Digby, in reviewing Wesley Clark's op-ed piece in today's Washington Post, advises that it is a political document, and that it's a GOOD THING.
I believe that there is a less than zero possibility that George W. Bush is going to implement any sane plan to withdraw from Iraq, much less one set forth by a Democratic presidential aspirant. And I say this with the greatest assurance that I'm right for the simple reason that George W. Bush has failed on every level, at every moment, from the very beginning to do anything right on Iraq. Why in God's name would we think that he will suddenly become sane and do something different today?
And even if they change course, there is no evidence that the Bush administration could then implement a plan with any more competence than they have anything else. The heartbreaking truth of the matter is that as long as Iraq is in the hands of the Bush administration and the Republicans, it is fucked. Period. That means that all Democratic policy prescriptions are essentially political positioning for the elections. I wish it weren't so, but it is.
Hello.
He goes on to note the following:
I don't believe in purges or demands for disavowels; they have a faint whiff of Stalinism that rubs me the wrong way. Nobody has to apologise to me for what they believed about the war. But, considering that their credibility is more than a little bit tattered, it would probably be a good idea if the liberal intellectuals who backed the war finally recognized that everything they say and do is being used for political fodder and adjust their thinking and writing accordingly. They are not going to affect Bush administration policy. There is still a chance they could affect politics, however, if they will just stop pretending that the Republicans are operating on a logical basis in which they can find some common ground.
Hmmm. We don't know anybody like that. do we?
3 comments:
Those in the democratic party that support the continuation of the war and oppose Fiengold's plan of withdrawal at the end 2006 should tells us who they think is going to fight in this continuing conflict. If prowar-democrats truely think that starting the war was justifable and its continuation are worth the cost then they should be prepared to ask everyone in the country to sacrifice. Senator Clinton and Congressman Ford should propose bills to raise taxes and restart the draft. If you really want to do Iraq right, pour another 250,000 troops into the country. (You will need to raise taxes to pay for that.) Clinton's call to expand the Army 80,000 is disingenuous. How the hell are we going to get 80,000 more people to sign up for the army? Keeping 140,000 in Iraq doesn't do much of anything but make them targets. Let's hear the realistic war plan and strong leadership from pro-war democrats.
Frank Rich in the NYT makes a damning argument about how low the democratic party has fallen.
"Ms. Sheehan's protest was the catalyst for a new national argument about the war that managed to expose both the intellectual bankruptcy of its remaining supporters on the right and the utter bankruptcy of the Democrats who had rubber-stamped this misadventure in the first place."
"When the Democrats offered no alternative to either Mr. Bush's policy or Ms. Sheehan's plea for an immediate withdrawal, it was proof that they have no standing in the debate."
"Among Washington's Democrats, the only one with a clue seems to be Russell Feingold, the Wisconsin senator who this month proposed setting a "target date" (as opposed to a deadline) for getting out. Mr. Feingold also made the crucial observation that "the president has presented us with a false choice": either "stay the course" or "cut and run." "
"But don't expect any of Mr. Feingold's peers to join him or Mr. Hagel in fashioning an exit strategy that might work. If there's a moment that could stand for the Democrats' irrelevance it came on July 14, the day Americans woke up to learn of the suicide bomber in Baghdad who killed as many as 27 people, nearly all of them children gathered around American troops. In Washington that day, the presumptive presidential candidate Hillary Clinton held a press conference vowing to protect American children from the fantasy violence of video games."
"As another politician from the Vietnam era, Gary Hart, observed last week, the Democrats are too cowardly to admit they made a mistake three years ago, when fear of midterm elections drove them to surrender to the administration's rushed and manipulative Iraq-war sales pitch. So now they are compounding the original error as the same hucksters frantically try to repackage the old damaged goods."
"Even though their own poll numbers are in a race to the bottom with the president's, don't expect the Democrats to make a peep. Republicans, their minds increasingly focused on November 2006, may well blink first. In yet another echo of Vietnam, it's millions of voters beyond the capital who will force the timetable for our inexorable exit from Iraq."
I don't think I am the only Democrat feeling this way, but I have been considering leaving the Democrat Party.
Since the Bush Administration our elected Democrat officials in Washington don't have a backbone on important issues such as the war. Leftwing and Polar Donkey I enjoy reading what you all post, but give me one good reason WHY I should continue to be a Democrat.
Also, give me your opinion on WHY the Democrats in Washington are not screaming IMPEACHMENT because we went into this war based on a LIE. The Republicans put Clinton there for his LIE about Monica which is nothing compared to American families sacrificing their sons and daughters.
Post a Comment