By DHinMI
We are the ones who pointed out the fact that Bush's delusional PNAC/TeamB/CPD braintrust had been wrong about everything since the dawn of time and were the last people who should be trusted with a pre-emptive war doctrine. We're the ones who noticed that you didn't have to be a nuclear scientist to see that the "evidence" of Saddam's arsenal had a bit of a comic book flair to it. (The drone planes should have been a tip-off.) We're the ones who understood that people tend to not like being invaded by foreign troops even when they despise their own leaders.
It was the sophisticates of the establishment who bought every bit of snake oil the administration was selling, not us. And yet we still have to be condescended to from the people who were flat out, 100% wrong?
I am not a pacifist. And I never said that we should not respond to the threat of global terrorism. But I disagreeed with the way this administration and the Democratic hawks went about doing it --- especially this enormous mistake of invading a middle eastern country for inscrutable reasons, at this time, in this way. And I was right. I don't know if I represent the zeitgeist of the rank and file, but I do know that I and others of "the left" who saw this debacle for what it was have earned a little fucking respect.
Digby's right, 100%. But it raises a question? Why don't the liberals who supported the Iraq war show us respect? Could it be that they're so insecure that they're afraid it get they expelled from the kool kidz foreign policy klub? That they won't be seen as viable national leaders?
There were a lot of liberals who opposed the war, not only on blogs. In the Senate, 22 of the 50 Democrats voted no on the Iraq War Resolution (IWR). However, of those still serving in the Senate, the opponents of the IWR comprise a 20-18 majority. The yes votes no longer in the Senate are Carnahan, Cleland, Daschle (who were all defeated), Torricelli (who probably would have been because of scandal), and Breaux, Edwards, Hollings and Miller (who all retired). Of the no voters, only Wellstone and Bob Graham are gone from the Senate. And in the House, a solid majority of Democrats--126 to 81--voted no. Even in Congress Democratic support for the war was a minority position.
The problem with Democrats is that so many of the people put forward as "serious, national figures" supported the war. Every viable candidate for the Democratic nomination who cast a vote on the Iraq war voted yes. And just about every Capitol Hill candidate we're being told is someone we should consider a "serious" contender for the 2008 nominationEdwards, Hillary Clinton, Biden, Bayh, etc.--supported the IWR.
I'm far from a knee-jerk jerk endlessly railing on about how "the Democrats" are wusses, don't stand up for their convictions, or don't even have convictions. But on some issues--and I think defense is the most obvious example--too many Democrats are prone to compromise their convictions because they're afraid they're wrong, or maybe that they'll look weak. Some Democrats supported the IWR because they truly believed it was good policy, and others because they believe it was necessary for electoral viability or survival. But too many Democrats aspiring to be "serious national figures"--John Kerry is exhibit A--seem to have supported the IWR because they lacked confidence in their own ideas, and they certainly showed they lack confidence in the ideas of their own supporters. These Democrats thought they were being "tough minded realists" in spurning their Democratic base, which even at the height of post-9-11 jingoism was never enthusiastic about a war in Iraq. But this is a case where they really were being a bunch of wusses. They pursued a bad policy because they were afraid to be wrong, afraid it might prevent them from becoming or remaining "viable." But as the old adage goes, good policy is good politics. They pursued the worse policy, and politically it got them nothing.
Digby is right that we've earned some respect. But more important than showing us respect, I'd like the Iraq hawks to at least exude a little confidence. Sure, it would be nice if somebody like Hillary Clinton or Harry Reid or Diane Feinstein could come out and say "you know what, I was wrong, and I should have listened to some of my most passionate Democratic supporters who called on me to oppose George W. Bush's war in Iraq." But how about at least saying "this war is a failure. We need to rethink our policy in Iraq, what we're trying to achieve, and how we think it can be accomplished, because what we're doing right now is not working." Chuck Hagel and Walter Jones have publicly expressed their misgivings about a war they once supported. Republicans are showing they're confident enough to admit that the war's not working. Democrats who supported the war aren't saying the same thing. Is it because they're not confident enough to say lets try a new policy? Is it because they're afraid it would look like admitting they were wrong?
As DemFromCT said yesterday, "some sharp choices on Iraq would be good to hear about right now." Sure, some will say that it's craven, and they might be right. But it would be good policy. And in this case, especially with Iraq turning into more of a debacle every day, it would clearly be good politics. So why are the people who are supposedly the "serious national figures" of the Democratic party all so hellbent on sticking with a bad policy, so long after it clearly became bad politics?
Sometimes it seems so crazy that I think there's something we're missing, like aliens or bigfoots have come and possessed the entire Congress.
Posted by: David | August 22, 2005 at 22:15
DHinMI,
How politically do you think any of these messages would play with the public?
Democrats to Bush: "Get a working strategy or get out."
or
Democrats to BushCo: "Either we get out on our own terms or we don't." link
Oh, and Martha Raddatz of ABCNews continues to be the best reporter on Iraq and the Pentagon. As straightforward and honest as you'll get these days. Among other things she shared tonight, she mentioned that the Iraqi constitution as is could lead to civil war and the private concerns of the military.
Posted by: Newsie8200 | August 22, 2005 at 22:27
Raddatz was awesome. "A lot of people in this building (the pentagon) are worried about this.'
Posted by: DemFromCT | August 22, 2005 at 22:28
Newsie: I like the first one. It puts it on Bush, it implies he's already failed to date, and it puts him on the defensive. It's a valid variation of the "stop beating your wife or else" trope.
I hardly ever watch television news, but I've always been impressed with Radditz. She was great on NPR, and when I've seen her on ABC she seems just as good or better than when she was on NPR.
Posted by: DHinMI | August 22, 2005 at 22:33
And it's simple, right, DHinMI?
The biggest problem Democrats have is being simple about things.
Oh, that, and unifying around one message.
And everybody pretty much gets what they want, right?
The Democrats appear tough, and it applies that they want us to succeed over there. They also signal support for pull-out if Bush doesn't follow through. It's also kind of like rhetorically standing your ground in Iraq while inching towards pullout.
Posted by: Newsie8200 | August 22, 2005 at 23:18
Being against the war implies you are against American hegemony. The military budget, and our right to make war at will, is the real third rail.
Sorry. Too much Chalmers this evening.
Posted by: al Isqut | August 24, 2005 at 00:45
DHinMI,
You start with the old adage that good policy is good politics. Fair enough, and I'll accept, for now, the converse inference you set forth -- that, in general, bad policy is bad politics. However, that doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that opposing bad policy is always good politics (or that supporting the bad policy is always bad politics). I think al Isqut's comment is spot on -- if the opposition to the bad policy would implicate a third rail, then opposing the bad policy is not only bad politics, it (by definition) is political suicide. Not sure of the solution; I guess it's all in the messaging. How can Dem leaders communicate that they oppose Bush's War and at the same time refute the implication that they are against American hegemony (and, by extension, are not anti-military). Offensive, I know, but maybe a political reality?
Posted by: EinPA | August 24, 2005 at 13:06
I think you can communicate that with "Get a working strategy or get out." Make it clear that getting out only happens if *Bush* is unable to come up with a winning plan.
In contexts that allow it, extend it a bit with reference to Bush's inability to think of a single mistake he has ever made, and use that to emphasize the bullshit of Bush's belief that the only two options are doing *exactly* what we're doing now until it somehow works or "cutting and running." There are always other plans, except for people who are too stubborn to admit they could be wrong.
Make the demand that should have been made from the beginning: "Either explain how you're going to win this, or you won't be allowed to continue. 'I know what I'm doing, don't question me' isn't an explanation."
And further, point out that someone who has a plan and has confidence in it should have no problem with explaining it. Only a wimp who has no plan or no confidence hides behind yes-men.
Posted by: Redshift | August 24, 2005 at 15:10
POINT AND COUNTERPOINT
have read a few questions about asking GW two questions
(1)Why aren't your daughters serving in Iraq if it is such a noble cause? (2)What is the noble cause?
I will attempt to think of hypotheticals that Rove et al will come up with and post them here for examination.
For question #1 regarding why the twins are not serving in Iraq. GW will probably say:
(1)He honestly tried to get the twins to go to Iraq, and when they went for their physicals and whatnot, the Doctors strongly recommended against it. The medical reasons are private between the doctor and my daughters.
[So, liberals, how do we respond and tear apart an argument like this?]
(2)The military is a distinct profession, God knows not everybody has it in them to be a brain surgeon, likewise, not everybody has it in them to be a soldier. This is why soldiering is one of the most noble of professions. I discussed the matter with my daughters, unfortunately, they are not so constituted as those incredily noble men and women currently serving in the military. That is why they(my daughters) are minding the homefront(volunteering for veterans, families, etc).
[Any solid counterarguments? Given that not everybody can be a surgeon, truthfully, not everbody can be a soldier?]
(3)I already discussed the matter with my daughters, as much as i really want them over in Iraq serving with our men and women in uniform; i am just a dad--i can't forcibly impose my will on my daughters, and...i can't presume to speak for them as to why they are not in the armed forces.
[We all have a choice...there are children who joined the the military against their parents wished, or vice versa. How do we respond to this?]
(4)GW could simply send the twins to a supersecured and pampered location in Iraq/Kuwait/Saudi Arabia, let them do a 3 month stint there and then come back to claim that they've "served" in Iraq.
AS TO WHAT THE NOBLE CAUSE IS.
GW could possibly give a short, non-answer like this: Everyone, every man and women to ever wear the uniform of the united states armed forces, has already more than done enough--because it is the noble cause, in fact, the noblest of all causes for anyone to wear the uniform of the united states armed forces regardless of when or where. We may all disagree or have different view points on the war on terror, but i believe we all can agree that to wear that uniform is a noble cause enough, to make sacrifices in that uniform, regardless of where and when, is more than a noble cause enough.
[How do we take this kind of insult apart?]
Posted by: entropylad | August 25, 2005 at 23:00
mature vs young hard mature women vieille salope mature amatrice mature fuck young young boy and mature mature vieille mature salope mature young first time mature and young boy < mature old fuck mature woman fucking girl hot mature men mature woman asshole mature pics free grosses.femmesmuresx.com grosse femme mature hairy bush mature mature hot movies film mature fuck dogs mature black busty photo penetration femme mature hot nasty mature galerie nylon mature brune mature nu hot wife mature blowjob woman mature mature free galerie rencontre femme mure femme mure amatrice cochon photo de femme mure hard cum her face mature photo x femme mure femme mure pour jeune homme 19ans mature mom cum photo gratuite fellation femme mure age mure nu gratuite x femme mure femme mure tres poilue photo femme mure amateur exhib rencontre coquin femme mure > femme mure et nu gratuit mure femme mure avec jeune mec recette and confiture and and mure photo x femme mure et ronde photo de femme mure xxx femme mure nu photo photo gratuite vieille mature nu mature busty babe gallery nymphomane mature amatrice lady mature mature drunk suck vieille saint girons photo vieille salope gratuit mature collant nylon galerie gratuite mature mature and granny mature lady posing femme amatrice mature vieille salope .com pipe hard concert hard rock berlin hard rock cafe black orchid rock nantes hard audrey tautou film hard archive journal hard pps hard ecoute musique hard rock couple hard roman photo hard film and x and hard photo hard de brigitte lahaie music hard core teen hard preview hard top nissan navara hard and top rencontre hard gratuite pps hard gratuit hard anal fucking photo gratuite femme hard peugeot dangel 505 hard top dvd x hard discount sodomie hard amateur pps humour hard liste hard discount essonne mature riding hard hard tv net hard xxx gratuit
Posted by: Frankeynstain | June 28, 2006 at 08:13