It’s no secret here that I want Bush out. I think he’s bad for the country, and bad for the world. (This is background, not a subject of debate.)
An argument could be made that it would be better, overall, if things went badly in Iraq in the short run, so that we’d be rid of Bush. I personally think that’s a cynical argument, and when things really do go well in Iraq (e.g. Saddam’s capture, Saddam’s sons getting killed, finding all sorts of info on the resistance when we captured Saddam), I rejoice. The people in that corner of the world have seen enough trouble already; they deserve any breaks they can get. If things go well over there, and the result is that Bush gets re-elected, I’d certainly rather see that than see Bush lose because Iraq’s erupted into civil war.
Not that how I feel about this affects things one whit.
So I was more than a little bit bothered when I read this:
Underlining mine, of course.
So here you have these people who, unlike me, presumably do make a difference to the success of our mission in Iraq, and they’re saying it’s time to leave, not just because they’re tired and are ready to go back home, but because they’ve got a President to re-elect.
(Lucky for them that they’re beyond the reach of stop-loss orders. Guess they aren’t interested in showing much solidarity with those that have been so ordered.)
Anyway, there it is: here you’ve got people who, at least in theory, are making a difference over there. And they seemingly believe the good they can do for Iraq is less important than the good they can do by working for Bush’s re-election. So exactly why should we liberals, whose mere opinions in blogs and on message boards don’t affect the outcome in Iraq at all, feel compelled to place Iraq’s well-being over the outcome of the election?