happened in November?

Regardless of the Bush plan, however, I expect Biden and many other Democrats to aggressively attempt to avoid taking responsibility for Iraq by following the Biden plan.

Maybe he’s mad that having gained power, the Dems aren’t really going to do anything with it.
Clearly what you guys want (as we’ve long maintained) isn’t any satisfactory result in Iraq, what you want is (what you have) a continuing quagmire. To add to that, you’re not interested in the troops, or the Iraqis in this process, what you’re interested in is cementing a lock on more seats in the House and Senate and the White House in 2008 so you can restore the Democratic control that ruled before the mid 90’s. Which puts you well inside of Biden’s strategic plan for Iraq. What a swell plan for the country. Good work on being in power in Congress there guys.

Before you harp on Congress not having any control, let’s talk about Congress/Reagan and the Contras in Nicaragua. There are ways, they just have to have the cajones to use them.

There’s that trite old saying that with power comes responsibility. I’d frankly love to see the Dem’s come up with an answer for Iraq that worked.
I’d be thrilled, and not that I’m quotable, but you can quote me on that.
Don’t you think a functioning Iraq, implemented by DEMOCRATIC PARTY IDEAS would resound much more with the American public in 2008 than finger pointing at the failed Presidential plan we’ve seen so far?

Or, is the fact that they suggested they could fix it, knowing full well they couldn’t, really all just part of your plan for restoring Democratic control to the country in 2008? Are you worried about the country, or your party. We know Biden’s answer to that question at the moment.

Final point for the left - so it’s agreed it’s a war, a real, President is in charge of the armed forces, war, because they’re already using that as their excuse for not doing anything about it other than continued criticism.


Thoughts for dave - a better example next time
It must have made life really easy when, after you set your house on fire, you were able to blame the fireman who showed up to keep the neighbors house from catching as well.
refer to Hurricane Katrina (which Nancy wants to do some oversighting on too) New Orleans, Ray Nagin, Gov. Blanco, FEMA & George Bush.
(and I’m McQ’s zombie? Me? Really? WOW! a promotion! at last! Prior to this I know I’ve just been a semi annoying, occasionally right, but unrecognized, a**hole)
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Nice dodge, Davebo.
Yeah, pointing out what actually occurred versus a strained interpretation, ie. literal verses fantasy, is a dodge.
You’re improving in that area. Soon you may rank right up there with MK.
Asinine comparison to another poster you refuse to engage? Check. But no, no dodge here folks, move along.
But back to the point at hand:

Again, who’s "we"?
This is the point you’ve created. It’s irrelevant to anyone who knows the difference between politics and governance, but it’s might convenient.

But seriously McQ, since you switched from offering explanations for why the war was a great idea and it’s going swell, to attempting to assign blame for the war, can we assume you now acknowledge the war is lost?



 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
Yeah, pointing out what actually occurred versus a strained interpretation, ie. literal verses fantasy, is a dodge.
Only in your world is it a fantasy.
Asinine comparison to another poster you refuse to engage? Check. But no, no dodge here folks, move along.
It’s something about posts which begin with "you wingers" that just don’t seem worth reading much less responding too.
This is the point you’ve created. It’s irrelevant to anyone who knows the difference between politics and governance, but it’s might convenient.
I’m not a member of the party who said "we can do it better" and ran on doing something about Iraq. Humor me ... who’s "we" and what were they promising to do better?

Not take responsibility as Biden suggests? Try not to dodge the question for the third time, OK?
But seriously McQ, since you switched from offering explanations for why the war was a great idea and it’s going swell, to attempting to assign blame for the war, can we assume you now acknowledge the war is lost?
I haven’t at all changed my mind concerning the war as the proper thing to do and, as a war it did go well. The post-war period, as I’ve made very clear (and always separated the two) hasn’t gone well. And I’ve been critical of that effort and continue to be critical of it. You, however, seem incapable of understanding those differences and consequently your comments carry very little interest for me. The one above is a perfect example.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
And I’ve been critical of that effort and continue to be critical of it. You, however, seem incapable of understanding those differences and consequently your comments carry very little interest for me. The one above is a perfect example.
Where did I ask if you’d been critical of occupation?

While you claim I’m "incapable of understanding those differences and consequently your comments carry very little interest for me", you might also address the actual question posed.

For someone who constantly accuses others of "dodging the question" you seem quite capable of doing so yourself.

So again, I’m not asking if you’ve criticized the occupation, I’m not asking if my comments have any meaning at all to you, I’m asking if you’ve finally decided the war is lost? Seeing as how you’re now hell bent on finding someone to blame for it and all.


 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
So again, I’m not asking if you’ve criticized the occupation, I’m not asking if my comments have any meaning at all to you, I’m asking if you’ve finally decided the war is lost? Seeing as how you’re now hell bent on finding someone to blame for it and all.
You first Davebo.

For the fourth time, it was the Democrats who ran on a platform of doing something about Iraq with the real catchy slogan, of "we can do it better".

Who’s "we?"
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Seeing as how you’re now hell bent on finding someone to blame for it and all.
Fact is the Dems WERE marginalized on controlling it, and could only criticize (though some constructive plan, like Kerry swore he had during the 2004 campaign, would have been nice) all along when the Republicans had control of Congress.

With me so far?

Then the Dems advised us that ’staying the course’ wasn’t going to fly (and it wasn’t, again, with me so far on this?)

Then they advised us ’we can do better’ (and just to help you out, here’s some of your ’we can do better’ sloganeers plying their election time trade)

Rahm Emmanuel - Emanuel Says We Can Do Better In Iraq
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/il05_emanuel/morenews/video_march141006_.html
Pat Murray - Democratic Senator from Washington
http://murray.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=262574

From http://www.democrats.org/a/national/real_security/
We will protect Americans at home and lead the world by telling the truth to our troops, our citizens and our allies. We believe in a strong national defense that is both tough and smart, recognizing that homeland security begins with hometown security.

Democrats have a plan that is comprehensive— from repairing our military, to winning the war on terror, to protecting our homeland security,
to ensuring success in Iraq
and freeing America of its dependence on foreign oil—and it will finally prepare America for the security needs of the 21st Century. And we honor the sacrifices our troops, their families and veterans by making sure we take care of them when they come home.
Do you want me to go on? This was a simple one page search off of Google using the phrase "we can do better" & "Iraq". Give it a whirl take the Google challenge.

I particularly like the last one I cited, you know, from the Democratic Party web site....
http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html

Does the ’we’ in "We can do better" mean the Republicans Dave?

So, when McQ asks how they’re going to fullfill that ’we can do better’ promise they made, and their answer is Biden’s answer - take no responsibility, that’s your idea of ’doing better’?

And how is McQ ’blaming’ them for Iraq?
What he’s doing is pointing out, they suggested they could fix it, and now that they are closer to where they want to be governmentally, their answer isn’t to fix the problem, it’s to avoid being responsible.
Yes, I’m exactly sure that’s what they meant when they told us they had a "plan that is comprehensive...to ensure success in Iraq."

Wouldn’t you agree?

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
For the fourth time, it was the Democrats who ran on a platform of doing something about Iraq with the real catchy slogan, of "we can do it better".
I answered you when I pointed out the difference between politics and governance.

The first is what is done on the campaign, the second is what can be accomplished once elected.

So, in essence, the "we" were the democrats, making political statements on the campaign trail.

The what is somethign different. Two choices here. Do nothing, or defund the war. Which do you prefer?

Enough? OK, you’re turn.
 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
Let me put it another way.

The Democrats will take responsibility for Iraq in January of 2009. Don’t worry, we’ll still be trudging along by then.

What do you think a democrat president will be forced to do in 2009 assuming the situation is the same or worse?

Or, in the unlikely case a Republican wins in 2008, what will you think his or her’s position on what to do with Iraq will be?
 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
The first is what is done on the campaign, the second is what can be accomplished once elected.
Ah, we’re allowing for disconnects in what is promised and what is delivered now.

Is this a partycentric allowance, or can anyone take advantage of it?
The what is somethign different. Two choices here. Do nothing, or defund the war. Which do you prefer?
Depends on their convictions doesn’t it?

It is a pickle they’ve made for themselves though, so don’t expect the Republicans to play fair when election time rolls around and they remind everyone that the Dem’s said
Democrats have a plan that is comprehensive— from repairing our military, to winning the war on terror, to protecting our homeland security,
to ensuring success in Iraq
Now, as I said, I’d love to hear a working plan, from anyone. But I have to allow they shouldn’t have promised to fix it if they knew from the get go they couldn’t. Even Rumsfeld and Bush didn’t do that. I’m betting they honestly thought it would be magic moon ponies for all and we’re outta there in 2007.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I answered you when I pointed out the difference between politics and governance.
Uh, no you didn’t. It was a very specific question which you repeatedly dodged until now.
The first is what is done on the campaign, the second is what can be accomplished once elected.

So, in essence, the "we" were the democrats, making political statements on the campaign trail.

The what is somethign different. Two choices here. Do nothing, or defund the war. Which do you prefer?
So "in essence" they lied about actually doing something which would, in their own words, "ensure success" in Iraq.

Oh, and there are more than two choices btw. There’s also the choice to actually help the effort. You know, get behind it? That would be how one "ensures success", rather than criticism and obstruction as Biden suggests.

But I notice that besides the fallacy of bifurcation you’re willing to excuse "political statements" as having no credibility. Brilliant.

Another reason not to take what you say seriously.
Enough? OK, you’re turn.
My answer?

No.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
This is a mistake on Biden’s part.

Biden is too damn melodramatic for his own good. Condi is too smart to jump into the Presidential race, but she’ll do herself a world of good by going up to the Hill and beating up on The Plagiarist. Biden always thought of himself as Secretary of State in a Dem Administration. Rice will cut him down to size.

Biden tends to talk down to witnesses. That won’t last with Rice. I’ve seen him perform before; Rice should be able to use the committe Republicans as foils. She’ll also want to help young Mr. Obambi along, btw.
 
Written By: section9
URL: http://
Another reason not to take what you say seriously.
Fine, then just keep b#tching at the fireman.

You’ve been so brilliant in the past it’s bound to work sooner or later.
 
Written By: Davebo
URL: http://
Fine, then just keep b#tching at the fireman.
One could b*tch less if they didn’t go round telling people they could put out fires and then showed up to say they only felt responsible for putting out fires they specifically started.

Thing is, they told people they could put out this fire and it looks like their plan now is to stand around and watch it burn (maybe throw some gas on there for good measure to make sure the owners can’t salvage anything in 2008).
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Fine, then just keep b#tching at the fireman.
I’d be willing to bet that dodge-ball was your game of choice in elementary school.
You’ve been so brilliant in the past it’s bound to work sooner or later.
Brilliant as compared to whom ... you?

LOL!

No contest.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog

 
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