Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazer
Can it be helped if Democrats and insurgents are making similar arguments? Sure it can: Democrats can point out that they don't want the insurgents to win. But they don't say so, and those who believe the insurgents have already won don't lament it. Instead they lament that we started the war in the first place, as if the Iraqis share no blame for their current troubles. In fact they share the blame with us; it is not all ours. Democrats could at least attempt to sound like they wanted us to win this war, but their politics have overcome them. The result is that they sound as if they wanted our troops to die and retreat in utter defeat in order for them to win their political games in Washington, D.C. They have allowed themselves to be perceived as agreeing with our enemies, they have invited accusations of un-patriotism. We can only assume from their glaring defeatism that Democratic politicians care more about wining votes than wining wars. Whether or not this perception is justified or supported by reality is irrelevant, it is what people have come to believe.
|
it's over for us and the the public is way out in front of both parties on the issue of iraq. by all available evidence, the perception
is justified: US goals in iraq cannot be achieved militarily.
the only reason you're clinging to the status quo is because Bush put us there. if it was a Democratic president that had done it, in the manner that Bush did, you and every other rightie would be calling for his head on a platter. criticism of Bush by the Dems may be political, but it's entirely justified - we really are in a geopolitical abyss that will drain the nation's resources for years, if not decades. furthermore, it will not achieve any of the stated objectives - in fact, by any metric, we have multiplied the terror threat. Bush put us there and wants to keep us there - yes, there should be blame and recriminations, and they belong squarely at Bush's feet. posturing about patriotism and politics should be seen for the cheap straw-man argument that it is.