August 28, 2005

DIVIDING LINE:

War Critics Have Backing, but Not Much of a Following (Doyle McManus, August 28, 2005, LA Times)

After a summer of mounting discontent over the war in Iraq, President Bush will face renewed criticism from Democrats and Republicans when Congress returns to work next week. But he appears unlikely to come up against an effective challenge to his policy — because his critics in both parties are deeply divided over what change in course to propose.

"There is an alternative strategy," said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), a leading foreign policy critic, but "not a united one."


Isn't that their strategy though, just to divide the country? They're anti-Bush, not anti-war. Meanwhile, the Iraqis are poutting their constitution in place, taking over security themselves and we start drawing down trooops late this year or early next--what more could anyone want?

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 28, 2005 8:40 AM
Comments

"Meanwhile, the Iraqis are putting their constitution in place, taking over security themselves and we start drawing down troops late this year or early next"

I wouldn't count on it. I think that most of these projections are overly optimistic. After all, we were told that the insurgency would die down after we captured Saddam, after we "transferred sovereignty," and after we had the election. (To be fair, it did temporarily go down after the election, but not for long). Yet, it still goes on, and otehr than March and April, every month in 2005 so far has seen more coalition fatalities than the corresponding month in 2004.

But I do partly agree with this statement:

"They're anti-Bush, not anti-war."

I don't think it applies to the right-wing anti-warriors, but I think it applies to most of the Democrats. I see Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul as antiwar on principle, and Chuck Hagel as being antiwar because of pragmatic reasons (he honestly believes that the war is going poorly). But John Kerry, John Edwards, and most of the other Democrats - yeah, they're only against the war because Bush is running it.

Posted by: Glaivester at August 28, 2005 12:26 PM

It applies especially to the Right.

Posted by: oj at August 28, 2005 1:19 PM

"what more could anyone want?"

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at August 28, 2005 1:39 PM

[Hey, what happened to the rest of my comment? This new system is flaky.]

Peace Now! Peace Any Price! (but only if someone else pays.)

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at August 28, 2005 1:41 PM

Probably many Democratic politicians (in D.C.) and about 15% of the population wouldn't object to a step upwards in casualties, each week. And more video of wounded and dead soldiers. And smoking craters.

The roundhouse lambasting of the FX show "Over There" has surely disappointed the anti-war left, so they would like to see (more of) the real thing on TV every night.

Posted by: jim hamlen at August 28, 2005 10:26 PM

I've seen two episodes of Over There, and it doesn't seem anti-war to me - just cliched.

Kind of a 21st century Combat.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 29, 2005 3:08 AM

"Kind of a 21st century Combat"

Oh, hell, I might check it out then. I thought it was going to be a bunch of anti-war trash. Too bad Vic Morrow's dead, though.

Posted by: Governor Breck [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 29, 2005 7:46 AM

"What more could anyone want?" Well, for starters they want President Chimpy McHallibushitler to resign, or be impeached, or something. Then comes the mean stuff.

Posted by: Mikey at August 29, 2005 2:45 PM

I have caught only one episode of "Over There," not being too much of a television viewer, and found it to be not at all "anti-war."

Rather, like Michael H, I found it to be very, very much like the old "Combat" series I grew up on" a small unit, face-to-face relationships, leadership situations at the NCO level, danger, adversity, losses--that's what "Combat" was about.

Posted by: Lou Gots at August 29, 2005 3:10 PM
« ALL ALONG THE AXIS: | Main | LUCK OR RESIDUE?: »