August 17, 2007

Another Democrat In Support Of The Mission

Another Congressional Democrat has shifted his views on Iraq to support from opposition -- and this change has significance. Rep. Brian Baird, one of the Democrats who voted against the authorization to use military force in 2002, has now returned from Iraq convinced that we need to give General David Petraeus more time:

U.S. Rep. Brian Baird said Thursday that his recent trip to Iraq convinced him the military needs more time in the region, and that a hasty pullout would cause chaos that helps Iran and harms U.S. security.

"I believe that the decision to invade Iraq and the post-invasion management of that country were among the largest foreign-policy mistakes in the history of our nation. I voted against them, and I still think they were the right votes," Baird said in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C.

"But we're on the ground now. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people and a strategic interest in making this work."

Baird, a five-term Democrat, voted against President Bush ordering the Iraq invasion — at a time when he was in a minority in Congress and at risk of alienating voters. He returned late Tuesday from a trip that included stops in Israel, Jordan and Iraq, where he met troops, U.S. advisers and Iraqis, whose stories have convinced him that U.S. troops must stay longer.

Baird made it plain that his change of heart is based on two very clear criteria. One, a pullback would devastate Iraq and be catastrophic to the region and our national interests. Primarily, though, Baird believes that Petraeus has made real progress. He does not want to pull out while success can still be achieved.

To say that Baird will get pressure for his new position is an understatement. Already, anti-war activists have demonstrated in Olympia, demanding that he vote for withdrawal. He can look forward to more such protests, but Baird says he will not change his position after having seen the progress for himself -- and seeing what would be lost in an American retreat.

That puts the debate in September in a new light for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. They had hoped to undermine the administration's support on Capitol Hill when Petraeus returned for his report. Now they not only have to worry about corralling their Blue Dogs, but even an original war opponent has come out in support for extending the mission at least into next year before gradually drawing down forces. It portends a devastating defeat on war funding -- so much so that Pelosi and Harry Reid may choose to push funding quickly through Congress and avoid losing a long, protracted battle with the White House and the Republicans.

Jim Geraghty gives credit where credit's due with Baird, and asks another interesting question. With Baird moving to support the war, what does this do to the Democratic presidential candidates? If Congress winds up quietly funding another six months of the current deployment, how badly does that damage the more hysterical opponents of the war, such as Bill Richardson?

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhair.cgi/11579

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Another Democrat In Support Of The Mission:

» Another Democrat Supports The Surge from CALIFORNIA YANKEE
Democratic Congressman Brian Baird's recent trip to Iraq convinced him the military needs more time in the region, and that a hasty pullout would cause chaos that helps Iran and harms U.S. security:Baird, a five-term Democrat, voted against President B... [Read More]

» Political and intellectual courage amongst the shifting sands of Iraq from A Second Hand Conjecture
I have often stated I understood why people would oppose the Iraq war when it was first launched, in fact, if I had had to vote I am not even sure I would have voted for it. Not because I thought it was wrong, it was most definitely something we should... [Read More]

» Pullback on Pulling Out from Outside The Beltway | OTB
The Associated Press reports that several Congressional Democrats have realized that the “surge” actually seems to be accomplishing something: One senator said U.S. troops are routing out al-Qaida in parts of Iraq. Another insisted Presiden... [Read More]

Comments (34)

Posted by Tom W. | August 17, 2007 3:59 PM

I don't think Reid and Pelosi's paymasters will allow them to quietly pass six months of war funding. Too much is on the line. The Dem position--as well as the MSM position--is that Iraq is lost, and we must retreat at all costs.

Credibility is at stake here. After four straight years of "All is lost!" the Dems and the media can't switch their positions without taking massive hits from an outraged public.

I think Reid and Pelosi will make the disastrous decision to call Petraeus a liar and an administration mouthpiece, and they'll push even harder for surrender, despite all the progress, making the Democrats look crazy as well as cowardly.

As a result, the Democrats will end up in total disarray, leaving their presidential candidates to gasp and splutter incoherently in the manner of Jenjis Khan--I mean, in the manner of John F. Kerry in 2004.

Posted by Tom W. | August 17, 2007 4:04 PM

I don't think Reid and Pelosi's paymasters will allow them to quietly pass six months of war funding. Too much is on the line. The Dem position--as well as the MSM position--is that Iraq is lost, and we must retreat at all costs.

Credibility is at stake here. After four straight years of "All is lost!" the Dems and the media can't switch their positions without taking massive hits from an outraged public.

I think Reid and Pelosi will make the disastrous decision to call Petraeus a liar and an administration mouthpiece, and they'll push even harder for surrender, despite all the progress, making the Democrats look crazy as well as cowardly.

As a result, the Democrats will end up in total disarray, leaving their presidential candidates to gasp and splutter incoherently in the manner of Jenjis Khan--I mean, in the manner of John F. Kerry in 2004.

Posted by bulbasaur | August 17, 2007 4:08 PM

MSM headline was:

"Baird sees need for longer U.S. role in Iraq"

I would have preferred the more informative:

"DEMOCRAT CONGRESSMAN COMES OUT AGAINST PELOSI/RIED WAR STRATEGY"

But we'll take what we can get.

Posted by TW | August 17, 2007 4:11 PM

The case for the war has never been properly made because it -can't- be properly made in public. If the administration could have drawn a curtain around the nation and just talked among citizens, it would have gone something like this: "Guys, we've been able to run the show in the Middle East to our benefit for some time now, but they've wised up and now we've got to decide to either suck it up or extend our influence, what's it gonna be?"

I think even now if the president could describe what will happen to our economy if we lose influence over the world oil market, most Americans would support acting for our own interests. But that would threaten to pull away the fig leaf that Powell crafted at the UN to let us slip by treaties that prevent us from doing what we did. Rock and a hard place.

There's a bloggingheads.tv episode with Robert Wright and David Frum where Frum makes the case for America's heavy hand to 'balance' the West and ensure peace and prosperity. It helped turn me more toward a long term commitment in Iraq, now that we are there. Wright makes a good point that we undermined our influence by threatening to invade if the inspectors were kept out, and then invaded anyway even when the inspectors were let in. Walk softly but carry a big stick. But it's all too late for that.

Posted by MarkJ | August 17, 2007 4:19 PM

Kudos to Rep. Baird for finally allowing the little lightbulb in his head to finally switch "on."

However I truly pity Rep. Baird for the verbal (and perhaps even physical) pummeling he'll have to undergo in coming months for finally wising up:

"Hell hath no fury like a KosKid scorned."

Posted by filistro | August 17, 2007 4:47 PM

Somebody on TV the other night (I think it was Bill Maher, actually) compared the Iraq situation to one of those cancers that are actually made worse by surgery. When you try to cut them out they often just spread, and that's what has happened in Iraq.

So let's say it's one of your parents who has this kind of cancer and you are bitterly opposed to surgery because you think it will cause the cancer to spread, doing much more harm than good. Your siblings hold the opposite view and they authorize the surgery.

The surgery is done, the cancer spreads, and the situation is grave. Now, to my mind, you have three options.

1.) You can get on board with your siblings, spend every bit of the family's resources, push for more surgery, do whatever it takes for as long as it takes, even though the outlook for such aggressive intervention still remains bleak at best.

2.) You can opt for a kind of "stay the course", trying to keep the cancer at bay and keep the patient comfortable while you hope for some kind of miracle cure to somehow come along.

3.) You can go around saying you were opposed to the surgery in the first place, and since you were overruled you don't support any further medical intervention, you just want to put the patient in hospice and let fate take its course.

Poor Democrats... what a dreadful group of choices for them.

Personally I think the country is both weary and wary of option 1, but not ready for 3.... so more and more Dems will be forced, like it or not, to settle for 2.

Posted by MarkJ | August 17, 2007 5:13 PM

Good post, filistro. However, how is the country "weary?" The Iraq War has hardly touched anybody other than through their flat screen TV sets. And I'm speaking as the father of a son who's currently in the U.S. Army (74-Delta, Chem Warfare Ops).

Was the country legitimately "weary" after 600k dead during the Civil War? Yup.

Was the country "weary" after 450k dead in WWII? You bet.

Is the country legitimately "weary" after only four years and the loss of less than 4k of our finest in Iraq? Nope.

Indeed, if some folks think they're "war weary" now, I'd like to see them once Koran-thumping splodey-dopes start going off in LA, Chicago, and New York.

As for the options you mentioned, I would submit there is yet a "Fourth Option" for Democrats. Viz:

Loudly proclaim, "F*** you all! You won't let me pull the plug, so I'm redeploying to Okinawa!"

Posted by kingronjo | August 17, 2007 5:14 PM

time for the Kos Kids to run a primary on him. He's only like Ivory, 99 and 44/100's pure, a heretic pretty much.

Posted by Teresa | August 17, 2007 5:18 PM

Wow - my compliments to Rep. Baird! He's taken one of the most difficult steps a politician can take - going up against the prevailing view from his own party.

That he actually made the effort and traveled to Iraq to see what was going on, then formed his opinion based on facts, just impresses the hell out of me. I wouldn't have believed it possible.

Posted by exhelodrvr | August 17, 2007 5:27 PM

"the Dems and the media can't switch their positions without taking massive hits from an outraged public"

I disagree; if this was the fall of 2008, they might have a problem recovering before the elections. As it is, there is plenty of time for them to make excuses; especially when Hillary has been relatively hawkish all along.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | August 17, 2007 5:43 PM

So far, TOTAL silence on this story from the national media. A Google News search shows that it's only been mentioned by "news" outlets in the Pacific Northwest, where Baird is from.

It's not in the MSM's interest to report this story, as it doesn't fit their template for managing the news. The war is lost, remember? Harry Reid told me so.

Baird will probably be blackballed by his party, too.

Posted by Junk Science Skeptic | August 17, 2007 6:09 PM

As the Iraq front in the GWOT moves hopelessly (for the DNC at least) into the win column, a few things will happen:

1. The narrative will switch to something like "The progress in Iraq only occurred because the Dems got a majority in Congress."

2. Most lefties will conveniently forget that the Dems were anti-war.

3. The DNC will redeploy its efforts away from the war and bring the power- battle to the home-front, trashing the economy by blowing the sub-prime issue horrendously out of proportion. (Hey, it worked with the S&L issue for BJC in '92, why not try it again?)

Posted by Ray | August 17, 2007 6:22 PM

filistro,

Your analogy only works if a stable Iraq is impossible to achieve. There's no indication of that at all. As a matter of fact, recent developments shows just the opposite. Iraq can, and will, stabilize.

You always seem to imply that the Iraqi people will never be civilized and any attempt to do so will always fail. That's a rather fatalistic opinion of the Iraqi people and what they are capable of archiving. What makes you think that a stable Iraq is impossible? Do you think the Iraqi people are too stupid to learn how to get along? That's not very realistic. Stop trying to portray our efforts as impossible and start showing a little optimism. Give the Iraqis some credit, they are not all a bunch of cut throats and rouges. They are human beings, just like the rest of us, and they deserve a chance so let's give them that chance and offer our support. They deserve that at the very least.

Posted by Mwalimu Daudi | August 17, 2007 6:34 PM

I think that Junk Science Skeptic is right about the Democrat Party trying to shift the country’s focus away from Iraq to the economy. Remember "the worst economy since the Great Depression" that Democrats invented out of thin air in 1992? If Republicans sit idly by as they did in that election, they will deserve the whipping they will get.

Plus - don't forget our "Issue-A-Subpoena-Every-Hour-On-The-Hour" Congress and its ability to manufacture scandal out of nothingness.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | August 17, 2007 6:37 PM

Junk Science Skeptic said:

"3. The DNC will redeploy its efforts away from the war and bring the power- battle to the home-front, trashing the economy by blowing the sub-prime issue horrendously out of proportion. (Hey, it worked with the S&L issue for BJC in '92, why not try it again?)"

Please refresh my memory-how did Clinton use the S & L crisis as an issue in 1992? After all it was resolved 3 years earlier by Congress with FIREA.

Posted by Junk Science Skeptic | August 17, 2007 7:15 PM

Del,
Forgive the oversimplification resulting from brevity.

It was more a case of using the results of the largely manufactured S&L/Junk Bond/Penny Stock implosion, which as you mentioned, occurred a few years earlier.

I seem to recall a campaign slogan something along the lines of "It's the economy, stupid." That wasn't from the Bush 41 campaign, was it?

It's a simple concept. Manufacture a crisis during the current administration, then run on fixing that crisis in the next election.

The war won't have worked out poorly enough to run on that as a crisis in '08, but hey, you can tank an economy a lot faster than you can tank a war. Just ask George Soros, he's killed economies in far less than 18 months.

As for the sub-prime issue, there are far fewer turds in that bubble than there were in the late 90's internet bubble. In fact, if you take the entire mortgage market as a whole, it's still far less risky than many blue-chip stocks.

But as any serious investor knows, markets are as much about perception as reality. Manufacture enough of a downward perception and you don't even need Soros-style arbitrage to trash a market.

Posted by wooga | August 17, 2007 7:20 PM

MarkJ,

I agree, the American public is not "war weary." I see the true state of America as being BORED of the war. Think about it, all the exciting parts of a new ass kicking war are long gone. We are in the "no fun" phase of the war, and the vast majority of the public and media are unwilling to look at the war from a long term, generational stand point. The war is not about excitement or political points, it is about a deadly serious movement fueled by radical islam.

But when you (the general public 'you', certainly not you specifically) have no grasp of history and have only a superficial, multi-culti understanding of the world, you will not see any of the long term benefits of persevering in the war. All you will see is the immediate cost of the fight, and none of the long term costs of failure. With one side of the scale empty in your head, of course you would call for an immediate pull out.

Posted by Junk Science Skeptic | August 17, 2007 7:20 PM

Del,
Forgive the oversimplification resulting from brevity.

It was more a case of using the results of the largely manufactured S&L/Junk Bond/Penny Stock implosion, which as you mentioned, occurred a few years earlier.

I seem to recall a campaign slogan something along the lines of "It's the economy, stupid." That wasn't from the Bush 41 campaign, was it?

It's a simple concept. Manufacture a crisis during the current administration, then run on fixing that crisis in the next election.

The war won't have worked out poorly enough to run on that as a crisis in '08, but hey, you can tank an economy a lot faster than you can tank a war. Just ask George Soros, he's killed economies in far less than 18 months.

As for the sub-prime issue, there are far fewer turds in that bubble than there were in the late 90's internet bubble. In fact, if you take the entire mortgage market as a whole, it's still far less risky than many blue-chip stocks.

But as any serious investor knows, markets are as much about perception as reality. Manufacture enough of a downward perception and you don't even need Soros-style arbitrage to trash a market.

Posted by Junk Science Skeptic | August 17, 2007 7:22 PM

Sorry about the double post, my connection timed out.

Posted by Keemo | August 17, 2007 7:29 PM

Bravo Ray; you are so right on with your comment on this matter...

Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, Durbin, et al; are all leading the Democrats right off the cliff. Some of these Democrats must be sickened by the behavior of their leaders. I think that is what we will start to see in the weeks to come; moderate Democrats taking a stand on principle and separating themselves from the far left radicals that have a hold on their party.

I heard a report today while listening to Michael Savage on my way home from work; stating that a top Democrat Congressman (can't remember who) signed papers authorizing "Code Pink" operatives to enter into Iraq, and then on to Fallujah, where they gave approximately 600K directly to the insurgents along with other materials; they also opened up an office in Bagdad and recruited soldiers to defect from the war and offered them a way home. Savage reported this information as haven been fact checked. If this isn't treason, then treason no longer exists in this country.

Far to many Democrats (in office) have openly aided the enemies of America; far to many Liberals in the big media have done the same. What will we do about this?

Posted by Lightwave | August 17, 2007 7:33 PM

"With Baird moving to support the war, what does this do to the Democratic presidential candidates? If Congress winds up quietly funding another six months of the current deployment, how badly does that damage the more hysterical opponents of the war, such as Bill Richardson?"

It makes no difference, Ed.

The fundamental difference between Democrat and Republican primary voters is that the Democrats do not believe victory in Iraq is possible under any circumstances. Their leaders have gone on record and have said as much in order to placate the Kos wing. They have to in order to get elected, and in the same breath remain Blue Dog hawks in order to try to win the general election. These two positions are incompatible. It doesn't matter what the Democrat in question does, they have already lost.

Like I have said before, most recently on the thread about Kimberly Strassel's WSJ article, the actions of the Democrats speak louder than words. The Dems are talking about pulling out, while their actions are supporting the President's position on the surge and the war in general.

The difference is that we know the Dems are doing this out of triangulation and political expediency, and not out of any conviction that we can win or must win in Iraq. The GOP wins by default in 08 because of this.

Posted by Fritz | August 17, 2007 7:34 PM

Very frankly, this is one of the few members of congress from the Democrat side that I have seen who recognizes that we did go to war with Iraq. Most of the others seem to forget that piece of information and think that pulling out will solve the problems. It makes no difference whether you were for or against the war to start with. Any decisions should be made based on what needs to be done now, not what you thought was best in 2003, or 2002, or whenever.

Posted by The Sanity Inspector | August 17, 2007 7:47 PM

Success is the best retort. We need to find a victory or a peace that doesn't include three dozen people getting blown up every week.

Posted by Charlie Foxtrot | August 17, 2007 8:11 PM

The best part of the Baird article comes in the final paragraphs where another Dem/Lefty demonstrates the rampant ignorance of her party as to what is really going on in Iraq.

"We do owe them something — reparations and help," Crist said of the U.S. obligation to Iraqis. "But we are not good at delivering that through the military."

Perhaps she should do a little research before she forms her opinons. But I think she formed her opinions on the military a long time ago.....

Posted by Eric | August 17, 2007 8:26 PM

Exhelodryr says:
"the Dems and the media can't switch their positions without taking massive hits from an outraged public"
I disagree; if this was the fall of 2008, they might have a problem recovering before the elections. As it is, there is plenty of time for them to make excuses; especially when Hillary has been relatively hawkish all along.
Posted by: exhelodrvr at August 17, 2007 5:27 PM

Eric says:
Yes, I think you are right and I think you are seeing the beginning of this process. One by one, Democrats (being led not by Pelosi or Reid, but rather, Clinton and maybe Kennedy,) will begin to take credit for having had the courage to stand their ground, opposed to their electorate, allowing and in fact forcing the new winning strategy.

Now, is that true? I don’t know, maybe to a degree it is true at least behind the scenes. I know that I’ll have a real uphill battle convincing a lot of people in here that it’s true.

But I say this – let any politician that wants to become a hero and rejoin the war effort do so for now. You can decide after the troops are home if they were in bad form. At this point, I’ll gladly forgive them if they just do the right thing – and that means any of them.

I hereby offer AMNESTY to any politician who wishes to rejoin the war effort. No questions asked.

Posted by Eric | August 17, 2007 8:41 PM

Lightwave says:
The difference is that we know the Dems are doing this out of triangulation and political expediency, and not out of any conviction that we can win or must win in Iraq. The GOP wins by default in 08 because of this.

Eric Says:
Isn't this like just the same as liberals saying that Bush/ Cheney are fighting for the oil companies?

Why do we have to critisize Brian Bairds motives? Maybe everthing he is saying is true -- maybe he has learned the truth. Maybe he will begin to influence other Democrats of the truth.

An arab proverb says: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I say: The friend of my friend is my friend.

Leave Brian Baird alone -- he's your friend.

Posted by dhunter | August 17, 2007 10:16 PM

Hillay was for the war before she was against it.

She didn't mean pull out that fast certainly not before our marvelous troops win.

The Democrats and Hillary won the war by forcing the Iraqis to step up something Bush wouldn't do.

We must give these brave, victorious troops free college, homes, health care, retirement and Monica Lewinsy's.

Well maybe the last one is a strech. What dumb dems won't buy that bunch of bull?

They're a hero, Hillarys' a hero... if she could just get rid of that husband of hers... maybe he'll pull a Vince Foster ,then the stand behind her man little lady will be Invisible I mean Invincible

Posted by skeptical | August 18, 2007 2:08 AM

It's interesting to see the distortions of one's point of view in what I'd like to call the conservative enclaves. I don't try to meet venom with venom, I don't try to distort the conservative point of view, I don't try to put words in the mouths of conservatives, and yet I see day in and day out people putting words in my mouth, people explaining my thinking in the worst possible terms, people making me a cartoon character, an ugly stereotype, and caricature, and throw in liar, treasonous, America-hating, defeato-crat, and all the rest, but rarely do I see the issues we all face handled fairly in conservative blogs, conservative talk radio, conservative television, in the conservative press, or even from the conservative pulpit. As long as this is the level of your argument, you will continue to lose the good will of reasonable people. Your vicious hate speech in the name of bare-knuckle political work will continue to erode the public weal, the trust you could have been building, and it will make people like Kos sound reasonable by contrast. Instead of soul-searching, you high-five each other when another Arab ends up dead, and sort the Sunni from the Shia later.

America will be paying for this mess for years to come, whether we keep troops in large number there or not. America will be pay the health bills for our servicemen and women for two or three generations, whether there's an attempt to surge till April (the last possible moment it can last unless the president extends deployments again), and everybody is affected by this, and the drag on the whole country has been palpable for years.

It's not shocking that a congressman of either party changes his or her mind in the months to come, in either direction, folks. And if Petaeus actually handles this competently, after so many years of incompetence, it will raise the poll numbers of the "surge"; but I doubt this or the next president can convince America this was worth it.

Posted by swabjockey05 | August 18, 2007 2:57 AM

So Patreaeus and the rest of the Generals/Admirals are incompetent....and this is all about how much money we'll have to pay the service men when they get back...

Don’t worry, nobody needs to put words in your mouth to make you seem like a cartoon character.

Posted by The Yell | August 18, 2007 4:10 AM

Skeptical

Biden and Emmanuel and Pelosi and Obama and Murtha and Reid are insistent that we've already lost the war, that there' s no point trying, that we never had a chance, that it's got to end, that they were elected to end it, and they're going to force an immediate loss, and call it failure.

That's their party line, and that's what we're referring to. Nobody here has made a reference to a guy named Skeptical before.

Ever heard the joke about the guy in line at Disneyland who keeps losing his place because he runs aside when somebody shouts "Hey Dave!" until finally, totally exasperated, he roars "MY NAME IS NOT DAVE!!!" ?

Now, if you really do stand by national leadership figures who want immediate American retreat in Iraq, if you wear that donkey in your lapel with pride, and any criticism of any democrat is a slap at YOU--then how are we putting words in your mouth? You're standing up to be counted.

They say patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Then propriety is certainly the first breastwork. It's an ancient truism that losing wars is bad for the public weal; if you didn't want to rip the country apart then why demand we opt to lose?

Posted by HA | August 18, 2007 7:40 AM

I think the "credit where credit is due" cliche in this instance is damning with faint praise something that deserves better.

With this statement, Baird has proven himself a man of honor and courage. My problem with the Dems is not with those who voted against the war. It is the snakes among them who voted for it out of political calculation when it was popular and then turned against it when the going got tough. As if you can change your position on war with the same consequences as changing your socks.

Baird is a rarity among Democrats. God bless him!

Posted by taho | August 18, 2007 9:12 AM

None of the Surrender Monkeys has taken the time to look at Iraq and where it is in relationship to all the trouble spots in the world. For us, it is in a Wonderful Place - right in the middle of Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, Jordan and Syria.

WE are so much better off killing AlQueada there then we are trying them here in the US ala Jose Padilla and giving those clowns more rights than they deserve. They should be tried militarily - after all - they are jihadists!

Pelosi and Reid will follow Kos, Huffington, move on off the proverbial cliff and next year the stuff will hit the fan. Right now, people are not following the elections and could care less.

Nest year the people will wake up and see Reid and Pelosi could care less about our safety.and will vote accordingly.

Posted by Ray | August 18, 2007 12:33 PM

"I don't try to meet venom with venom, I don't try to distort the conservative point of view"
Posted by skeptical at August 18, 2007 2:08 AM

Yes you do: "Your vicious hate speech in the name of bare-knuckle political work will continue to erode the public weal"

What else would you call your statements, other than venom and a distortion of others beliefs and ideals? You directly call conservatives hate mongers. You claim that conservatives celebrate the deaths of others. You insist conservatives are destroying America and the rest of the world. Why not just call conservatives murdering thugs who care more for power than for human lives? All you posts allude to that. It is what you believe.

Be honest, you hate conservatives and you demean and insult them every chance you get in an attempt to project your superiority over them. So, who is actually displaying venom and distortions and uses "hate speech" in an attempt to silence the opposition and claim mastery of this issue? It's YOU!

Posted by skeptical | August 18, 2007 6:40 PM

I do apologize to all Ed's readers for the comment above about killing Arabs and sorting them later. That was uncalled for, inaccurate, and stupid. Sincere apology from me for that outburst.

Actually I like conservatives of conscience. not partisans with no conscience. When I read here about the "Dims," and the "Surrender-Monkeys," and the defeat-o-crats and, and all the other fine ways people are described here, thank heaven not by the Captain, it sounds like bigotry.

I think most people here are not bigots.

I find it frustrating that the idea that we're not enhancing U.S. security with the perpetuation of our involvement in this war (I find people who say, "end the war," foolish; whether we stay or leave, the Iraqis will continue fighting) is defined as treason and surrendering. There's a difference, and it is real, between withdraw, retreat, surrender, redeployment. They are not the same.

Look, somebody here compared the Congressional Democrats to the Arabs who won't negotiate with Israel. That's, as you can imagine, infuriating hyperbole. Not that I love Congressional Democrats, but they aren't Hamas, or even Fatah.

In my earlier post I had hoped to point to the human costs, not monetary costs only, when I said we'll all be "paying" for this. We will pay as a society for the brunt of the war borne by our servicemen and women. We will be "paying" in the sense of families divided, as well as all the physical, emotional, and social costs that are here and coming. I really, sincerely, think the structure of how much is borne by the military families is grossly unfair. It's not really the money at all, or hardly, which we can surely afford, and will need to pony up quite a bit more as our soldiers stay and return. I sincerely wish my country weren't involved in this folly, and that the brave, heroic service of our people were used more intelligently, and I wish that I can say that without being called a traitor.

I reiterate my sincere apology. I try not to hit "post" thoughtlessly, as I did above.

Post a comment