November 10, 2006
Seattle, Get Ready - For More Troops In Iraq
The Bush administration has botched things in Iraq, but not in the way many Left Coasters think. As important as it is to honor the war dead, it's time to go beyond the reductionist implications of "body count journalism," and beyond simple-minded plaints to "just get out now," which even putatively intelligent Seattle newspaper columnists have been heard to utter on the radio. Better instead, now, to understand where Robert Gates may take our nation's Iraq policy, and why. More here.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at November 10, 2006
12:33 PM | Email This
1. What happened to "pull out and re-deploy to Okinawa, etc."? Did they figure out that that was, well, ....silly?
2. No, they haven't figured that out...they're waiting for you to pay attention to something else and they'll spring it.
Matt, well written piece. I supported the invasion, but thought we should have perhaps come in with a little more force after the initial invasion. It should have initially been (IMO) more of a traditional military occupation where we flattened any troublemakers, armed or otherwise. Mookie should have taken his dirt nap long ago.
3. I am not sure I like this without adequate examination. Neither the Democrats or the administration has shown us a coherent plan subject to review. One thing I do know - the current strategy is not working.
4. Since when do we get to review military plans (along with Al Qaeda)?
5. I remember Burner saying that the Dems had no plan for Iraq (John Carlson's show back in Aug.)
6. Exactly, Fred. That's what gets me about people wanting to know what the exact strategy is. Back during WW2, they said to everyone working on anything government or military related, "Loose lips sink ships." And that was back in a time when the NYT actually had enough integrity to not help the enemy by leaking information about government programs and strategy. Nowadays, we've got people like Geraldo drawing troops movements in the sand on cable news. BAH!
7. Okay, I give up. I am finally turning off the news for a while, just to get my blood pressure down. After six years of listening to shrill, tantrum throwing, hysterical, accusatory, and sometimes treasonous democrats in the House and Senate wail away publicly, now they are playing nice? Makes me want to puke! And it just proves that in American politics, being nasty, tantrum throwing children gets you just what you want. Now we have a duplicitous group of child-adults in the majority. No wonder Al-Qaeda loves it.
8. Whoa, Katty: what about the President calling the Dems traitors and 'cut and runners' and now inviting them to lunch and being all smiles.
When I started reading your post about "shrill, tantrum throwing, hysterical, accusatory, etc" I thought you could have easily been talking about the Repubs.
And concerning nasty: everything I've seen shows that in the recent election the Repubs were far, far more likely to go negative and nasty than the dems.
Both parties suck. Buck it up and quit being such a hypocrit.
9. MJ: The president said the democrats want to cut and run because they do. They said so many, many times. And don't talk to me about nastiness on the side of the Republicans. The Democrats started with their "alternative innauguation" in 2000 and went on from there. The temper tantrums never stopped from when they accused Bush of stealing the election and called him an illigitimate president. He tried very hard to achieve bipartisanship in the begining and got obstuctionism in return, lasting from 2000 through 2006. And contrary to what liberals like to trumpet, President Bush has never called any of them traitors.
10. Kat: you miss my larger point that parties suck, both parties. On the other hand, given your one sided view of recent history, likely the product of too much FOX TV and rightwing radio, it likely wouldn't matter what I said. To say that Bush sought bipartisanship is loony tunes. But, I long ago learned that one can't have a reasoned conversation with a partisan, right or left, and so I won't try.
11. MJ: Am I understanding you to say that a view of history, recent or not, can have more than one side? History is what it is, except, of course, if it is revisionist. And it's nice to see you cite a "larger point" rather than refute my statements.
12. Why are conservatives so eager to help restore the Caliphate?
Our blood and treasure is going into Iraq and their new constitution says that Sharia is the highest law (Article 1)...
In the end there Iraq is destined to be a radical Islamist society - by law.
13. Christophobic islamic terrorists around the world are celebrating the Democrats' win -- figuring that dems are more likely to cave to terrorist threats I suppose. Are they right? I hope not, but I haven't seen anyone, other than Leiberman, in that party who takes any stand at all against terror. And as a result, he's not even a democrat anymore. Big brave democrats take turns counting coup on President Bush, but they don't seem to have the nerve to face a real threat.
14. Kat #11. Yes, I believe that history is frequently interpreted in different ways by different people holding different ideological views, and revisionist histories are frequently more reliable than current understandings (it all depends on the scholarship of the different historians). I don't think all views are equally legitimate, however, as some are more accurately grounded in the "facts" than others. How does the old saying go: we're all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts.
What I don't believe is that partisans, or ideologues, are reasonable people, or that engaging them in argument is worthwhile. Of course I disagree with your interpretation of recent history, they're wrong, but trying to refute them would be a waste of my time. I'ld have better luck trying to explain gravity to a 6 year old.
15. posts 6 & 7 right on---
to the 'new majority:'
we better damn sure know our enemy & be decisive now, because i smell appeasement with a capital 'A'---chum in the waters, sharks at the ready for America.
paranoid? 'R' party hack view? nope--just look at the intl. reaction--esp. from our enemy-states. they were thrilled. now--should we dismiss their opinions? go ahead. sniff any subway-sarin lately?