Democrats on Iraq: what, us worry?
I don’t know whether it shocks you, but it still has the capacity to shock me that the Democrats don’t seem to care about the consequences of their current stance on Iraq.
Perhaps that’s the best indication that they are not actually interested in implementing those policies, and that their real goal is to position themselves as antiwar in order to win the 2008 elections.
As the very liberal LA Times points out (registration necessary to read the article), advocates of precipitous withdrawal have failed to devise a strategy for the bloodbath that even they acknowledge will almost surely follow.
There are many among you who say that I shouldn’t be surprised, and that my reaction is the mere tattered and naive remnant of my lifelong liberal Democrat allegiance. And naivete is hardly in short supply right now among the Democrats when looking at how to deal with the consequences were we to withdraw before calming the situation down in Iraq (this naivete, by the way, was matched by some on the other side who failed to plan for the scope and viciousness of the postwar battle there).
According to the article:
Many congressional Democrats also say that a U.S. withdrawal would encourage Iraq’s neighbors, such as Iran and Syria, to play a more constructive role in resolving the conflict.
“I believe, if we leave, the region will pull together,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma), a founding member of the influential House Out of Iraq caucus. “It’s important to them that Iraq stabilize.”…
But aside from broad calls for a diplomatic effort to work with Iraq’s neighbors and more involvement by international organizations, such as the United Nations, most Democrats have no “Plan B,” should a withdrawal yield chaos.
My favorite Democratic “leader,” Harry Reid, has another solution:
Some proponents of a withdrawal declined to discuss what the United States should do if the violence increases.
“That’s a hypothetical. I’m not going to get into it,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said.
Okay, Harry. Next question?
“It’s important to them that Iraq stabilize.”…
True, as far as it goes, but one must remember that it’s hard to get any more stabilized than dead.
“That’s a hypothetical. I’m not going to get into it,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said.”
And they complain that the administration had no “post-war plans”. The lack of concern for the lives of Iraqis and others in the area who would surely suffer after U.S. withdrawal is nothing short of despicable.
Wait for the chorus of “but we’re killing Iraqis now, where’s your concern about that?” from the usual suspects….
Fact is, we’re killing terrorists–the terrorists are killing Iraqis.
re: “It’s important to [Iran and Syria] that Iraq stabalize.”
It IS danged important to Iran and Syria that Iraq stabalize into an undemocratic state; and that Iraq not become a beacon of light to the oppressed subjects of Khameini and Assad.
The extreme importance of this to Khameini and Assad constitutes proof of the importance of Iraq democracy to the Western world.
Without realizing it, “Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma), a founding member of the influential House Out of Iraq caucus” is making the case FOR seeing OIF through to its conclusion, thereby creating circumstances which allow the democratic Iraqi government to succeed.
I believe the liberals do have a plan or second stratagey. It,s all in the same. Cut and run, let chaos rule, blame the conseratives get all the propragandered new votes and along with all their immoral wagon jumpers oust conseratives.
Has anyone asked for a response from the Dems leadership, on the record, to this?
U.N. chief warns abrupt withdrawal could deepen Iraq crisis
usatoday.comMy bad. I must have screwed up my cut and paste.
Link to UN chief warning story here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-07-16-un-iraq_N.htm
I always recall a reported Ted Kennedy conversation, about some political program or another,
Question: But what about the long term implications?
Kennedy(morosely): Long term, everythings going to fall apart anyway.
And I think that kinda defines the left: they see no long term answers, they can think of nothing which will work in the long term. They have no foundational philosophy which will hold up over time.
Short term, the left are dancing as fast as they can, and maybe legitimately trying to do the best they can in the moment – while always remembering that “the best they can” requires that the left be in power – even over and above what might seem in the immediate interest of the nation, b/c the right are selfish meanies. When the right gets into power, it is always the worst thing for everyone.
I’m a religious person. I’ve an acquaintance who cannot understand how a seemingly smart person like me could believe in that religious crap. My acquaintance is desperately unhappy in his life. He has no no foundational philosophy which will hold up over time, and which will serve his spiritual and human needs. He is swimming as fast as he can, in the moment, and is desperately unhappy, and is convinced I am the dumb person. He is like
Ted Kennedy. He is like the left. They have no foundation which makes sense in the long term.
I had a good friend once who sunk his lifesavings into a pyramid scheme. He got close enough to the payoff, that only a few more people needed to invest before he got his big payoff, then new people stopped coming to the meetings.
He brought a case of beer over to my apartment one night and spent several hours trying to convince me to invest. He knew full well that he had a chance to come out OK but that if I went in, I would lose my shirt. I drank free beer and demurred politely. He got madder and madder at me over the course of the evening.
As I popped the top on the last beer, I told him he had better go. He left cursing me for drinking all his beer. What can I say? I’m a boorish lout.
Neo, I wonder if your incredulity about Harry Reid and his Incredible Cowering Copperheads might not in some way parallel the disbelief of people on the Left who can’t believe that their favored ones will really commit another atrocity, or carry out the next logical step in their progression of evil.
I hope this isn’t offensive, but we look for understanding where we can.
Very true, their desire for immediate withdrawal would seem to stem from a desire to get this issue resolved (so they think) so that they will not have to offer their version of a ‘policy’ on Iraq or be responsible for pulling the troops out and the ensuing consequences.
Actually articulating a policy of action is always so much harder than criticism. As chaos descends and the bloodbath occurs, the democrats and the MSM can blame it all on Bush, neocons, republicans and conservatives in general and do it with righteous indignation.
Many of those who call for the abandonment of those who sided with us in Iraq (and Afghanistan, for make no mistake, the same usual suspects will next be calling for withdrawal from there also) opposed the invasion on supposedly ‘moral’ grounds. The irony is so thick, you’d need a chain saw to cut through it.
The Dems want the Iraq situation resolved before Inauguration Day 2009. They don’t want a Nixon-esque Vietnam situation where the next, presumably Democrat, President holds real-world responsibility and accountability for “ending” the war in Iraq.
Better to have the political price of surrender and retreat, and the consequences that follow, contained to Bush.
And they complain that the administration had no “post-war plans”.
They also claim that we were “rushed into war.” Now here they are trying to rush us into defeat. Pot, meet kettle.
The lefties who got us out of Vietnam suffered no consequences–in fact, their version of events there is the accepted Revised Standard Version. Otherwise, how could John Kerry get the Democratic nomination?
They paid no price in the loss of public acceptance; Kerry rode his anti-war stance into the US Congress.
The press made nothing of the bloodbath in Vietnam and Cambodia. But we who witnessed the cowardly retreat in Vietnam were sickened.