I have to weigh in and disagree with Rhonda’s post yesterday, in which she blasted Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean for his alleged “cut and run” comments in a radio interview.
Granted, Dean often invites trouble with his choice of words, but if I understand him, he should be commended for stating what many policymakers believe: U.S. forces aren’t going to win militarily in Iraq. Even Bush administration and Pentagon officials have admitted as much. The emphasis now is on how to hand the fight over to Iraqi troops, who will deal with the insurgency for years to come.
Moreover, Dean, as Rep. Jack Murtha did, spoke in terms of “redeployment” — not cutting and running. He would bring home 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops next year, pointing out that these troops weren’t trained to undertake this kind of open-ended foreign mission. That’s correct.
He said he’d bring all of the troops home within two years, with 20,000 troops sent to Afghanistan, and with a strike force left behind in a friendly Arab country to deal with threats posed by Zarqawi and his cohorts.
Call me crazy, but Dean’s points sound reasonable, and worthy of debate, and they’re well within the mainstream of current options. Dean’s critics are the ones trying to score cheap political points at the expense of an honest debate about Iraq strategy.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- bowhowdy2 on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- outlander on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- outlander on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
31 Comments
Dean deserves more credit, but is a much easier target than Murtha
Just finished reading the transcript of Murtha’s speech.
Finally a little honesty about the situation we’re in.
I prefer Murtha’s plan to redeploy them asap.. we only fool ourselves that there isn’t already a civil war.
We are contributing to a civil by asking Iraqis to side with the US “puppet government.” The US “puppet government” only controls a “fortress” in downtown Baghdad and dare not venture out from behind its walls.
The Bush administration is desperately to clinging to the “plans” of its Neoconservative/Zionists cabal as demonstrated by Rice trying to spread the “big lie” to Europe, though obvious appearing ridiculous to the Europeans.
Bush’s lack of intelligence is glaring in the fact he can’t seem t change his mind about Iraq, though confronted with overwhelming evidence that a change is necessary. The US presence in Iraq acts as a catalyst for violence, but Bush still seems incapable of understanding that situation.
Each so-called concession coming from the cabal is little more than an effort to buy more time for its original “conquest plan.”
Bush needs to overrule their stubbornness, and bring our troops homes immediately.
As soon as the White House cabal has Bush jump from the word “insurgency” and start calling Iraqis “terrorists” { as in the “terrorists” will have won } their desperation becomes apparent.
The Neoconservative/Zionists cabal running the White House is also running the United States into the ground. The People are speaking but the White House is refusing to listen.
Bush needs to overrule their stubbornness, and bring our troops homes immediately.
Randy, thanks for the confirmation. You’re for America’s defeat in the war on terror. Great.
Randy, thanks for your courageous comments. I agree with you — Dean was speaking the truth.
You “win” the phony war on “terrorism” by making it go away.
The word “terrorism” is nothing more than a misnamed legitimate reaction to oppression. The word “terrorism” has been sold as to mean something which it is not. The Israeli used this word “terrorism” to gain sympathy and money from the United States. It was first used to describe Palestinian resistance.
The “war on terrorism” is a complete phony, therefore it can not be won. You can’t win something which does not exist.
But you can make it go away.
Randy,
Thanks for printing Howard Dean’s recommendations on American policy toward Iraq, so they can be considered on their own merits.
People he agree with Dean or like him, only do so, because he is a leftist liberal, not because he actually has anything to say.
You guys will nod “yes” to him no matter what.
That’s fine! I’m just not that blind. So I have to respectfully disagree with Howard Dean.
Joe, I guess you couldn’t just disagree with Dean and leave out how much you hate everybody here?
IMHO, Dean is far more intelligent than the Joe commentors above.
“We told our opposition often enough that although we were using its weapons and rules for our purposes, we had nothing intellectually or politically in common with them. To the contrary, our goal was use these means to put and end to them and their methods, to finally eliminate their theories and policies. Both in theory and practice, National Socialism opposes liberalism….
“It is a warning for the entire liberal world that Germany has replaced democracy by an authoritarian system, that liberalism broke under the blows of the national uprising, that parliamentarianism and the party system are outdated concepts for us.”
That’s an excerpt from a speech by Joseph Goebbels in 1933. Before anyone accuses me of making the same old staid comparison of one group or another to the Nazis that’s not my point at all.
My point is that liberalism – and I define it here as an ideology that seeks a society characterized by freedom of action for individuals, limitations on government power, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, and economic freedom – has been one of western culture’s scapegoats for centuries.
It’s quite the bore to read many of the posters to these forums. Everything from political affiliation, to favorite ice cream flavor, to the choice of “soft” or regular toilet paper, seems to have something to do with politics. And from what I read, if you have an honest disagreement with them, it’s because you’re a liberal.
I don’t think anyone would disagree to strongly witrh the definition of classical liberalism above. One may disagree with methods or goals, sure.
And I think it’s safe to say that many of us are “hybrids” – liberal on some economic and social issues and more conservative on other similar issues.
Let’s put the ‘liberal as the “L” word’ mentality to bed. Give it a rest.
The Jews are running our country into the ground! Please save us from the shadow government! I need to go buy some new tinfoil hats!
Brian I agree with you AGAIN.
And your post reminds me of a really old LP (record album for the younger bloggers) that was by Lenny Bruce. He read a long, moving patriotic speech and then let the audience guess who wrote it. They guessed people like Lincoln, Eisenhower, etc.Of course it turned out to be a pre-war speech by Adolph himself.
You notice how Joe Blow is perfectly willing to let SOMEBODY ELSE die for his sense of “honor.”
He won’t even support gov’t raising his taxes to pay for the war, let alone fight in it.
The conservatives wanted a chance to re-fight Vietnam to show how military might can really work.
Well, they got it.
And it’s working out about as well as our Empire building did last time and for exactly the same reasons.
The military is asking for another 100 billion to fight in Iraq for next year. That’s on top of at least 250 billion spent so far and on top of 8 TRILLION in national debt thanks to Bush tax cuts.
“Neck deep in big muddy, and the big fool says to push on . . . “
Tracy. I don’t hate anybody. All I said, is that I disagree.
I will admit that Dean is smarter than me in some areas, and I’m smarter than him in others. Just like everybody else.
I disagree with his politics and reteric. He hasn’t caught my attention yet. I also predicted that he would lose the primaries, and not one of my leftist friends believed me. Well! Goes to show I can be right sometimes.
Dean will hurt the Democratic Party in 2006. Democrats will not gain one seat in Congress next year.
Is Dean doing his impression of the smile of Tom DeLay?
Randy, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean are on one side. Myself, John McCain and Bob Kerry are on the other. I’l take my chances. Anyday.
Alright Joe W.My bad. It’s not my place to correct anybody anyway.Have a nice evening.
Randy – thanks for a bit of truth. Joe Blow – go enlist.
I have to agree, Dean is more reasonable than most of you. There can be no debate about strategies for any war with the Editorial writers, democrats or any other folks that would publish all to the enemies.If Randy found out some top secret plans for the War it would be on the front page tomorrow. To hell with the troops that would die.
Oh wise, powerful, and all-seeing codie, please tell us some more.
Pretty cheeky to pretend that you have a crystal clear insight into this war or into the motivations of the people on this blog discussing it.
It’s pretty clear that the insurgents don’t want us to leave Iraq. If they were really interested in only getting us out of Iraq, they would have laid low with no insurgency until after we left the theater of operations, or at least removed a majority of ground troops and equipment so that it would be a practical impossibility for us to easily return.
No, what they want is for us to continue fighting this asymmetrical battle, suffer continuous but small numbers of casualties and spend enormous amounts of national treasure fighting them.
For these reasons alone, we should reconsider what we are doing. I’m no military expert but it seems to me there’s a flaw in your thinking if you find yourself following your enemies’ plans rather than forcing your enemy to follow yours.
Brian.YOU ARE RIGHT!
But how does that help? The Bush plan is to build up the Iraq army to the point it can deal with the Saadam loyalists and their terrorist allies.1. We could just leave as we did in Nam. 2. We could slowly stand down but leave some help behind. 3. Or we could train, train, train and leave a strong Iraq ally.I think Bush is going for #2 but who knows.My main point is Bush cannot tell the media or any of us what he is planning because we would tell the enemy.(not me. I might lose my top secret clearance)
Well Brian,
Like a typical liberal you don’t like the title, why?
When someone calls me a conservative it doesn’t bother me. As a conservative I believe in old fashion values, small government, and I believe in the basic goodness of our country and its citizens.
Even though liberals use the word conservative as a perjoritive term and try to attach all manner of hateful meanings to it I still know in my heart what it means to be a conservative.
So my friend, when liberals can argue their political points without calling anyone that disagrees with them as hateful, racists, right-wing fundementalist hypocrits and argue the point maybe I’ll stop calling you a liberal.
PS I do disagree with your definition of classical liberalism.
Esod,
I like the title just fine. I object when the word is used as an epithet or as a catch-all phrase for everything someone else is not.
So please, call me a liberal in the sense of Enlightenment liberalism. I am for the rights of man, for a limited government, for the rule of legitimate law, for rationalism over mysticism and magic..against reactionaries, against stability over righteousness and justice, against laws which are not fact based, against the tyranny of the majority.
Gee codie, another conservative with a security clearance. You and esod and Hank must have a lot to talk about.
Personally, I think you all have vivid imaginations.
XXX,
Indeed. And delusions of adequacy to boot.
Ain’t it the truth CF!
Ah, Brian the Enlightened One!
A lot of people would read your comments and merely dismiss you as a self-righteous, condescending, left wing, liberal prick. Not me! I feel we are truly blessed that you grace this BLOG with your Enlightened liberal opinions.
Please, oh Enlightened One, teach us the source of your Enlightenedment!
ah, esod,
We all know that you’re self-righteous, condescending, loon with a prescription plan that doesn’t cover enough of your out of pocket expenses for the antipsychotic medications.
Ed,
Could you please make up an extra large tin foil hat for esod?
codie – for how many years do we have to “train, train, train and leave a strong Iraq ally”? After all, we left a million-man trained ARVN but they evaporated and wouldn’t stand up for the Saigon regime.
According to Bush there are 212,000 trained ARI right now. And, according to Lieberman there are only 10,000 insurgents. One would think that with a 21-1 ration and air support the ARI could take over now.
Unless, of course, some of the “facts” above are false.