Hubert Humphreys of the Right
Wrong Information Given out in New Hampshire
Rudy Giuliani maintained during the Republican debate that "It's unthinkable to leave Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and be able to fight the war on terror."
If he means by "war on terror" the counter-terrorism struggle against al-Qaeda and kindred groups, then it was in fact unthinkable successfully to fight them and also invade Iraq. The US occupation of a major Muslim Arab country has reinvigorated al-Qaeda. It has drawn major resources away from counter-terrorism. It has delivered millions of Iraqis into a maelstrom of terrorism. There was never any operational cooperation between al-Qaeda and Saddam.
McCain said, ""When Senator Clinton says this is Mr. Bush's war, that this is President Bush's war -- when President Clinton was in power, I didn't say that Bosnia, our intervention there was President Clinton's war . . . When we intervened in Kosovo, I didn't say it was President Clinton's war."
But the situations are not the same. Clinton did not mislead us into those conflicts. They were, moreover, limited in scope and fit the Powell doctrine. After enormous numbers of lies and misstatements, after deviousness and the outing of an undercover CIA operative, after over four years of ineptitude and pigheadedness, this is Bush's war. It isn't mine, and I resent McCain trying to make it mine. He can have the miserable thing if he wants it. I fear he will find that some albatrosses make it hard to keep your head above the water.
Romney blasted Democratic Senate Majority leader Harry Reid for allegedly having said that "the war in Iraq is lost." He added, "Harry Reid was wrong. We did not lose the war in Iraq. And that's not the sort of thing you say when you have men and women in harm's way."
Romney has not the slightest idea what is going on in Iraq.
Gen. Rick Sanchez, in contrast was a commanding officer in that theater. He admits that the US cannot win in Iraq. The best it can hope for, if it does all the right things politically and economically, is a stalemate. If you don't win, you lose. And, by the way, Reid had said exactly the same thing, that military victory is impossible and that only a political settlement has any chance of success.
On Iraq, the leading Republicans don't have a clue, and don't seem to realize that they are making themselves Hubert Humphrey electorally. (Ron Paul gets it on Iraq, but he is not a contender.)
The Karl Rove doctrine that when you dig yourself into a ditch, the best strategy is to dig deeper, has finally met the test of reality-based politics. It isn't going to be pretty.
These guys got away with these hawkish fantasies because they bamboozled the poor evangelicals into believing they would support public morality, and bamboozled poor conservatives into thinking they would uphold small government. Instead, they are hitching their wagons to a multi-trillion dollar quagmire abroad and don't give a rat's ass about evangelical values.
They will lose because their base is disheartened. They will lose because even their base hates this Iraq stuff. They will lose because their base will stay home in droves.
posted by Juan Cole @ 6/06/2007 12:35:00 AM
|
Facebook
14 Comments:
Most of the candidates are smarter than they may seem. But private beliefs and public postures are often two different things. Some would certainly espouse an out-and-out "we were dead wrong" or "we've lost" or "get out now" positions if they thought they would win loads of votes. But a bastion of GOP faithful still support the war, even if has not gone well, and the element now against a "long war" still lacks a coherent consensus about what to do.
Furthermore, there is almost zero admission that US policies are ever wrong in premise, since our national creed conflates God and Country. Conservatives embrace "Render unto Caesar" in the military sphere, if not in the fiscal one. The uniform gets more veneration than clerica vestments. Admission of military defeat would be tantamount to abandoning faith.
Think of the Southern whites who, after 125 years, were reluctant to accept the verdict of the Civil War, admit that "The Cause" was fundamentally wrong, or concede that the Stars and Bars might be an offensive symbol. Think of the thousands of US communities whose post offices, city halls, and schools still fly MIA flags, which basically signal belief that that some sinister conspiracy deprived US forces of victory in Vietnam and abandoned the heroes. A demagogue is sure to exploit these sorts of beliefs to inflame the electorate against a frank anti-war candidate.
The war is unpopular, as were Korea and Vietnam. But any peace candidate runs the risk of being labeled an appeaser or worse.
Any candidate who alleges any fundamental flaw in US foreign policies begs marginalization. It is safer to defend conventional beliefs, confine criticism to details, call for more weapons and troops, and find a scapegoat (Iran, Russia, liberals).
Of course, the other end of the political spectrum also has its own conceits, shiboleths, and demon theories.
The only way to forge a plurality vote in favor of a candidate with a candid "end the ware quick" position would probably require a coalition of Red state nativists, paleo-conservative realists, and neo McGovernites. But any such coalition would founder over irreconciliable positions on immigration.
Remember that in 1972, McGovern won the Democratic nomination based on a rather candid appraisal of Vietnam, but lost in the general elections and alienated the Cold Warriors and "hard hats" who morphed into the Neocons and Reagan Democrats. A repeat of this scenario probably sends a chill through the minds of the Democrats, and inspires an awful lot of waffling.
I hope you are right about repugs staying home instead of voting, however, history does not support this.
They will (with history as a model) find something to make them afraid not to vote - whether it is the fear that brown skins with out breed them, or that gays will infiltrate their marrages or, god forbid, a woman could become president, they seem to always be motivated around election time.
Dr. Cole wrote "......this is Bush's war. It isn't mine, and I resent McCain trying to make it mine. He can have the miserable thing if he wants it."
I feel exactly the same way about the war in Afghanistan and Canada's part in it. This is Prime Minister Harper's war. He voluntarily extended it and most Canadians do not support it.
Michael Neumann, philosophy professor at Trent University in Ontario, had this to say in a recent article:
"...[Y]et the West's war in Afghanistan is an outrage--contemptible in its conception and shameful in its execution."
"...[T]he Mission, then, is a well-intentioned atrocity, so obviously futile that it shames all who join or support it in any way."
http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann06052007.html
From my limited knowledge it appears that Ron Paul is the only candidate with a consistent voting record and who is not owned by any special interest groups.
On debates such as that recently held, he appears as an outsider because he is given extremely small amounts of airtime. For example he was not given any opportunity to comment on health care despite having worked as a doctor.
This begs the question about the transparency of such debates bearing in mind the special interests.
From what I can make out Ron Paul has an enormous internet following that manifests itself in every single internet or mobile phone text messaging poll.
This suggests that he may not in reality be as much outsider as one is given to believe from the debate? Time (and a vote!) will tell.
Amen, Brother Juan, keep on preaching and testifying.
They're digging themselves a hole so they can get to the bottom of it.
Professor Cole, I wish I had your optimism about the lack of voter turnout from within the base, but the fact remains the mainstream candidates' (and w's) disinterest in public morality and in reining in the War can be obscured, so long as the obvious conservative victories of the Bush administration are trumpeted.
I am thinking of course of the appointments of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Isn't that what the base wanted all along? There're going to be openings before 2012, and with one more conservative justice, stare decisis will become a thing of the past. Knowing this is motivation enough to bring out the evangelicals even as our military disintegrates, Iraq descends into further depths of chaos, and nothing of value is done about actual threats to our country, no?
'Rudy Giuliani maintained during the Republican debate that "It's unthinkable to leave Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and be able to fight the war on terror." '
Delusion is their sustenance, or something.
A Google search confirms that "twit" reliably points to Tucker Carlson whereas "doughy pantload" conjures unkind remarks about Jonah Goldberg. "Tweety" is in the process of attaching itself to Chris "Hardball" Matthews. Oddly, there seems to be less agreement about "Prince of Darkness." Possible candidates includes Richard Perle, William Kristol and Richard Cheney. Perhaps they'll sort this out amongst themselves during a recreational outing.
I think there is a plan afoot. Call it wingnut label inflation. As the behavior worsens and the labels become increasingly accurate, they lose their sting. Soon we will learn to think fondly about about our President "Chimp" or our new national pastime, scrounging for food and fuel.
"Clinton did not mislead us into those conflicts."
He didn't? Well, someone did. Ethnic cleansing in Kosovo started in earnest only after NATO started to bomb Yugoslavia. Milosevic was set up as the "bad guy" as he didn't accept the Rambouillet Accords (as it later turn out, no sane person in Yugoslavia could have accepted them; this is not to defense Milosevic, getting him to the Hague was a major victory to justice).
After years of the Bush regime, it may be tempting to think that Clinton was a relatively good president and his military actions as just, but one should remember that he is guilty of mass murder in Iraq like are his predecessor and successor.
James, you are forgetting my personal favorite, "Douchbag of Freedom" Robert Novak!
No American politician is going to say that Iraq was a mistake: that's the lesson from the 2004 elections.
The person to be elected therefore will be the one who insists that the war was proper, but that we should seriously draw down anyway.
The GOP will abandon Bush on Iraq by this fall, well before the primaries.
The main issues for the conservative GOP base are: (1) Iraq, (2) immigration, (3) abortion. No GOP candidate (nor Dem candidate) will be able to appease the base on any of these issues. You are right, these folks will go in the direction of George Wallace in '72.
I believe Hillary has too much baggage, so, if she is the nominee, she will lose. Obama is the only Dem with a chance to win.
The GOP will end up with Giuliani or McCain, or both.
There will be no more neo-con fantasy warmaking, and that includes attacks on Iran. We do not have the resources to make any more war without massive increases in the size of our ground forces and those increases are not on the horizon.
Real "peace candidates" are as marginalized among the Dems as the Pubs. While Edwards sets lefties hearts aflutter, he's all AIPAC-bombast when it comes to Iran. An Obama will happily waste American lives in Darfur pursuing fuzzy "progressive human rights." Only Kucinich is a real peace candidate and he has less chance than Ron Paul.
As for the GOP base staying home, who knows what would happen by Fall 08? 65% of GOP voters still have a favorable view of Bush (admittedly, down from 90%). One thing is for sure, however, if you want to make sure the GOP base comes out, just make the Democrat campaign all about rights for "gays and brown people", and you'll see the base come out for the GOP (including Reagan Democrats who swung back to the Democrats in 06 after going for the GOP by 8 points in 04).
2008 will be an acid test for Democrats and "progressives" of what they really care about. If they're actually antiwar (and I don't buy that) and want a rational foreign policy, including move to a resolution in the ME, then they'll put aside THEIR factional cultural issues. I am skeptical they will (Webb's campaign in Va, McKaskill's in MO, and Tester's in MT notwithstanding).
Yes, you can blame this war on Bush, if you want. Even after the Dems gave Bush more war $$ than he asked for.
But then you have to blame the sanctions on Clinton and his bloodthirsty Sec of State, Madeleine Albright. They killed more Iraqis than Bush's occupation.
For the poster infatuated with Ron Paul, buyer beware:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/5/193414/2787
ljansen I understand Ron Paul doesn't pretend to be a democrat and as far as I can make out he has not sought democrat votes unless the issue in question was in line with his position.
He also seems to back up his views by his own personal actions:
from http://ladyliberty.wordpress.com/2007/04/01/ron-paul-on-bill-maher-and-issues-sans-soundbites/
9. During his medical career specializing in obstetrics/gynecology, he delivered more than 4,000 babies. He refused to accept payment by Medicare or Medicaid, preferring to not charge patients or to work out a cash payment.
10. Paul is married to Carol Wells. They have five children and 17 grandchildren. He supported his children during their undergraduate and medical school years–not letting them accept federal student loans. It is also said he plans to refuse his congressional pension.
At the end it is between whether the politician believes people are capable of making sensible decisions themselves or whether the government should make them for you.
He is definitely not politically correct and tends to be consistent in his views. You can agree or disagree but at least you know.
Post a Comment
<< Home