Brian Baird's shift on Iraq is getting mucho attention, especially after laying out his case in a Seattle Times op-ed. What does it mean?
That's complicated. Probably somewhere between David Postman's analysis and the Washington Post coverage he reviewed. Meaning, there has been a modest shift in enough Democrats to kill the hopes of that party's "Out Now!" base.
Between Baird's shift and Democrats taking less prominently anti-surge positions there has been a notable change in tone. It's been building since that head-turning op-ed in the New York Times from a couple notable Bush Administration critics.
All that to say that the Democratic Party remains fervently anti-Bush and deeply grumpy about the whole Iraq affair. But the ability of the liberal base to coax it's "withdraw ASAP!" policy preferences on Congress is even more diminished than when the debate first unfolded in the spring. The pro-withdrawal side of the debate was getting the bulk of the attention then. Now it's the, "let's not be so hasty" element. That's a significant change.
Not convinced all that matters? Notice what even the Stranger's Josh Feit is saying:
Baird makes the point that haunts every liberal who advocates withdrawal:From a strategic perspective, if we leave now, Iraq is likely to break into even worse sectarian conflict. The extremist regime in Iran will expand its influence in Iraq and elsewhere in the region. Terrorist organizations, the people who cut off the heads of civilians, stone women to death, and preach hatred and intolerance, will be emboldened by our departure. In the ensuing chaos, the courageous Iraqi civilians, soldiers and political leaders who have counted on us will be left to the slaughter. No American who cares about human rights, security and our moral standing in the world can be comfortable letting these things happen.I think Baird's main point is suspect--he argues that the surge appears to be working--but even if he's wrong about that, the paragraph above is still true.
"Out Now!" isn't going to happen the way the debate is currently unfolding. That could of course change with Gen. Petraeaus's report in September, but as of now it isn't. Even with the complexity of prominent Republicans having an additional and different view in good faith. No matter how many earnest editorials the P-I pens, the consensus in Congress isn't there.
Sidenote: stilwell over at NPI is criticizing Baird for explaining himself to right-of-center media outlets. I guess this interview with the National Review won't make him happy either. But stilwell misses the point. By explaining himself in full, Baird is making sure such outlets are reporting the full message that yes, he still thinks Iraq was a disaster. Yes, he still thinks the Bush Administration screwed it all up. And by being willing to express himself to the media across the political spectrum he's making sure his true position is being clearly heard and stated. Tough to see why that's a bad choice on Baird's part.
UPDATE: Joel Connelly's latest points out Hillary Clinton is among the Democrats in which the subtle shift discussed above is occurring. That's not small potatoes.
Posted by Eric Earling at August 26, 2007 10:07 PM | Email ThisThat said, these two observations, first by Mr. Baird and second by Mr. Feit, are directly on target, so to speak.
The fringers calling for immediate withdrawal do so without any concern for the ensuing slaughter; a slaughter that will make Darfur look like a fender bender.
I frequently disagree with Mr. Baird (I think his latest effort, to provide meth addicts with free dental care, a service veterans do not typically receive, is absurd, for example.) but clearly in this matter, his judgment, which is certainly not based on the political opportunism of Reid or Pelosi, must be considered much more closely aligned with the mainstream of this country then the nutroot's efforts at causing untold destruction in the region and possibly beyond.
Posted by: Hinton on August 26, 2007 10:08 PMRon Paul on the otherhand is truly against the war. He is against it not because of any thing to do with how well the surge works but instead because it is an unconstitutional war that does not serve the purpose of making america safer regardless of whether the iraqis like our troops or not.
Travis Pahl
Posted by: travis Pahl on August 27, 2007 04:41 AMLOL! You and the 9/11 Truther know exactly what about the Constitution?
Posted by: juandos on August 27, 2007 05:00 AMSecond, Democrats are trying to destroy this country and its prestige in the world by calling for a bailout. From VietNam to the Kurds in '94, Americans has been getting the reputation of cut-and-run. It is like trying to steal defeat from the jaws of victory. The more I hear of Viet Nam it is becoming clear that we were beginning to win before we cut-and-ran.
The Kurds remember us and so will the rest of the world if we cut-and-run from Iraq. Quite a legacy the Democrats are trying to give us.
First of all, I should make it clear, Dr Paul has explictly stated multiple times he is not a 9/11 truther. That he is polite enough to hold a discussion with one and treat them with respect should not be confused with sharing their views. I for the record am not a 9/11 truther either. Lets stick to facts and opinions rather than lies and name calling please.
Dr. Paul is regarded as the strictest constitutionalist in congress by nearly every journalist, political analyst, and citizen that is familiar with him. Many disagree with him, but few if any have ever questioned his knowledge or devotion to the constitution.
Have you looked at his voting record? Is there some issue that I could help you understand Dr Pauls position on that would clarify your confusion regarding his knowledge on the constitution?
Posted by: Travis on August 27, 2007 12:03 PMFirst of all, I should make it clear, Dr Paul has explictly stated multiple times he is not a 9/11 truther. That he is polite enough to hold a discussion with one and treat them with respect should not be confused with sharing their views. I for the record am not a 9/11 truther either. Lets stick to facts and opinions rather than lies and name calling please.
Dr. Paul is regarded as the strictest constitutionalist in congress by nearly every journalist, political analyst, and citizen that is familiar with him. Many disagree with him, but few if any have ever questioned his knowledge or devotion to the constitution.
Have you looked at his voting record? Is there some issue that I could help you understand Dr Pauls position on that would clarify your confusion regarding his knowledge on the constitution?
Posted by: Travis on August 27, 2007 12:03 PMFirst of all, I should make it clear, Dr Paul has explictly stated multiple times he is not a 9/11 truther. That he is polite enough to hold a discussion with one and treat them with respect should not be confused with sharing their views. I for the record am not a 9/11 truther either. Lets stick to facts and opinions rather than lies and name calling please.
Dr. Paul is regarded as the strictest constitutionalist in congress by nearly every journalist, political analyst, and citizen that is familiar with him. Many disagree with him, but few if any have ever questioned his knowledge or devotion to the constitution.
Have you looked at his voting record? Is there some issue that I could help you understand Dr Pauls position on that would clarify your confusion regarding his knowledge on the constitution?
Posted by: Travis on August 27, 2007 12:05 PMFirst of all, I should make it clear, Dr Paul has explictly stated multiple times he is not a 9/11 truther. That he is polite enough to hold a discussion with one and treat them with respect should not be confused with sharing their views. I for the record am not a 9/11 truther either. Lets stick to facts and opinions rather than lies and name calling please.
Dr. Paul is regarded as the strictest constitutionalist in congress by nearly every journalist, political analyst, and citizen that is familiar with him. Many disagree with him, but few if any have ever questioned his knowledge or devotion to the constitution.
Have you looked at his voting record? Is there some issue that I could help you understand Dr Pauls position on that would clarify your confusion regarding his knowledge on the constitution?
Posted by: Travis on August 27, 2007 12:14 PMIsn't the Sixteenth Amendment still part of the Constitution? If so, doesn't Dr. Paul's opposition to it call into question your claim that he is a constitutional devotee?
Compare Baird's picture from college or his PLU days with the Unibomber. Separated at birth. Even scarier if you put those two next to Al Gore's picture from his college days. Triplettes?
Posted by: Don on August 29, 2007 07:05 PM