Well, I stand by my disagreement of your disagreement. I’ve been against the war for day 1 and I’m against the war today. My position is based on the merits of the case (or, rather, the lack of merits), not on the past war experiences of the pro-war faction. There were plenty of war heroes in support of the Iraq war, but that didn’t make the war any more correct in my mind. Similarly, the fact that there were many “chickenhawk” supporters did not influence my decisions either way.
When the supporters of the war denigrate the characters of those who’ve opposed it, their own characters are most certainly fairly put into play. When one who “cut and ran” himself but supports this war denigrates the courage or patriotism of one who didn’t cut and run and opposes this war, the term “chickenhawk” is not only fair but actually genteel.
While I don’t think that either party has a history of “cutting and running”, I think it is possible that Rove is claiming that the Democrats have a history of advocating “cutting and running”, not actually doing it.
But so do Republicans; see Somalia and Kosovo.
“Fair”? We’re talking about politics, remember, and in politics everything is fair game so I won’t disagree with you in that respect. Attacking your opponent’s character has a long and (ig)noble history among politicians, preceding the founding of our Republic by millenia. However, I hope that in debates in this forum we recognize a tu quoque as easily as an ad hominem.
But let’s not lose sight of the original post with which I took issue (#27). It was complete nonsense (as I pointed out in post #28), and I challenge anyone here to defend it-- that’s all.
Agreed. I was simply trying to present an interpretation of Rove’s comment that could possibly be supported by evidence on his side. The fact that there is balancing evidence on the other side wouldn’t faze him, I’m sure. I had no intention of trying to argue his case.
Speaking of running. Didn’t Nixon widen the war into Cambodia and increase the effort in Vietnam? And when that didn’t work didn’t he pull our forces out with the rear guard leaving by helicopter with the NV Army snapping at their heels?
Note to young men and women: If you are ever in the armed forces do anything you must in order to avoid being in the covering force for a retreat.
I just wonder what kind of message the latest inanity from Rove, Couter, et al is sending to our troops: “Serve your country and put your life on the line, but if you come home and don’t join our mindless jingoistic propaganda, we’ll destroy you, too.”
Way to honor the troops, Republicans!
David, my friend, you know your history better than that. Unless you’re just trying to make a wisecrack remark, that’s incorrect on a number of key points. Nixon suspended offensive military action in 1973 after signing a peace accord with the North. Even by 1972 we had fewer than 30k troops in Vietnam (down from a peak of 450,000, IRCC), and they were all withdrawn in 1973. The helicopter rescues you’re alluding to were of embassy personnel in 1975 after Congress had cut all military funding for the government in the South (in 1974), which completely tied the hands of Ford (Nixon was gone by then) in terms of taking any military defensive action.
There certainly are parallels that can be drawn between Iraw and Vietnam, but if we’re going to draw those parallels, let’s do it with factually correct information.
Well, it turns out Nixon didn’t pull out until Congress forced him to. I didn’t remember it that way, but my memory was wrong. Check first, write later.
That’s not quite right either. Nixon got us out of Vietnam (1973), and Congress made sure he wouldn’t go back in (1974) if necessary, which was a possibility under the commitment we made to the South to get them to sign the peace accords in '73. We were supposed to help them if they got in trouble. I’m not saying that Ford would’ve put us back in Vietnam had he been able to, but we’ll never know because Congress (controlled by Democrats) shut the door on that option.
So, in fact, the Democrats could be called “cut and runners” in that conflict since they controlled the Congress. That is, if it’s really necessary to use such simplistic soundbites, which I don’t think it is. I’m just pointing out that it’s better for the Dems to take the “cut and run” charge head on, and tell us why it isn’t meaningful in the Iraq instance. Trying to say “you do it, too” to the Republicans will backfire if the reference is Vietnam.
The point is really that not infrequently withdrawal is the better option. After all, General Paulus “stayed the course” at Stalingrad. Following a bad idea to the bitter end is not courageous. It’s stupid.
Look. Murtha’s original point was that we don’t have enough forces in Iraq to maintain order. Despite our best efforts the Sunni-Shia fighting goes on and we are simply in the middle and taking casulalties. Further, he argued that our presence exacerbates the insurrection and if we withdrew over a period of a year from when he first spoke, but stayed nearby, our presence would be more effective as far as getting Iraq on track to self sufficiency.
I think those are the sorts of things that the Congress, the Executive and the military big domes should be investigating and not the asinine “cut and run” soundbite of Rove.
Maybe Murtha is wrong but as long as the conversation is directed toward the things that Rove, et al think will retain control of Congress that question will never surface.
Sadly, politicians like to use such words as cut and run to cover their own mistakes.What is going on now in Iraq is why the first Bush didn’t go into Baghdad in Desert Storm.
I hope I am wrong, but I feel that the Iraq sitution will go on for years and years, it is more like the Palistine/Israel sitution than Vietnam. Idealogies and people with thinking like the Taliban in Afghanistan will always want it their way. Our constitution makes it diffecult here but there are some who want to change the constitution to suit their particular beliefs.
I agree with you mostly but I take a little exception to your restricting the onus to “people like the Taliban in Afghanistan will always want it their way.” We are in Iraq right now because certain of us wanted it “our way.” I think we need to get over the mindset that “those guys”, whoever they are, are standing in the way of our setting the world straight on how things ought to be done, and will be.
“Nearby” where? Kuwait? (Not Saudi Arabia, I hope, that’s what got al-Qaeda upset in the first place.)
The elephant in this particular living room is Iran. Nobody in the Bush Admin is going to say so openly, but I’m sure one reason they’re reluctant to pull out of Iraq is that if we do, we lose an ideal staging ground to invade Iran.
I agree. That’s why I said the Dems need to take on that “cut and run” charge directly and lay out precisely why we need to get out, what the consequences will be, and how we should do it. Americans are ready to hear this, so it shouldn’t be that hard. Unfortunately, the Democrats’ proposal that was voted on in the Senate* was a meaningless pile of mush. It essentially said: We’d politely like to suggest that Bush think about starting to bring troops home. Ignoring the fact that it was non-binding, even if Bush complied with it, he probably wouldn’t have had to change his strategy one bit. Everyone expects him to start bringing troops home this year, and the Democratic resolution didn’t put an end date to the military action over there.
I don’t see why the Democrats are so afraid, as a party, to present a plan that will actually end the occupation of Iraq. Are there just too many leading Democrats jockeying for position to run in '08, and if they present a unified front they have to pick one guy as their leader?
*the one that actually got most of the Democrat’s votes; not Kerry’s resolution, which only got 13 votes total.
For the first point, I think the answer is “They don’t have one.” Presently, the only thing the Democratic leadership is good at is complaining. They’re complaining about the right things, but a viable opposition party needs to present a cogent alternative, and the only explanation I can come up with is they can’t formulate one. If the Republicans are currently the party of staggering idiocy (which, I think, is a fair assessment), the Democrats are the party of bitching about the staggering idiocy, and I think there’s little more to the American political landscape, presently.
Why are they so pathetic? Maybe it’s just spinelessness, as you say. It could be, simply, that to actually propose an alternative and attempt to follow through on it is to open the party up to potential failure, to being held accountable by voters for broken promises, and so forth. But right now, they can’t even fail. They can’t, and don’t, do anything constructive, pose any brilliant new ideas, inspire confidence in anyone that they can lead the country in a better direction than the road to Hell we’re on now. Do they want to lead or not? Apparently, the answer is “not”. They simply want to win votes by being “not republican”, a strategy that has failed miserably thus far. All they can dream up is “no”. Stay the course in Iraq? Well, the “opposition” voice (which the Dems can’t even unite behind), is “Get out at time X.” Full stop. As simplistically diametrically opposed as is humanly conceivable. Worthless. Useless. There’s no meat on those bones. There are barely any bones.
So, since Iraq was not a terrorist haven until we interfered, and if it will only keep getting worse no matter what, then why should we “stay the course” there?
Because if we don’t “stay the course” we have to “cut and run”. Get with the program, Steve! 