Well, of course...because it wouldn't make any sense to hold the president responsible for his complete failure to bring this situation under any real control since the invasion of Iraq . . .
Titan, your argument is non-sequetor. It's an easy short cut to blame one man for the world's woes, but it does not face the reality of the world. Yet lots of folks argue that the entire issue turns upon one specific decision or one mistake made.
Both political parties do this all of the time and they get away with it when the issue is not so dangerous or so important. It now appears that the dems are gonna run the bulk of their campaign on one issue -- Iraq and terror. They will attack the administration on Iraq and kow tow to the voters on terror by insisting that Bush has failed in the war on terror because of Iraq. Poppycock!
Iraq and terrorism are related. You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's time for all of the politicians and the media to stop blowing smoke about these issues.
National opinion is indeed
against the war. But this does not equate shrieking/screaming John Dean liberals with red state mom and pops who also want America out of Iraq. The former opposes because of instinctive liberal idealism & their unrelenting Bush hatred, and the later is simply disgusted with dysfunctional Islam which has now unleashed an internescine insurgency. So the democrats think they're being really coy here as they try to hitch two teams of horses together who in truth run in opposite directions.
The whole problem here is about the failure of the democrats and the media to embrace
realism. The former are afraid to do so because it creates inconvenient political truths and the later because the media is too busy preening in front of the monitors admiring itself. So the dems oppose the administration for the sake of opposition. They embrace conditional arguments of what should be ( a happy perfect world ) rather than critiquing the world as it really is ( complex, promising, dangerous, amoral ).
A debate posited against realism concedes the reality of the moment.
Dysfunctional Islam. A weak Baghdad government with limited power against insurgency. Ethnically divided Iraq. An idealistic American nation which attempts to utilize its power, but lack the historic wisdom of empire necessary to devise an occupation strategy which takes the region and culture into full account. No where in this world of realism is Mr. Bush an incompetent ass-hole. He is however a leader of a powerful nation who has made some significant mistakes. In other words, he is human, and America remains a guiding light no matter what sort of spin the dems or media put onto the issue.
What is lacking is the political courage to admit what is good about this decision to place our nation at the front of the line against terror and tyranny ( kudos to Mr. Leiberman for his courage ).
In terms of realism, America is the nation taking it on the chin. It's our guys and gals risking life and limb while Europe prevaricates and Iran plots and plans mayhem in concert with Al Qaeda. We serve the Iraqi people grateful or not as well as the interests of Europe. America has stepped in a Texas-sized cowpie in Iraq.
To run or not to run?
Realism suggests that this decision is not on the table
at this time. An abrupt withdrawal now could make the region worse with a ripple effect as insurgency swells and other foreign powers step into the vacuum. Yep, in the dems idealistic "should be" world it would be nice indeed to cut and run. But for the near term, we're stuck with a mess.
Realism says that European governments should be grateful for the American presence in the region. We relieve European politicos of body counts and adverse public opinion at the polls while they benefit from not having to make any tough decisions about the real world in which they also live. Of course these same Euro politicians return the favor by lining up with the media and the dems in denigrating our president as well.
Yet if Iraq falls and drops into internescine civil war and (soon to be nuclear ) Iran jumps into the scene compelling other governments to act (Turkey, Saudia Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Egypt ), then one will lament the good old days when America was there.
I'm not arguing on behalf of an unconditional American presence in Iraq or anywhere else. I do argue on behalf of realism as it is and not as Nancy or Hillary or the media tell me it is suppossed to be. That sort of idealism can get me killed in today's world.
Our options are more limited today than they were three or four years ago. We are in a mess, make no mistake about it. The prize is not the White House as the democrats now clearly define their own Iraq policy. The prize is to calm the fire burning in Iraq and throughout dysfunctional Islam ( which must face its own reality ). We have to play the cards that we're holding, not the jokers that the dems want to throw down on the table.
Barry
