November 03, 2006

Cut and Run

Cut and Run…the position held by the majority of Democrats on the main issue of the elections, Iraq, is not a winning stance. Ironically, it is because the situation in Iraq has deteriorated in recent weeks that the position of cut and run, which by the way represents any position other than staying to finish the job, seems even more absurd now than it did several weeks ago. And please, let’s not kid ourselves or quibble over terminology. Any accelerated timetable for withdrawal, no matter if called immediate withdrawal or “redeployment” is tantamount to and in fact is cutting and running. As Michael Steele points out to his angry and defensive opponent in Maryland, Ben Cardin, what would the Democratic strategy be in Iraq if they find themselves in the position of determining what to do in the country? Rather than repeat Cardin’s stammering response, let me save us the trouble and tell you that Democrats have no idea how to achieve success in Iraq. The only thing Democrats can say is that President Bush is not getting the job done. Even if that is true, in the minds of thinking people, Democrats are not simply absolved from having an actual position of their own on Iraq. Also, just for the record, “Stay the course” is a quicker way of saying, “stay until the job is done”. Unfortunately, Democrats did manage to redefine “stay the course” as “stay endlessly” and so the Bush Administration no longer uses that description. Democrats can attack a description of what we are doing in Iraq all day long, but when it comes to offering their own solutions, the silence is deafening.

So which is it? Do Democrats favor cutting and running (or whatever euphemism they want to call it) or do they simply have no position on Iraq? The answer is: they themselves do not know. It is my assessment that in many races, Democratic candidates have not thought beyond the Nancy Pelosi playbook of “blame Bush”. Really, it was circulated apparently very well that if Democratic candidates just pound away on Bush enough, then it really won’t matter if they don’t ever bother to offer any solutions of their own.

So, the Democratic secret hope that things go badly in Iraq seems for the moment at least, because the insurgents are trying influence our election, to be coming true. Their hopes and dreams of chaos in Iraq were in fact realized only too well, for now it is even more apparent that we cannot leave prematurely, because it would hand victory to all of the various enemies of our country. Really, can we all not agree that Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinejad and Osama Bin Laden are hoping, in fact actively and openly advocating, that we cut and run? Gee, what a surprise, the Democrats find themselves aligned with our worst international enemies on this issue, not to mention a host of other issues.

It will be interesting to see what happens if Democrats win back a degree of political power in a few days. Will our troops be immediately withdrawn, to the utter glee of our enemies? Or will Democrats be too busy conducting the various congressional investigations into the Bush Administration attempting to re-live the 2000 and 2004 elections, to bother conducting a war on terror? I defy any liberal reading this to show me where I’m going wrong with my analysis. And please, if you challenge me, try to come up with a specific vision of what should be done in Iraq. I won’t hold my breath, for I have yet to hear any left leaning individual anywhere offer a drastically different and/or substantive solution to the major issue of the day, the War in Iraq.


young_activist said...

Don't Cut and Run? Stay the Course? THAT IS THE BEST YOU CAN COME UP WITH? Iraq is on the verge of civil war, our nation has lost thousands of soldiers and nearly a trillion dollars, most Iraqi's think it is admissible to kill Americans, there are no WMD, most Iraqis say they where happier under Saddam, death squads roam the streets of Baghdad, there was no plan for Iraq after the invasion, we where told our troops would be greeted with flowers, we where told Iraqi's would rally behind us, we where told Iraq had WMD, we where told Iraq's oil would pay for the cost of the invasion and three years later the best you can come up with is Don't Cut and Run? American deserves answers not bigoted rhetoric. If the best you can come up with is stay the course then there is obviously no co course to stay. Iraq is a mess and it isn't going to get any better as long as all the President can come up with is don't cut and run. How are we supposed to fix the problems in Iraq if the President continues to tell us that we are winning?

young_activist said...

If we where to follow your strategy we would be in Iraq until we where bankrupted.

Jaz said...

I notice how you managed to avoid offering any solutions of your own as to how to extricate ourselves from Iraq with honor. Your litany of grievances makes my point, for it contains no alternative suggestion of a possible solution. And Please don’t make us re-debate the WMD argument for the fifty thousandth time. Many prominent Democrats believed that Saddam had and was pursuing various forms of WMD including, as even the NYT has revealed lately, nuclear weaponry. But rather than debate each charge of yours over and over, let us address the original point I have made here, that is; Democrats have no substantive, constructive solutions of their own regarding the war in Iraq. And surely you realize that any arbitrary timetable decided by the suits in congress will be an invitation for disaster In Iraq. But perhaps that is of no concern to you, because it is clear that you, like many Democrats, care more about being able to say, “I told you so” than achieving victory in Iraq. And nothing in what you have said here gives me any reason to believe that it is fact Democrats who would better guide us through the turmoil of international relations and the overall war on terror, which like it or not, includes the war In Iraq. Since it is apparent that Democrats will most likely take back the house tomorrow, we can look forward to at least two years of speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi, which should be disconcerting to many traditional and patriotic Americans.

I don’t make this cut and run argument in a partisan way necessarily. As an American I am genuinely concerned as to what will happen if the Democrats find themselves in the position of determining what will happen in Iraq. How many ways can I say this: it strikes me that Democrats have no solutions of their own as how to proceed In Iraq, and it is of great concern to me. In the Nancy Pelosi elections ’06 playbook, the page where Democrats explain what they are proposing to do in Iraq has not been written. The playbook ends with, just point out the folly of George Bush and voters will decide, “It’s time for a change”. It is a truly sad day when and if Americans decide, “It’s time for a change” with out giving any consideration to what that change will bring, which in the case of Iraq, is a genuine unknown.

This all goes to a basic rhetorical concept that in my several years of observing politics the Democrats never seem to have mastered. That is; when you shoot something down, it always makes for an infinitely stronger argument if you have an alternative solution to the one you reject. I’ll be very interested to see what Democrats do with their newfound power. Something tells me that they will be too busy wasting time with investigations, because they are angry over the results of the last two presidential elections, to ever offer any solutions of their own to the most pressing issue of the day, The War in Iraq.

young_activist said...

Looks like the voters disagread with you.
Democratic takeover of the Snate, Democratic sweep of the House, Democratic sweep of the Governor's races, Democratic takeover of numerous state legislatures, and aalthough it wasn't decided by the voters directy, the firing of Donald Dumbsfeld

Jaz said...

Activist, what exactly do you feel voters disagreed with me over? That Democrats have no solutions of their own in Iraq? If that is the case, then the voters know something that you and I do not, because surely if you knew the answer, you could say so here.

Perhaps you mean that voters disagreed with me in general as a conservative. If that is the case, I encourage you to read my two latest posts, where I make the argument that the last election cycle was hardly a victory for your brand of "progressive" liberalism, rather it was an acknowledgment that Democrats should, if they want to win lections, find common ground with conservatives like myself.

young_activist said...

It doesn't matter how conservative the newly elected members are, they still caucus with the Democrats which gives the liberal Democrats the Speaker ship and control of the committees which will be used to perform Congress’s Constitutional duty of Executive oversight. Everyone knows that Congress won't be able to get anything done, it will just gridlock with the President. At the moment control of Congress is not as much about passing bills to advance a liberal ideology as you might think. The only thing that Democrats where hoping to gain by control of Congress is a check on the Executive branch and perhaps the passage a few modest bills such as funding for stem cell research and an increas in the minimum wage.

young_activist said...

It looks like it war Rumsfeld's plan to cut and run.