I think it very, very likely. Offers GeeDubya a chance to declare victory and get the hell out of Baghdodge. Shit hits the fan after that (as it Shirley will), well, shucks, we gave them a democracy and they fucked it up, not our fault. Should be home just in time for the Hooray for The Leader and Support Our Heroes Rally at the 9/11 Memorial Big Ass Hole in the Ground.
I see it happening, maybe, but only we proceed from there directly to another hotspot like Iran. His only strength right now is that he is a “war time” president, and he knows it.
This is something I’d like explained that I’ve never understood. I don’t disagree; I just don’t understand. Why do so many Democrats diss patriotism? I mean, I know why Libertarians do — glorification of The State and all that. But it seems to me that Democrats stand to gain by spinning their own patriotic stances on issues like Iraq. It’s nothing but word-smithery, and Democrats, as a whole, I think, are bright people who would have no problem smithing the words just right.
(I’m pre-emptively expecting the usual response about how Libertarians have no footing to advise others on how to sway elections, but I’m hoping for the best. Besides, the comparison is invalid. If we had tens of millions of party members, you could reasonably make the argument.)
Also, I think it would be cool if the Democrats would take the same bill, strip out all the stuff about dates and benchmarks, and then simply replace everywhere it says “Iraq” with “Afghanastan and Pakistan”. In other words, appropriate the money necessary to get Bin Laden. Call it the “Get Bin Laden” bill, and dare Bush to veto it.
Liberal, why don’t you go ahead and give us your definition of “Patriotism”, so that we know what you are talking about?
I’d say that it’s love of one’s country.
I guess it depends on how you define “leave”. We tend to make an all or nothing proposition in debates around here, but the reality of Washington is that “leaving” is going to be a long, drawn-out process. I do think that a “get out” vote in the Iraqi parliament will hasten the leaving process, even if it still means we’ll have some troops in Iraq 5 years from now (to pick a somewhat arbitrary date in the future).
In fact, it looks like Bush is planning for that.
That article focuses on domestic political pressure, but it applies equally well to Iraqi political pressure, which will ratchet up the domestic variety considerably.
And the idea that he’s going to take us out of Iraq only if he goes in to Iran is ludicrous. We are not going to war with Iran-- and I’d love to bet with anyone who thinks we are.
I believe I said “another hotspot like Iran”. Again, he is a war-time president, and his political strength comes from this. Without war, he isn’t a powerful fool any more, he’s just a fool.
Good. How about a few cites that show us all these Democrats talking about how they don’t love their country?
OK, but I still stand by what I said. And it also depends on what you mean by “proceed… to”. If you’re talking about land troops, no way. Bush’s claim to being a wartime president (if that shtick even has legs anymore) is as much based on the War on Terror as anything. We don’t need troops stationed anywhere for him to remind us of that “war”.
Yeah, right. How many times have we been told “troop withdrawals are just around the corner”?
Oh, look, Glenn Greenwald at Salon has a list!
But I don’t think they don’t love their country. I think they don’t express their love for country very well these days. That’s why I quoted what I did in my response to Luc. Surely, you will concede at the very least that Republicans are, generally, more assertive about their patriotism. Practically everything they espouse is wrapped up in the flag. Blowing billions on Iraq is “supporting the troops”. Snooping into the private lives of Americans is a “Patriot Act”. Bullying countries the world over is “spreading democracy”. All I’m asking (again) is why Democrats don’t phrase their positions in more patriotic terms? Maybe I misunderstood Luc, and what he meant by risking an “unpatriotic” stance. If so, then nevermind.
Yeah, we’ve been down this road before. But there is an important difference this time-- Republicans are jumping ship, and jumping fast. Bush can either set the terms of our exit, or accept someone else’s terms. That’s the new reality. Even Mitch McConell is saying that things are going to change come September. That seems to be the Republican’s trigger point. They can be pretty stupid, but they’re not so stupid as to wait until Sept '08 to start covering their butts.
I don’t think refusing to use the word “Patriotism” as a billy club or an excuse is the same thing as “dissing Patriotism”.
Okay. Now that all that’s out of the way, how could I phrase my question to Luc in a way that pleases you?
Only if you mistake Jingoistic Bullshit for patriotism. They’re quite assertive with that, actual patriotism, not so much. Which GOP candidate for president is the most like Jack Bauer today?
Do you mean citizens who self-describe as voting Democratic, or do you mean Democratic politicians? If you mean the latter, I don’t think they do. Dems these days wrap themselves in the flag as much as Republicans do, it seems to me.
Republican demagogues express their “patriotism” like James Dobson expresses Christian faith. It’s a self-serving artifice, a shell game, an attempt to create the illusion of a moral high ground by arrogating personal ownership over the words.
I think that Republicans have ruined the word “patriotism” and tainted it with associations and false parameters (as you have pointed out) which have made the use of the word distasteful to many in much the same way as bombastic Fundamentalist Christians (with help from con artists like Robertson and Dobson and Falwell) have made Christianity appear distasteful to many by forcing warped definitional parameters into the public discourse and creating a false impression of faith.
Unfortunately, perception tends to become reality, especially when it comes to words. “Patriotism” has now come to be so strongly associated with its usage by the political right as to actually cause a substantive, semantic shift. If enough people think that “patriotism” means supporting a militaristic, nationalistic ideology then that’s what it means and attempts by the opposition to take the word back will fail. They’ll fail because so many of the people who now respond to that word are responding precisely to those base level, tribalistic associations. The tribalism is really what’s important to them, not a thoughtful or mature or nuanced love of country (their hostility to their own Constitution is proof of that).
Real American ideology, at its core, is inherently subversive and anti-government. That makes real American “patriotism” inherently anti-establishment. Most people don’t want to be anti-establishment or subversive so they have to conceptualize “patriotism” within the superficial, borderline fascistic imagery of flags and marching lines of soldiers and the vacuous machismo of wealth and power.
The word “patriotism” is unavailable to Democrats. They were spineless enough not to resist the hijack of the word and now its too late.
I think I know why gas prices have spiked, by the way. The supply must have dwindled because the Dems on capitol Hill have to pour gasoline in their underwear by the truckload. It’s the only way they can keep the ants off their candy asses.
I’d be very surprised if we did. Sticking permanent bases there is one of the reasons we attacked; I don’t think Bush ever intends to leave.
Spend a trillion dollars, get eight back. Not bad. Well, it won’t be that simple, but close enough.
That’s a very enlightening, and I must say convincing, analysis. Truly the inmates are in charge of the asylum.