Emotionally Invested in Defeat
In his column, Chucky Hammer quotes a former critic of the Iraq occupation.
"No one can spend some 10 days visiting the battlefields in Iraq without seeing major progress in every area. ... If the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi government -- in security, governance, and development -- there is now a very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state." -- Anthony Cordesman, "The Situation in Iraq: A Briefing from the Battlefield," Feb. 13, 2008.
He also quotes former Democrat Joe Lieberman.
"Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq."
Sounds right.
"No one can spend some 10 days visiting the battlefields in Iraq without seeing major progress in every area. ... If the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi government -- in security, governance, and development -- there is now a very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state." -- Anthony Cordesman, "The Situation in Iraq: A Briefing from the Battlefield," Feb. 13, 2008.
He also quotes former Democrat Joe Lieberman.
"Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq."
Sounds right.
posted by Spencerblog at
8:57 AM
5 Comments:
Spencer-
You need to learn to get your information and quotes from the original source (and not just a right-wing site). Charles Krauthammer's article was published in today's Washington Post. It was paired with a counter-point article by Michael Kinsley.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022101555.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
An excerpt: And consider how modest the administration's standard of success has become. Can there be any doubt that they would go for a reduction to 100,000 troops -- and claim victory -- if they had any confidence at all that the gains they brag about would hold at that level of support? The proper comparison isn't to the situation a year ago. It's to the situation before we got there. Imagine that you had been told in 2003 that when George W. Bush finished his second term, dozens of American soldiers and hundreds of Iraqis would be dying violently every month; that a major American goal would be getting the Iraqi government to temper its "debaathification" campaign so that Saddam Hussein's former henchmen could start running things again (because they know how); and that "only" 100,000 American troops would be needed to sustain this equilibrium.
You might have several words to describe this situation, but "success" would not be one of them.
There’s one of the defeatist LibDems now, who is so emotionally invested in his petty hatred of Bush that he actually does not want the U.S. to win in Iraq.
Kinda makes you wonder just which side these folks are on.
Bingo.
Lieberman has the Left's (and Dave's) number all right.
Spencer-
Lieberman doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. He's been a hawk on the wars, and more the senator from Israel than Vermont. There is (in my opinion) the false argument that the effort in Iraq is helping our ally Israel. Lieberman has been a very strong supporter of Israel, but in this case, I think the war is hurting Israel and Lieberman is unable to see it. While Saddam was an enemy of Israel, he was a paper tiger and not a viable threat. The war has helped terrorists recruit by helping them falsely portraying US policy as part of some "Zionist" conspiracy. Lieberman is getting the opposite outcome that he thinks he is getting. The current policy is bad for both Israel and the US.
Dave, Lieberman doesn't represent Israel or Vermont, he represents Connecticut.
As for your "opinion," about what is good for Israel and the U.S., I'll just say I disagree and leave it at that.
I am impressed that at least you recognize that U.S. involvement in Iraq isn't part of a "zionist conspiracy."
Post a Comment
<< Home