On Iraq: At the risk of being accused of apostasy, I have to ask . . .
By rhatican Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
As a dyed-in-the-wool conservative Republican, someone who has voted for the GOP's candidate in every election save one (when I voted for Herb London, Conservative Party nominee for Governor of New York, over Pierre Rinfret in 1990), someone who hopes Republicans regain control of both the Senate and the House and also maintain control of the White House (so long as they stand for the principles they espouse), someone who originally supported the invasion when it was launched, I have to ask: when may I oppose the continued presence of the U.S. troops in Iraq? When may I say that the adventure was poorly planned, did not unfold as forecast, and is no longer worth another American's life? When may I say that our President and his team made a disastrous mistake, that they/we were wrong, and that it is time to cut our losses? Is there room for a Republican who asks such questions on this blog or in the party? Just wondering . . .
I was going to tell you that my younger self quite enjoyed your early work. Roger and Me? Total propoganda, but interesting in the technical sense.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
I think Michael Moore is a demagogue whose impromptu interview of Charlton Heston was exploitive and cruel -- not to mention misleading.
...on at least one major [political] topic you are completely in agreement with the aforementioned cruel, exploitative and misleading demagogue. Down to the rhetoric.
Your problem, not mine.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Fools always give themselves away by employing 20/20 hindsight.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Reps need to get active in the party and pressure their elected officials to do the right things. Not voting because of one issue is letting the otherside decide for you. Being a spineless person that ignores modern history's lessons on disastrous policy of appeasement is very dangerous. How many times do we need to re-live history?
I hear the lip service when people talk about Auschwitz (ive been there) and they say "Never Again". Well guess what Sherlock. It's happening today.
If you often find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be a Democrat.
-CommonCents
In my never so humble opinion he's wrong, but there are dozens of posters here who say dumb things on a regular basis. As long as he tries to express his opinions in an articulate fashion and doesn't resort to condescencion and talking points, he deserves a response in kind.
I think this is actually an interesting thing to ponder. When can conservatives get off the good ship Operation Iraqi Freedom without the rest of the movement piling on?
I have no idea. I suspect the answer is "not for a long time" because I suspect most conservative would prefer us to fight the war than cut and run.
At least not until Iran ceases its state sponsorship of terrorism, publicly rejects jihad, recognizes Israel's right-to-exist, and forms a democratically elected government that is fully accountable to its people and derives its power from the consent of the governed.
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Iraq is a tar baby. I have repeatedly believed that we were close to winning. The victory however, always seems to recede. As long as we are unable to stop Iran from financing our problems there the victory will always be fleeing from our grasp. This is the crux of our problem in Iraq. We have enemies we are fighting and those we are not. Whats more, the enemies we aren't fighting we seem to know blessed little about.
If we have to stay there until Iran tires of its game or we have to use other means so be it.
Examine the consequences of pullout. Al Quaeda will no longer be engaged in a losing battle for them. Every time they use a suicide bomber to blow up a mosque or a crowd of pilgrims. It costs them support recruits and suicide bombers. Whats more it happens there.
If we do move out Iran will move in. I don't say they will be successful. Its much easier to throw sand in the gears than it is to conquer but there is no doubt they will try. At the very least this will disrupt the supply of oil and cause serious economic problems. In the worst case it will leave Iran in a position to dominate the global energy markets for the foreseeable future.
So the question that has to be answered is do we wish to trade our current mess for a bigger mess ?
I think there are two seperate questions here:
First, can you criticize Bush's decision for the war, and his conduct of it? Of course. Plenty of articles on National Review about the latter. Essentially paleoconservative arguments about the former are fine too. Just as long as we can avoid the BushLied slanders.
Second, can you call for us to abandon Iraq? That's more difficult because of the consequences of losing the war against the insurgents. I don't think "Leave now" is in itself an out-of-bounds position, but "Leave now and it will all be better" is simply too silly to pass muster.
If you have an alternate plan for fighting the jihadists - one that abandons Iraq because we can fight them better elsewhere - I think that would be reasonably received. On the other hand, a proposal for surrender is likely to get some toasty comments.
I am not opposed to deploying troops per se, and I know that the struggle against terrorism will stretch well into the future.
I do worry about the continued loss of American lives -- our finest -- now that we are apparently turning to Syria and Iran for help. It all seems so senseless.
If we have decided to cater to desires of Teheran, let's get out of there. Let them handle it. My very uneducated guess is that jihadists will still busy themselves in what's left of Iraq before they train their sights on us.
As for the loss of control over oil reserves, we should drill in Alaska, off our coasts, and look for other sources of energy. (The President has said as much with his endorsement of fuel cells.) The sooner we reduce our addiction to Middle East oil, the better.
We need to explore for, and utilize, more American oil. We need to research alternative energy sources. And, above all, we need to understand that bringing Iran into the situation in Iraq is naught but sheer lunacy.
As for the part about when you can "oppose the continued presence of the U.S. troops in Iraq?" The answer is, right now. You have free speech in this country, and this is a free speech kinda place. HOWEVER, I disagree with you. There can be little doubt that Iraq is in bad shape, and that our mistakes there have contributed to that situation. However, without U.S. troops the current government can not survive, nor can any stable alternative government be created. Without stability, one of two things will happen: 1) Iraq drifts into the Iranian orbit. As bad as that sounds, that's actually the optimistic scenario. Then there's number ... 2)Iraq becomes an international no-man's land, with no effective government, and a haven for terrorists of all kinds. That's the scenario that should keep you up at nights trembling. And that's why, as screwed up as the situation is right now, we have to stick it out.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
CNN Poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation. Nov. 17-19, 2006:
"Which comes closest to your view about what the U.S. should now do about the number of U.S. troops in Iraq? The U.S. should send more troops to Iraq. The U.S. should keep the number of troops as it is now. The U.S. should withdraw some troops from Iraq. OR, The U.S. should withdraw all of its troops from Iraq."
----60% of Americans surveyed said that the US should withdraw some or all of its troops in Iraq..
.
.
.
.
.
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Oct. 26-27, 2006:
"Do you think the United States should set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. military forces in Iraq, or not?"
-----61% of Americans surveyed said that the United States SHOULD set a timetable for withdrawal of US troops in Iraq.
.
.
.
.
.
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Nov. 9-12, 2006:
"Do you think George W. Bush has a clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion, or don't you think so?" (Has a Clear Plan, Doesn’t' Have a Clear Plan, Unsure)
-----74% of Americans surveyed said that George Bush doesn’t have a clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
.
Give it a rest, Richie. Your side won, our side lost, Iraq is thrown under the bus, and we can all be treated to jihadists dancing in the streets of capitals across Jihadistan probably within 4-6 months (right Sen. Levin?).
Congratulations. Good luck with all that. And thanks.
Now please go away.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
but with "George W. Bush" replaced by "the Democratic leaders in Congress"?
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Nov. 9-12, 2006:
"Do you think George W. Bush has a clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion, or don't you think so?" (Has a Clear Plan, Doesn’t' Have a Clear Plan, Unsure)
-----74% of Americans surveyed said that George Bush doesn’t have a clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion.
--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.
The fact that I present data with no editorial comments on my part....
Or the fact that in order for a poll to show 60% to 70% opposition of Americans to the conservative position regarding Iraq suggests that Americans who might have supported Bush in 2000 or 2004 are now against his policies on Iraq...?
.
...is that you can read this site and still think that the readers of it are amenable to changing their ethical and moral positions at the drop of a poll.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
I am in no way suggesting that anybody change their moral or ethical beliefs.
But as Robert McNamara said in the documentary "The Fog of War"
"If you can't convince like-minded countries to go along with you, maybe you need to rethink your position."
I would argue that you can replace "countries" with "people" and the statement still holds---if not true--at least worthy of considerable debate.
Like it or not---most of that 60% of 70% that oppose Bush on Iraq today fall into the category of "like minded people"...
.
We see 'people think that Bush doesn't have a clear plan' equated to 'people oppose Bush' within no more than two posts*. Sixty-forty you won't even grok why I'm laughing right now.
Again: the popularity of an idea has no actual relevance to whether or not it's a correct one, Robert McNamara to the contrary.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
*Yes, yes, I know: draw the line first, then plot out the data points. Still.
You are making a judgment call. Say it and advocate it publicly when you can defend it. If you say it here, I recommend you be prepared to give a very well thought out rebuttal to all the arguments against your position. And if you have been reading here for a while, you can anticipate what they will be. Oh, and it would help if you show you are open minded, not just spouting. In that case, I would consider you to be engaging a worthwhile dialogue.
John E.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.