In a post about a month ago, I postulated that it didn't matter WHO won the 2008 or even 2012 presidential elections because regardless we would have thousands (2 or 150 who knows) of troops in Iraq for at least another decade. Yesterday, in the Democratic Presidential debate, none of the top 3 candidates could commit to having troops 100% out of Iraq by 2013.
Interesting, huh? All the hoopla and catering to the far left, "Get out of Iraq NOW", crowd still isn't enough to make the liberal presidential hopefuls promise a quick exit. The question now is what does that mean?
1) The NutRoots (KOs, Democratic Underground, etc.) must be in a tizzy that none of their tier 1 candidates endorse an immediate and complete withdrawal and surrender. Will they stay home and not vote? Will they vote for a candidate that does promise immediate defeat? Will they hold their nose and vote for the Hill just so as not to give Republicans a chance? Either way, this has to help the Republicans.
2) Is it obvious enough yet that Hillary is no more than a complete political weathervane? At least Obama has been consistently against the war. Hillary vacillates like a sine curve. As much as every pundit in the universe now believes she has the nomination locked up, I still hold out the possibility that we'll see a Dean-like disaster. No, Hillary is not Howard Dean and I'm not sure there's a John Kerry waiting in the wings, but when the rubber meets the road can the liberals truly pull the lever for her?
- she's not anti-war enough
- she's a political triangulator, not a leader
- she continues to have a high percentage of negatives (those that definitely will not vote for her)
- is anyone, even the Dems, really ready for another Clinton presidency?
- the right is amassing so much dirt on her for the general election that it will get ugly after the primaries.
I'm not quite ready to retire my prediction from a year ago that Hillary will NOT win the Democratic nomination - although the odds are looking pretty long at this point.
UPDATE: I found two candidate matching games that match your policy picks to the appropriate candidate. I ended up with Tancredo on the first one and Mitt, Mike H. and Fred T. on the second one. Try your luck and let me know what you end up with:
vajoe
usa today
UPDATE #2: And the third thing I meant to ask is since we are going to have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for another 10 years - at least - when are the anti-war zealots (left-over hippies, naive students, socialists and peace-at-any-price pacifists and other assorted under-employeds) going to stop garnering attention with their pathetic anti-war rallies? Just curious.
I mean we have over 100,000 troops deployed in Europe, but I haven't seen any signs or protests regarding our "Occupation of Europe" or "No Blood for Olives". We have almost 100,000 troops deployed in Asia including about 40,000 troops in Korea where the conflict has been under a cease fire for over 50 years, but still is not "officially over". Where are all the jokes about "Mission Accomplished in Korea". Why are we putting our troops in harms way over a Civil War? Haven't we trained enough South Koreans yet to protect their own country? No Blood for Hyundai's!!
Is there some memo that goes out to the anti-war crowd about when to give it a rest?
Sorry, but I'm an adult and appreciate a little more intelligent discussion of politics - which I'm sure you're capable of as soon as you stop giggling ;-)
Are you happy with having "troops" in Iraq and Afghanistan for another 10 years-at least? It wouldn't have had to be that way.
"Anti-war zealots", that's a pretty good term, I like it. Anti-war zealots. What a cool thing to be zealous about. So are you a war zealot? No, you're just the voice of reason, right?
When are they going to stop garnering attention with their "pathetic" anti-war rallies? Probably never, everything gets attention anymore. I'm thinking they're at least as deserving of attention as O.J. or Britney. As far as the idea that they're "pathetic", I guess that's sort of in the eye of the beholder. Some unkind person could probably call this a pathetic little blog but I guess that isn't too likely to happen with it's current level of exposure. Anyway, I don't think of it as pathetic. But it does come off as bitter now and then (OK usually).
"I mean we have over 100,000 troops deployed in Europe,"
Doing what exactly? Are they maybe available to pour into Iraq? The Surge part II? Or is that part of the invade Iran plan?
"...but I haven't seen any signs or protests regarding our "Occupation of Europe" or "No Blood for Olives"."
Do you suppose that might be because they're not killing anybody?
"We have almost 100,000 troops deployed in Asia including about 40,000 troops in Korea where the conflict has been under a cease fire for over 50 years, but still is not "officially over". Where are all the jokes about "Mission Accomplished in Korea"."
Not sure but maybe there aren't any because there was no moron President looking for a photo-op and claiming it in that one. The really sad part is that the joke's on us, Bush's mission is accomplished.
"Why are we putting our troops in harms way over a Civil War?"
Good question.
"Haven't we trained enough South Koreans yet to protect their own country? No Blood for Hyundai's!!"
Exactly. There is no getting out of these situations, is there? How many more would you have us in? Maybe we could go back to Vietnam. Only one problem...it might have taken a little while, but only a little and then, after we left, peace broke out. Of course they are "communists" so that shouldn't count I suppose.
"Is there some memo that goes out to the anti-war crowd about when to give it a rest?"
No. Unless somebody sends one. Want to? I imagine it would be about as accepted as telling your boy wonder (Bush) that we're sick of his war. Most of us that is.
Thanks for the post, I hope you keep'm coming.
I strongly belive that we wouldn't have even gone in to Iraq if we didn't have a bunch of pacifist, corrupt nations at the UN. Had everyone stood firmly behind the 15 or more resolutions against Iraq and demanded he step aside, none of this would have happened. Even after we went in, the politicians and media (which fawns over the the anti-war protests) have made our efforts harder and take longer than otherwise necessary. So, you're right! It didn't have to be that way.
This IS a pathetic little blog! If I was a soldier in Iraq and bashing Bush, I would be famous though ;-) and THAT is my point.
I know I come off as bitter. That's the only time I'm motivated to write about something. Sorry - I'm not a bitter person, but admit to being so when I'm writing here.
We have a big problem in the world today. There are still people out there that are, for lack of a better word, evil. If no one stands up to them, they can and will wreak havoc on innocent people. The problem lies in the fact that those countries, like us, that would fight against this evil will never fully destroy it. WHy? Because we are too sensitive and we care about how we are perceived by others. We ended WWII when we killed thousands with the A-bomb. We killed mostly innocent people. Yet, without it the war may have continued indefinitely. So what was right? I really don't know. But today, we wouldn't do that and terrorists like Bin Laden are in part standing up to us because we have shown that weakness. So what's right?
As far as Iraq goes, I believe we have to stay as long as we have to in order to make sure the Iraqis have a decent chance at building a safe, secure - not necessarily western style - democracy in their (The Iraqi's) vision. It hasn't gone well, but that's not a reason to cut and run.
And while I would like to continue arguing more of your points, I have to move on - and ride my bike to my capitalistic endeavor ;-)
As to the U.N. being weak and corrupt: I concur, with the following caveat: almost every political body has some corruption attached and by its nature it (the U.N.)is always going to be more deliberative than effective. So do we give up on it entirely or do we work to improve it? What we don't do, in my opinion, is ignore its refusal to agree to our invasion proposal and then use its resolutions as justification for invading. Or in other words, Iraq should be bound by the dictates of the U.N. and we should not.
As to your blog being "pathetic": it is not; no more so than mine anyway. I was objecting to the use of that word in reference to the anti-war movement, something which I have some respect for (some elements of it more than others, but all at least a little).
Bitter? Maybe, maybe not. You make a valid point about that being a result of what you choose to write about. I also write mostly about that which irritates me. Maybe that would be a better word than bitter: irritated.
I agree about the presence of "evil" people in the world. I agree that we should oppose "evil". I disagree that war is the only way, or even the best way, to do so.
You feel like we have to stay in Iraq until we have provided them with a situation that is stable enough for them to thrive. We will do that by defeating Al-Qaeda, the Iraqi branch, something that didn't actually exist when we went in. But let's say we accomplish this in two years time. What then?
Do we step back and let the chips fall where they may? Yeah, right. We might as well have come home on the day that President Moron (sorry) declared "Mission Accomplished". We both know that we're not about to let Iraq steer its own course. We have already picked a side and we will do much to see that our "side" wins. Because it's really not about freedom for Iraqi's at all, that would just be a nice ancillary benefit. No, it really is about the oil, about not letting it "fall into the wrong hands". (I believe that's a fairly accurate quote from Herr President).
Or, to paraphrase our sixteenth President: "If we can secure the oil by freeing the Iraqi people, then that is what we will do. If we can secure the oil by not freeing the Iraqi people then that is what we will do and if we can secure the oil by freeing some of the Iraqi people and not freeing others, then that is what we will do."
Did I leave anything out? Oh yes, you said something like "it hasn't gone well but that's not a reason to cut and run". Beautiful. Throw in a "stay the course" and we can sit back and be satisfied.
Peace,
Notacynic
To see if we have anything in common, let me just throw out a few non-political comments to see if my hypothesis is true:
- I love Jimmy Buffet, AC/DC and U2 to name just 3 bands
- I am agnostic or deist
- I value my role as a father and husband above all else
- my favorite food is steak (medium-rare!!)
- I love to grill and drink beer on the deck in the Fall
- I love college football
- I love being out doors: cycling, hiking, playing sports
Just kidding. Keep blogging and enjoy school while you can!
I am a big fan of AC/DC prior to the death of Bon Scott; after that I don't think too much of them. See my blog for a list of my top ten bands.
I called myself an agnostic for a while, it's an easy, no risk kind of statement. I don't know. Insufficient data. When you think about it everyone should be called an agnostic, nobody has all the information necessary to make a statement of certain fact. Of course the difference is some people don't want more information (if anything they want less) and they conflate "faith" with certainty. Which I could really ignore completely if they weren't so damned determined to push their views onto as many people as they can, try to run our government, etc. But I digress.
We read the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin last week for my Am. History class and he is called a Deist, or so I've heard, but he seems to believe also in an at least sometimes involved "God" watching over us. Is that what you mean by deist or no?
Anyway, put me down as an atheist, as in the opposite of theist. A theist has a belief in an all-powerful creator "God"; I have no such belief. At this stage of my life I am "baffled" by anyone being able to hold such a belief. Based on what? I have to wonder. But whatever, to each his own.
Anyway, here I go again. We really are quite different in many ways (and similar in some too).