Fingers firmly in the wind, Dems begin subtle change on Iraq Posted by: McQ
on Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Tony Blankley notes that it is sometimes better to determine where we are politically by reading the press from other countries. He quotes the following from Der Speigel this week about the politics of the Iraq war in the US:
"The wind has shifted in Washington. America, not just its president, is at war. The Democrats are still critical of the failed Iraq campaign, but they are no longer opposed to the "War on Terror" in general. It has been accepted, and not just as a metaphor ... Ninety-two percent of Americans are opposed to an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and a majority doesn't want to see the U.S.'s special detention camp at Guantanamo Bay closed. At the moment, the American electorate's biggest criticism of Bush is that he has not been aggressive enough in pursuing terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.
"Indeed, when voters hit the ballot box in November 2008, they will be looking for more than just a candidate charismatic and clever enough to lead the country politically. They will also ask themselves which of the candidates is sufficiently tough, crafty and brutal to win the multi-front war that the Bush administration has begun.
"Many Americans now despise Bush [because of Iraq]. Nevertheless, Americans are still loath to admit defeat. This is precisely what distinguishes Europeans from Americans. ... The Americans favor the power of force, even in its crudest form, which explains why the U.S. military might is so superior to that of all other nations." (By Gabor Steingart. Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan)
A couple of misses in the article (Bush has been "despised" by many Americans of a particular political persuasion since 2000 and the mythical "stolen election") but it does seem to recognize fairly clearly part of the essence of American culture and character that is causing the Democrats to do a bit of backpeddling on the war.
As Blankley points out:
This spring and early summer: Sen. Harry Reid said the war is lost, Gov. Richardson said that on his first day in the Oval Office he would order our troops to leave Iraq immediately (even if it meant throwing down their weapons on the way out), Hillary bragged that if Bush doesn't end the war, she would do so immediately upon her arriving in the Oval Office (God preserve us), Sen. Obama took pride of place in his adamantine opposition to, and immediate departure from, the Iraq war.
John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.
Only Bill Richardson maintains his "one-point plan" for Iraq, i.e. "Get out! Get out!", and Richardson's chance at a shot at the top spot is between slim and none.
So for those of you out there claiming that the Democrats are arguing from principle and firmly against the war in Iraq, think again. They're politicians with their fingers firmly in the wind for heaven sake. They will do and say whatever it takes to convince a majority to vote for them, even if they have to subtly u-turn on Iraq to pull that off. And if Iraq goes bad again, they'll adjust again..
I mean, think about it - if they continue to modify their stance on Iraq to acknowledge a future role there militarily, where do the Netroots have to go?
I mean, think about it - if they continue to modify their stance on Iraq to acknowledge a future role there militarily, where do the Netroots have to go?
Due to time commitments I’m not going to actively engage in discussion, but my blog today (August 15) points out why it is likely that the current optimism about Iraq is an illusion, and things are very likely to go south. Bottom line: the US switched from being allied with the Shi’ites against a Sunni insurgency that could never hope to win to being allied with the Sunnis against a Shi’ite majority that is forging ever closer ties to Iran. It’s a strategic turn around that puts us in a very dangerous situation.
I point this out only to be on record that I’m predicting that things will turn very bad in the near future because of the Shi’ites, not the Sunnis. If I’m wrong, feel free to shove this in my face a year from now.
Due to time commitments I’m not going to actively engage in discussion, but my blog which doesn’t allow comments so I’m able to make the most insane, retarded, unfounded claim I care to wiout fear of being called on it today (August 15) points out why it is likely that the current optimism about Iraq is an illusion, and things are very likely to go south.
Fixed that for ya...
I point this out only to be on record that I’m predicting that things will turn very bad in the near future because of the Shi’ites, not the Sunnis. If I’m wrong, feel free to shove this in my face a year from now.
Why bother? You’ll only claim we didn’t understand your statement, that you didn’t predict it, and that we just don’t understand global politics...
I point this out only to be on record that I’m predicting that things will turn very bad in the near future because of the Shi’ites, not the Sunnis. If I’m wrong, feel free to shove this in my face a year from now.
Well, Boris, let me set my watch.
And to help me get my calendar in order, are we nearing the annual prediction about a "crisis of capitalism?"
I mean, think about it - if [Democrats] continue to modify their stance on Iraq to acknowledge a future role there militarily, where do the Netroots have to go?
The so-called "Netroots" will modify right along with them. Witness the Kos abandonment of Cindy Sheehan when she announced she might oppose Nancy Pelosi in San Francisco.
I’ve said this many times, but I like saying it, so let me say it again: Most of the "antiwar" or "peace" crowd, probably 90+ percent could really care less about being against war or for peace. When the election nears Hillary could strip down to her sports bra and panties, get into the cockpit of an F-16, strafe innocent peasants along a roadside, and the "antiwar" crowd would clutch their chests in amazement and say "Isn’t she wonderful."
The devotion to "peace" is really a devotion to power. With Hillarypower will come more socialism and more fullfillment of the anti-Americanism that drives the Left, which will come in a package marked "Europeanization of American foreign policy." If there’s any violence packaged in there with it, the "Netroots" wouldn’t care less. That will just be an additional perq, an abstraction of no more import to them than the next car bomb in downtown Baghdad.
This is much ado about nothing. I’m pro-withdrawal, and I’m also in favor of a Barack-Obama or John Edwards-sized residual force.
You’re kidding yourself if you don’t think the netroots is aware of these comments. Yet, they still haven’t gone for Richardson. You’re sort of implying that Obama or Edwards’s plan is the same as the current plan. It ain’t.
