Examining the Democrats’ counsel on Iraq
Scanning the commentary after President Bush’s Fort Bragg speech on Iraq, our eyes were caught by a headline in The New York Times: “Wanted: A Policy.” True, the advice was dated 1861, not 2005, and the President at whom it was directed wasn’t George W. Bush, but Abraham Lincoln. But you get the idea; plus ça change.
Americans have a long and honorable tradition of taking exception with their governments, even during wartime. After Mr. Bush’s speech, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid described Iraq policy as “adrift, disconnected from the reality on the ground and in need of major mid-course corrections.” Surely anyone offering such a biting critique won’t object if we examine precisely what “corrections” the loyal opposition has in mind.
Let’s see: As best we can tell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s main suggestion Tuesday night was that we spend more on veterans benefits. Former General Wesley Clark–a man who should have something valuable to say on the subject of waging modern war (he wrote a book with that title)–lamented that Iraq has become a recruiting and training ground for terrorists, as if Abu Musab al-Zarqawi only entered his current profession in April 2003. And as if jihadists aren’t also still hitting us in Afghanistan, which is a campaign General Clark says he supports.
By the logic of Mr. Clark’s critique, the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq immediately because the terrorists will then leave us alone. But when Fox’s Brit Hume pursued the question, Mr. Clark backed away. As for helpful policy alternatives, we didn’t hear any
Peejz
I saw a little bit of Clark on Fox News last night….How the F did this man ever become a General????
He was basically incoherent….
ACk! CAn’t link to the rest of the article!
Ted
1-He reminds me of a functioning alcoholic. He just looks like he has a hangover!
2-Ted, what are you getting?
Then there is Delaware Senator Joe Biden, whose thoughts on the subject are particularly worth attending to because he is the Democratic Party’s lead spokesman on the issue. Consider his track record to date:
• In April 2004, Mr. Biden predicted there would be “absolute chaos” in Iraq following the handover of sovereignty to the interim Iraqi government of Ayad Allawi. “Who’s going to be the referee when [U.S. Ambassador Paul] Bremer leaves?” he demanded to know on CBS’s Early Show. But Mr. Allawi helped smooth the transition to the current representative government, and he has taken his place as a leader of the opposition.
• In December 2004, Mr. Biden said prospects for a successful election in Iraq were “receding rapidly” because of Administration mismanagement; a month later, he predicted the election was “going to be ugly.” But the January 30 elections were peaceful and inspiring.
• Earlier this month, Mr. Biden called the de-Baathification of the Iraqi army one of the “major mistakes” of U.S. policy, and called for Iraqis to rehire some of Saddam Hussein’s old colonels. But it was precisely the April 2004 effort to re-enlist Baathist officers in the so-called Fallujah Brigade that was among the Administration’s greatest mistakes so far in Iraq.
The Senator’s latest ideas are to accept an Egyptian offer to train Iraqi police and to get NATO to deploy some troops to police the border with Syria. On the former, we weren’t previously aware that the Cairo constabulary was a paragon of efficiency and probity, which is perhaps why the Iraqi government has discreetly turned away the offer. On the latter, has he talked to the French? They’ve barely allowed NATO forces to help in Afghanistan, much less be deployed in numbers in Iraq.
We stress Mr. Biden’s views because he strikes us as one Democrat who understands the stakes in Iraq and seems genuinely interested in a good outcome. The thinness of even his policy alternatives suggests that Democrats really don’t have any better ideas than the two-pronged Bush strategy of 1) supporting a new, inclusive democratic Iraqi government and 2) training and deploying Iraqi security forces as rapidly as possible.
As for the sincerity of Mr. Biden’s colleagues, we are less sure. That goes especially for the 122 House Democrats–Barney Frank, Rahm Emanuel and Charlie Rangel among them–who last month supported a Congressional resolution calling for a timetable for withdrawal. This is a guarantee of defeat. These are the “Pottery Barn” Democrats, who claim to support the war effort on the premise that since the U.S. “broke” Iraq (rather than Saddam), the U.S. has to fix it–even as they have nothing but criticism to offer.
So what’s left? It’s not as if there’s no room to criticize the President’s policy. Senator John McCain insists we need more troops on the ground, and while we think Mr. Bush convincingly rebutted that view in his speech, at least it’s an argument worth having. A more serious criticism is the failure so far to inflict harsher penalties on Syria for its continued support for the insurgency.
On these and other points, the Democrats could contribute to a victory in Iraq. But that isn’t going to happen until more of them, or even some of them, switch from the Pottery Barn to the Home Depot rule: You Can Do It, We Can Help. Pace the New York Times on Lincoln, what’s needed is not a policy. It’s a constructive opposition.
3.
That’s a great description… and I know that look well, I was one for about 4 years.
Ted, That is the rest of the article.
“On these and other points, the Democrats could contribute to a victory in Iraq.”
what makes you think Democrats WANT a victory in Iraq?
Thanks Peejz. I was getting a log on request.
Ted
8-They keep touting out the base of elected officials that appear to want anything but victory. They want to repeat the mistakes of Vietnam, where they butt in where the have no business. At least that is how I see it.
Flip-flop. I think the following were uttered by candidate GW about Clinton and Kosovo. My how the tune has changed now.
“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”- George W. Bush, 6/5/99
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”- George W. Bush, 4/9/99
yeah, the difference is, the war against muslim animals for the future of civilization itself is much different than a “Wag the Dog, nintendo-pilot bombing campaign”
if you can’t see the difference…I truly pity you.
If you can’t see the obvious twisting of an opinion to fit the need, I truly pity you. GW will say whatever is expedient and opportune at the time.
12. ” “Wag the Dog, nintendo-pilot bombing campaign”"
Are you suggesting that the service personnel involved in Kosovo were not worthy of respect and support? Were merely playing cyber ganes? Shame on you. I guess “support the troops” is only important when you deem it so.
12- He doesn’t see the difference. Nor does he understand that at the time the statement was made, GWB was not the POTUS. GWB, I am sure, has had private conversations with WJC about this.
15. I stated :candidate Bush” in my original post. So, peejz, don’t lie and tell me that I didn’t realize GW was not POTUS at the time.
Also, candidate Bush can state something as a principal , and POTUS Bush can then change the principal? Sounds like flip-flopping, and opportunism to me. Bush also made a direct statement during his first campaign that he would never send troops into battle without a clear cut exit strategy. We’ve all seen how much he meant that. If it was imporatnt to make a case of timetables, withdrawals, and exit strategies then, it is now.
Frankly, if you guys ever said: “Yep, he made a mistake or was not consistent maybe folks would take would you say a bit easier. Your leaders seem to be the only ones in history that never make a mistake, say the wrong thing, or screw up.
Bush lied, people died. Wow. Now go back to your intellectual friends. You are just too smart for us.:roll:
“Carry the battle to them. Don’t let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive. And don’t ever apologize for anything. ” ” Harry Truman
Men make history, and not the other way around. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better.” –Harry Truman
As I’ve said, Americans are not stupid, and will see through the rhetoric. No post-speech bounce per Zogby:
“President Bush’s televised address to the nation produced no noticeable bounce in his approval numbers, with his job approval rating slipping a point from a week ago, to 43%, in the latest Zogby International poll. And, in a sign of continuing polarization, more than two-in-five voters (42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq. … ”
… Pollster John Zogby: “The nation continues to be split down the middle but there appears to be a deep and growing concern about how polarized we are. The President tried to address the situation on the ground in Iraq and hoped to allay the fears of the nation. It looks like that did not happen. Meanwhile, opposition to the war reveals that Americans are just as hostile and intense as they were the day after the 2004 election. The message seems to be pretty clear for Mr. Bush: lay off the partisan rhetoric and work to find compromise solutions.â€
The Zogby America survey of 905 likely voters:roll:
It’s a recognized polling organization. You would discredit anyone and anything that rains on your parade. The obvious thing here, and with much other recent news, is that the house of cards is crumbling.
21-according to 905 likely voter. Which registers as 0% of the population. Thanks for the info.:roll:
23. Oh, yeah, you don’t like polls unless and until they support your position. That’s selective acceptance in my opinion. Keep up the naivete. Have a pleasant evening.
Ellis,,, don’t spout the liberal “support the troops” BULLSHIT please. I have seen firsthand how yall support us.
I hope all you libs that are undermining our mission choke on the vomit of your own nervous breakdowns. By the way,,, exactly how the FUCK do you support the troops? By running down the President and the mission with every pitiful breath you take?
Do you support the troops like mr. Churchill, that pitiful waste of blubber that calls himself a professor,,,, advising soldiers to frag their officers?
23-I don’t watch any polls Einstein.
24. Galt, first, I wish you well on your deployment. I also pray that you have provided to you the proper armor and protection (unlike the soldier who was told that he should take $600 of personal funds to buy body armor as he’ll sure wish he had when in Iraq).
Second, I can very easily support the troops who have been placed ion harms way while at the same time objecting the the administration’s flawed policies and lack of plan. The troops are following orders, and it’s not their fault they are in the mess they’re in. The two positions are totally consisten and logical. Only you neocons ignore that fact.
I am very comfortable with my positions, and to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is anti-American, a non-supporter, etc. is both naive and stupid.
25. Well, the president and his staffers sure look at polls. And, I recall polls being quoted quite routinely by y’all in the lead-up to the ’04 election.
I’m done with this topic. I refuse to get into a pissing match.
So there you go John. He wishes you well even though you are stupid and naive:razz:
28. You made my point, peejz. As a soldier, I wish Galt well in his deployment. I reject his politics. If you can’t see the difference, you are more pig-headed and stupid than anyone thought.
See, I just helped degenerate this in response to your absurd comment. Bye, sleep well.
27-No, they didn’t. It was the media that kept pushing them down our throats. How did those exit polls turn out on election day?
Well, let us give credit where credit is due, even to those whom which we might disagree.
Nah, screw that. It’s hard to agree with any of the assinine comments those lefties let spew forth from their dog bowel like mouths:mrgreen:
Whewww, there ya go again… I AM NOT A NEO-CONSERVATIVE. Closer to a nationalist if anything.
Blah, blah, blah,,, if only you had the proper armor… blah, blah, blah,,,
I have NEVER heard of a socialist pinko commocrat that WANTED to fund the military… Your comments have made the joke of the day.
Comparing Kosovo to the War on Terror and especially to the battle in Iraq is comparing apples to oranges. Kosovo was a conflict not at all related to our national security that we dedicated troops to the UN for and as such we had a right to know how long they needed our troops deployed. If the UN mission failed, it was no skin of our back. Iraq is a war that has a direct impact on our national security and failing is NOT an option. Until we are sure the Iraqi defense forces are capable, implementing a timetable for it is would be the same as admitting failure.
The difference is obvious in my mind.
Ted
Ted