Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.....
1) What do Democrats and Iraqis have in common? They both know how to f**k away a good deal when it is in their hands. The Iraqis punt a golden opportunity to move away from a dictatorship because they are more concerned about stupid Muslim ideas; and the Democrats, because they did they same when they did not kidnap and gag John Kerry.
Regardless of what it may have been intended to mean, a Massachusetts liberal, telling an audience that "if you don't get an education you wind up stuck in Iraq" is asking to get pummeled. Especially when there are a record number of master degree and PHD holders who are, by the way, stuck in Iraq-executing a flawed policy instituted by a flawed set of decisions by the President and his Secretary of Defense.
That's what Kerry could have said. He could have pointed out that America's best, the finest minds and hearts this nation can produce are being shipped off to defend a bunch of useless Arabs, who refuse to renounce violence and solve their problems themselves, are being mired in a conflict that does nothing to achieve what they took an oath to do-defend the United States.
That's what Kerry could have said and probably he still would have been attacked, but the attack would have been predictable. He would just be another "cut and runner"-an assertion easily defeated these days by just about anyone who has meaningful ability to think. No, not poof head. He has to say something stupid.
Friends don't let former presidential candidates talk off the cuff.
This whole issue is even worse if you examine Kerry's words in context. When you look at the items preceding and after, it was clear he was deriding Bush's inability to realize and understand the Middle East situation, and what a fantasy democracy is in an Arab, undeveloped country-all it means is who can steal the most. However, because he did not think it through, it has given the Bush campaign machine, which is far more effective than the one he uses to govern, a huge sound bite they can use before the elections.
Which gets to my central point these days. With the Republicans you have to show the details-which are often 180 degrees opposite from what they say, but the opposition simply lacks the training, the discipline, or the quality to offer an effective response. The nation needs a higher quality Democrat-and Kerry ain't it.
Question 2) Why has the Iraqi government not arrested or killed Muqtada el-Sadr? Instead, the scruffy, dirty, black rag headed follower of the
Question 3)- I finished reading FIASCO on the plane back. It makes you just shake your head in disbelief. Now there are those who I am sure disparage the book, but when you read it you realize that Ricks writes pretty fairly about the military and his conclusions are hardly in favor of immediate withdrawal. Instead, he argues because of the choices that the United States made early on-particularly the failure to understand what we were getting into and the failure to execute the original war plan as drafted, we are where we are now. And there is no guarantee we will win. In fact his best possible outcome, namely that we occupy the country for 40 years like we did the Philippines is indeed depressing. So the question is-Why have not the architects of that policy been held responsible and fired?
I hate it when people argue the circular argument, namely that by fighting in Iraq we won't have to fight terrorists elsewhere. They glom on on the the words of Thmas Sowell:
However we got into Iraq, we cannot undo history even recent history , by simply pulling out and leaving events to take their course in that strife-torn country. Whether or not "we stay the course", terrorists are certainly going to stay the course in Iraq and around the world.
Political spin may say that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror, but the terrorists themselves quite obviously believe otherwise, as they converge on that country with lethal and suicidal resolve.
Whether we want to or not, we cannot unilaterally end the war with international terrorists. Giving the terrorists an epoch-making victory in Iraq would only shift the location where we must face them or succumb to them.
As I said, its a circular argument. Terrorists are in Iraq because that is where the targets are. However they are not exclusively there and had we never invaded, they might not have found such an enabling environment. Iraq simply gave them another stadium to play in.
Terrorism has already metastazied throughout the world. And in the long run it will take controlled does of medicine, and antiseptic protections at home, to keep the disease contained. Which is why I will continue to say that whole "war on terrorism" idea is flawed. Crime is something to be contained and reduced. Smarter minds than me have argued that. Al Quaeda is weaker, but like the Cosa Nostra not eliminated.
However at least till 2009, "the war" will "stay the course". And they will have been enabled this week by the inherent ability of Democrats to display buffoonry in the face of favorable circumstances. When you wake up Wednesday morning with a Republican Senate and / or worse, and a President who will take it as vindication that nation somehow approves of his bungled policies, remember here that I told you so.
Friends don't let Kerry talk. Tell Teresa to cut off his allowance.