The anti-war party's confusing position
The netroots Democrats are excited about the selection of anti-war Lamont over the incumbent Lieberman in the Connecticut primary. I've even seen some armchair analysis claiming that this clear opposition to Iraq is going to help the Democratic party over all because the electorate is sick and tired of the war.
However, I don't see this happening for a few reasons. The main reason is that the Democrats while doing a lot of shouting about how bad everything is and how wrong it is, don't seem to have a plan. Well they do have a plan "get out of Iraq" but what happens when you question them on the specifics?
Dem: Get out of Iraq now!
Rep: Get out now? Like today? Should we start pulling troops out immediately?
Dem: Well, no. Of course a pullback will have to be carefully planned and phased and everything but our main goal should be to get out of Iraq as soon as we can.
Rep: But what about the Iraqis? We invaded their country and now there is quite a bit of chaos and unrest. Do we just leave and hope that they can sort it out?
Dem: Well obviously we can't just cut and run. That's not what we're saying. Finish the job and get out.
Rep: So you want us to finish the job and then get out.
Dem: That's right.
Rep: Isn't that what we are doing now?
Dem: Yeah, but we're not doing it fast enough. We have to do it faster. Set timetables for pulling out.
Rep: OK, so suppose we do set a timetable for pulling out and we announce it to the world but on the day that we were supposed to pull out we find that we haven't finished the job, things are still a mess and if we leave everything will be chaos. Are you suggesting we just leave anyway?
Dem: No, of course not, in that case we extend the timetable.
Rep: So under your plan we should publicly state that we have a timetable for pulling out but privately we should really just plan on staying until the job is done?
Dem: Uhhh, yeah.
Rep: Of course staying until the job is done is our plan already. So the difference is, you want us to make a lot of promises that we may not be able to live up to. Why is that better?
Dem: Look just get out of Iraq now, OK!?!
However, I don't see this happening for a few reasons. The main reason is that the Democrats while doing a lot of shouting about how bad everything is and how wrong it is, don't seem to have a plan. Well they do have a plan "get out of Iraq" but what happens when you question them on the specifics?
Dem: Get out of Iraq now!
Rep: Get out now? Like today? Should we start pulling troops out immediately?
Dem: Well, no. Of course a pullback will have to be carefully planned and phased and everything but our main goal should be to get out of Iraq as soon as we can.
Rep: But what about the Iraqis? We invaded their country and now there is quite a bit of chaos and unrest. Do we just leave and hope that they can sort it out?
Dem: Well obviously we can't just cut and run. That's not what we're saying. Finish the job and get out.
Rep: So you want us to finish the job and then get out.
Dem: That's right.
Rep: Isn't that what we are doing now?
Dem: Yeah, but we're not doing it fast enough. We have to do it faster. Set timetables for pulling out.
Rep: OK, so suppose we do set a timetable for pulling out and we announce it to the world but on the day that we were supposed to pull out we find that we haven't finished the job, things are still a mess and if we leave everything will be chaos. Are you suggesting we just leave anyway?
Dem: No, of course not, in that case we extend the timetable.
Rep: So under your plan we should publicly state that we have a timetable for pulling out but privately we should really just plan on staying until the job is done?
Dem: Uhhh, yeah.
Rep: Of course staying until the job is done is our plan already. So the difference is, you want us to make a lot of promises that we may not be able to live up to. Why is that better?
Dem: Look just get out of Iraq now, OK!?!
posted by Doug at 8:28 AM
0 comments |
