None Dare Call It "Buyer's Remorse"...
By Moe Lane Posted in Archived — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
What I remember of Andrew Olmsted is generally positive (I'm not sure that we've ever actually interacted, but after a certain point in this game you recognize certain names*), so it's with a certain sorrow that I have to point out the problem with the following (H/T Glenn):
I see that the Democrats are now ready to start pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq. While I suppose this is no surprise, I'm disappointed to see it. The Democrats have rightly pointed out that Republicans acted without gathering all appropriate data, leading to problems like Iraq. Yet now they're poised to do precisely the same thing.
...
It is not sufficient to demonstrate that it was a bad idea to go into Iraq in the first place. While I am of that belief myself, the fact remains that we are there now, and we have to move forward based on where we are, not where we wish we were. We therefore need to ask the right questions about what will happen if we stay or leave Iraq, and make our decision based on that.
I'm not interested in asking those questions right now. I'm more interested in seeing some evidence from the Democrats that they've asked those questions.
Well, actually, there are several problems with the above; but the one I'm going to mention is Mr Olmsted's quaint belief that the Democratic Party has any interest at all in him (or anyone else) wanting answers. The time for demanding answers ended at the precise moment when Mr. Olmsted (and unfortunately, a majority of the voting population) voted the Democratic slate in their various elections. Now that this has happened, the Democratic Party will - as is their wont - pat their voters on the head and send them back home. And then the Democratic Party will proceed to do whatever its leadership feels like doing. If that means abandoning Iraq to its fate, well... Mr. Olmsted is simply going to have to understand that the Democratic Party has its own priorities, and they do not include making Mr. Olmsted feel better about himself.
Besides, did not Mr. Olmsted already get the wonderful gift of being able to vote against the Republicans? What more does he want?
As I said, I feel sadness at having to explain this to the man - but then again, I can't say that I have much sympathy for whatever looming disquiet that he might or might not be feeling. It's not like the Democrats weren't clear about what they were planning, after all.
Or what they're now gearing up to do.
Moe
*Alas, not the other way around, I'm sure.
But desiring to see the general populace experiencing "buyer's remorse" implies that you are hoping that this election has negative consequences for this country.
While I think predicting that the Democrats win will have negative consequences is within the bounds of reasonable public discourse, hoping that it will have negative consequences is far from it.
I'll assume that you meant the former.
I hope that voters would have buyer's remorse if this proves to be the case, but don't know whether that will prove to be the case. Can I have my citizenship back now?
Let's hope that the elections don't positive consequences and if they don't, let's hope that the voters recognize it.
Trying again:
Let's hope that the elections have positive consequences and if they don't, let's hope that the voters recognize it.
Especially if the dems get their way on cut and run.
I don't think they see it as abandoning Iraq to some terrible fate, but rather as setting it free from American oppression.
Here is a link to a lengthy Kos diary on the Middle East, one praised in the several hundred comments following it.
If Iran, rather like Venezuela, becomes a regional leader and examplar of social democracy, it becomes a threat to the corporatist and militarist elites that dominate the political classes of Washington and Tel Aviv and exploit the mineral and oil wealth of underdeveloped nations.
Education and successful economic development are a bigger threat than any weaponry if you are a corporatist kleptocrat. And that is why Iran must be bombed, like Iraq and like Lebanon. It has succeeded, and must be bombed back to failure.
Although he offers some grounds for optimism.
Our Democratic appeasers in Congress - led by Lieberman, Schumer and Clinton - will rally to an attack on Iran as they will to the conclusions of the Iraq Survey Group that Iraq be partitioned into three smaller, weaker states. They will back more horrific sacrifices by the middle class, more abridgements of our civil liberties, and connive to prevent any real progressive agenda from gaining credibility in American politics.
Well, we can hope.
Now that I've read that story, I won't need to bother with any others like it. The writer is making the same argument in regard to Iran that we always hear about Cuba: it's a paradise of high "adult literacy" (if all I'm allowed to read is propaganda, who needs literacy?), healthcare for all, and social equality (every woman gets the wear the same costume). Maybe if Hillary grew a scraggly beard and became President, we could get the same paradise here.
I'm still mystified about how it benefits the "corporatist kleptocrats" (that would be us) to keep nations like Iran bombed back to the Stone Age (a metaphor the writer uses in referring to Israel's actions against Hezbollah last summer), rather than growing economically.
That got me curious enough to look up Iran's GDP, which seems to be in the neighborhood of a half-trillion dollars. But wait... aren't there about 70 million Iranians? That's far less economic output per head than in the US. It's less than Mexico, as a matter of fact. And by my back-of-the-envelope calculation, maybe 10% of that GDP is oil exports anyway.
Seems to me that Iran is an un-worker's paradise. But then why would anyone invest in a place like Iran? It's not a free nation, and the regime makes things difficult for external investors.
So why are we so worried about this rump of a nation? Oh that's right, it's the nukes and the terrorism, things that the Kossack never bothers to mention. (Except to justify Ahmadinejad's statements about wiping out Israel since Iran has been around for 5000 years and Israel only 80.)
To the Kossack LondonYank: it's the freedom, stupid.
Moe, you sent us over to that site without warning us that Mr. Olmsted is an idiot.
It annoys me greatly when I go over to read some guy's column and instead I get words strung together like this:
The Democrats have rightly pointed out that Republicans acted without gathering all appropriate data, leading to problems like Iraq.
I envision Mr. Olmsted nodding sagely as he wrote that, as if no one will notice that he just suggested that problems can be avoided by collecting data.
Give me a break. Only waifs from the forest believe that assembling data and planning carefully will allow humans to avoid debacle. In fact debacles happen everywhere and all the time, to everyone.
In the particular case of Iraq, many things that we would like to have known were state secrets of a totalitarian regime. No one should be able to blithely suggest that failing to collect such data was imprudent. Instead, whoever says that should be loudly and repeatedly denounced as an idiot.
Even more idiotic is prescribing more of it:
A Democratic Congress needs to hold hearings that delve into those questions thoroughly and honestly and lay out all of the effects, both positive and negative, that can reasonably be expected to result from each policy. Once Congress is armed with that information, they can make a determination on which direction they want to go in with the facts solidly in hand...
Facts? What facts? There are no 'facts'about what is going to happen in the future. There are only guesses. Most of the guesses will be wrong, no matter how expert our experts are. There are whole books filled with stupid things said by experts.
I'm not suggesting we don't talk to any experts, or that we don't collect any data. I'm just saying that even if we do all that, we should still expect things to get screwed up.
When they do, let's not have any more idiocy about how "more data" would have prevented the mistakes, where "more data" is a euphemism for "stuff we wish we didn't know now that we didn't know then." There will always be more of that than we need.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Needing "more data" is part of the Democratic approach of always needing more of something. We needed to give the weapons inspectors more time. We needed to give the UN more time to pass more resolutions and implement more sanctions and put on more pressure. We needed to spend more time coddling together more allies. We needed to spend more time on negotiation. We needed to have more hearings to reveal more information and find more reasons not to go to war.
IOW you can never go to war because you always need more of something first, but no matter how much more you get it's never enough, because there's always more to be had.
It's just a different way of saying give peace a chance - in perpetuity.
--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.
know how all the black Dem voters have felt for years.
"Vote D - it stands for Democrat and Don't ask questions later."
--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.
between Iraq and Vietnam. Al Quaeda will follow us home.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
Clearly, there is a strong current of "buyers remorse", by many who have chosen to speak out. This seems to be a common refrain:
It is not sufficient to demonstrate that it was a bad idea to go into Iraq in the first place. While I am of that belief myself, the fact remains that we are there now, and we have to move forward based on where we are, not where we wish we were. We therefore need to ask the right questions about what will happen if we stay or leave Iraq, and make our decision based on that.
My question now is, do we as supporters of freedom for Iraq and a strong America simply surrender to our fate and let the democrats do as they will unchallenged?
If so many people who voted for the dems, are hesitant about what that decision may cost, can we rally them to a better plan than a pat on the head and being sent home.
We need you and your fellow RedState contributors to provide leadership for that job.
Support the Mission - Honor the troops
Exsolvo Orbis Terrarum
> can we rally them to a better plan
That IMO is what it all comes down to. Victory or not in Iraq will come down to Bush making a new plan for the war, then telling the world, this is what we are going to do.
Millions of dollars have been spent on the anti-war campaign, so the administration needs their own to sell the war. If Rove is the top political operative, then he should be pulled off every other duty and told to prepare a campaign that will end in the Congress agreeing to the president's new plan. Republicans in congress need to be pulled in, retired military members as appropriate, all parts of the republican party. The democrat's lies and propaganda needs to be shot down, and the end of it all has to be the mother of all presidential speeches.
Bush has a choice: either he can like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan control debate over the war, or he can take charge himself.
Thanks for the pointer, Moe. I should note, however, that I had no high hopes going into this election regarding what I would get out of it. For the past several years I have had it made quite clear to me that neither party was likely to provide me with what I am looking for, and so I express no shock or surprise that the Democrats are going to do things I dislike. Nonetheless, out of habit if nothing else, I'll continue to offer commentary on what I'd like to see, on the off chance someone is paying attention.
But you may rest assured I have no buyer's remorse, for various reasons. Most of all, because while I did vote Democratic last Tuesday, the Republican clobbered the Democrat in my local race, so my vote certainly didn't toss the election or the House to the Democrats (there was no Senate race in my state this year). But also because I've been heartily displeased with the job the Republicans have done over the past six years, and while I don't hope for much from the Democrats, I do hope that a little time in the wilderness will get the Republicans' heads back in the game.
Never appeal to a man's "better nature." He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage.
Robert A. Heinlein (as Lazarus Long)
I should have sent you the link; RS's lack of trackbacks is a perennial problem. Sorry about that, and thanks for stopping by.
Moe
PS: We'd all best hope that you're right and I'm wrong about the risk levels inherent in permitting the luxury of a Democratic legislature.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
I think there's a good chunk of the libertarian-leaning voters who were in that position. Given the issues I was voting on, the GOP was rapidly becoming the worst blend of both parties.
While I don't look forward with a great deal of hope, I think the odds of getting better policies and leaving the country in a better position in the long run are better due to the democrats' victory in this election.
Now, the work begins of trying to push the parties in better directions. Given the discussion from within the GOP and the rise of fiscal conservatives (hopefully) into leadership positions. I am not experiencing any buyer's remorse. I am getting exactly what I paid for (not much, but a bit of hope).
The buyer's remorse is limited right now, though. As this unfolds, and tragically I fear, we will see if it expands to the general populace. I would hope so, but who knows.