November 4, 2003
JUST 3?:
Three mistakes on Iraq (RICHARD HALLORAN, 11/05/03, Japan Times)
The Democratic Party as a whole, and most of its presidential candidates, are making three consistent mistakes in their otherwise generally fair critiques of Bush administration policy in Iraq. These mistakes should be corrected; if they are not, Democrats will be less effective as constructive critics of President George W. Bush now, and will probably fare worse in national elections next fall.The first mistake is to argue that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were not a serious concern before the war. The second is the the claim that somehow the Bush administration unilateralism has been the principal cause of our current problems on the ground in Iraq. And the third is the assumption that the Iraq mission will remain just as difficult as it is today right through general election time next year.
If you correct those mistakes you're left with far too nuanced a critique for useful political purposes. "We should have gone slower; waited for approval from Russia, France, and China; and known it would take a whole six months and cost over 300 American lives" isn't exactly red meat even for the Democrat base. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 4, 2003 7:31 PM
One could say that the war was completely unnecessary, and that the Bush administration has been unnecessarily dismissive of potential allies.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to not burn bridges.
I'll go out on a limb here and say that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict that at the appropriate moment(s) during the re-election campaign, the Bush team will disclose certain "interesting" revelations about both the Iraqi campaign and certain international figures.
If this is correct (it may, of course, not be), we're talking election blowout. It won't be pretty.
If it does occur, a central question, then, is how merciful ought the Republicans be to their opponents, since I don't believe that Americans like to see one side utterly crushed; nor is it, I don't think, the smartest policy in a democracy, cf. Lincoln's, "with malice toward none," etc.
Of course the problem is that there has been a lot of anti-Bush hatred and malice generated, and I'm not sure how it will abate. I'm not sure what might cause people to come to their senses....
Posted by: Barry Meislin at November 5, 2003 5:05 AMMichael - So groupthink makes it all OK then?
Since when is having some stones and requiring the corrupt and incorrigible UNSC to enforce its own resolutions "unnecessarily dismissive of potential allies"? We had plenty of allies, just not France, Russia, or China - who cares? France, Russia, and China have never been our friends. They have also been hip deep in violating UN weapons and technology sanctions. To suggest that our leadership should allow these conflicts of interest to determine our policy is a good way to get annihilated in debates, the press (well, probably not there, but that is another topic), and the election.
The Dems many years ago abandoned any pretext of thinking an original thought, and are now drowning in their chosen sea of pandering to special interests; the result is that every idea that pops into their heads looks like a life preserver.
Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at November 5, 2003 8:19 AMJeff:
Suppose that we were roommates, and that we would be living together for many years. You want me to help you with something. I've helped you in the past, but this time I refuse. Does it make the most sense to:
A. Go about your business.
B. Spit on me and call me names.
"Stones" don't substitute well for brains.
The best combination is a bit of both.