So, if the Democrats continue to oppose the war then they’re traitors trying to undermine the troops for politically convenient reasons. If they change their mind to try and acknowledge the limited successes of their surge, they’re fake…and they can’t win. Well done!

This nonsense is so tiring. Republicans have a principled (if unthinking) support for the war, and Democrats have a principled opposition to the war. If you disagree with either of them, then that’s fine. But it’s absurd to argue that Democrats were dishonest when they took a stance against the war, and would be dishonest now if they moderated their opposition to the war in the face of the surge’s limited successes.

Your “analysis” presumes the dishonesty of Democrats, it doesn’t prove it.

If they can get rid of the Betray-us movement, then sure, appoint Petraeus earlier. Just don’t complain that it was harder than folks thought.

(see this post of mine on the subject, as well as some of the comments there suggesting that the policy might not have been successful, however, had it been adopted any earlier).

It would have been successfull, it just would have taken longer. Time is not something that people can create out of thin air in war. It is a precious commodity that can’t be bought. It is or it is not there.

Republicans in 2003-7 just wanted things to work out well for Iraqis and Americans. In the face of negativity and propaganda campaigns designed to induce suicidal depression amongst Americans, the Republicans resisted and lashed out in frustration.

Even an optimist will eventually dislike being around morose people all the time.

If the Democrats spent half as much time being a loyal opposition as they spent cultivating the domestic insurgency here in the US, Republicans would be far more pleased and happy.

But it’s absurd to argue that Democrats were dishonest when they took a stance against the war, and would be dishonest now

That is because that is based upon the philosophical assumption that the Democrats were correct about their analysis of the facts and the conclusions they derived.

The Democrats were never correct about those conclusions, including WMDs before 2003 (endless inspections by Hans Blix) and WMDs after 2003 (shipped to Syria)

Yes, Republicans only had the best intentions in their pure little hearts. Never mind that dishonest cherry picking resulted int he WMD rationale, or that the war for some was premised on the “throw a little country up against the wall” rationale, or the desire to secure energy, or to increase American influence in the Middle East, or had the convenient side effect of benefiting Republicans at the polls in 2004 when the bad side effects of the war had yet to manifest themselves clearly.

That is because that is based upon the philosophical assumption that the Democrats were correct about their analysis of the facts and the conclusions they derived.

No, it’s not. A principled position does not require you to be right; only consistent. Which is good for Republicans, who have been consistently wrong about how the war in Iraq would go.

If the Democrats spent half as much time being a loyal opposition as they spent cultivating the domestic insurgency here in the US, Republicans would be far more pleased and happy.

“Loyal” opposition, meaning none at all of course. And Y, you give away the game: of course Republicans would be happy with such an arrangement, though I’m surprised at your quickness to admit it. However, democracy and health of our country might suffer for it, though that’s hardly a concern for those on the right.

Xan, in the same post, you characterized the Democrats position on the war in Iraq as “based on principal” as equally sound as the Republicans position. This, in itself, is dishonest. What principal compels you to abandon people to a fate exceeding Darfur or Rwanda? So far, the only reasons we get from your quarter is that its too hard, may take a long time or ignores Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iran/N. Korea etc.

The dishonesty is also in repeating the “cherry picking, ‘WMD rationale,’”, a contention also held by many prominent Democrats right up to the moment the poll numbers started to dip.

Lets face it; the only “principal” the Democrats have on this and many other issues is what polls and focus groups dictate. I’ve wondered aloud here what would drive Democrats to support yet another funding bill that demands a withdrawal date in the light of security improvements, and the only thing that makes sense is that they’ve invested too heavily in predicting defeat that they have to loudly maintain that meme at any cost. Much in the same way they force “Global Warming” on all of us.

If they work actively to bring about defeat for their own nation, that’s treason. Look it up. If they change their statements out of expediency, contradicting what they actually believe, that’s hypocrisy. Again, look it up.

There are honorable exceptions — genuine “loyal opposition.” Lieberman comes to mind. Bill Clinton, surprisingly, comes to mind. They understand the difference between opposing a war and working for defeat. Murtha, Reid, Pelosi, et al do not grasp this simple concept — or have consciously decided to work against their own country.

I think the source of the Democrats’ problem — and yours — is that they see this war as nothing but a question of “issues.” To them it’s a public-relations exercise, not, you know, an actual war against a dangerous enemy.

Oh yes. And Hillary has had to agree that the surge is working while trying to figure out how to triangulate an answer as to whether or not we stay. Seeing her recent political gymnastics on illegal aliens and drivers licenses, this should be interesting.

1. Claim that the invasion will be a “quagmire” (without any evidence to back up the claim).
2. State that Iraq is the “wrong country” and that we “should’ve utilized our resources to capture bin Laden” (maintaining, of course, that capturing bin Laden—the lynchpin of global terrorism and be-all and end-all of all things wrong in the world—would thereby usher in an age of Aquarius in which butterflies would fly and children would sing). Maintain this position throughout any discussion on Iraq, no matter the facts.
3. When the invasion goes well, claim that “casualties are too high” (though lower than almost any other conflict, and in fact lower than some peacetime years) and that the US “didn’t provide enough armor or supplies for the troops”. When said armor is provided and up-armored Humvees finally make it to theater, claim that it’s “too little, too late” (all the while attempting to cut funding and to interfere generally in the conduct of the war).
4. When the “surge” is proposed claim that it’s the “wrong tactic”. When it appears to be successful, claim that “it’s too little, too late.”
5. When it appears that the success of the “surge” may actually lead to sustained periods of lowered violence, claim that “the political situation isn’t progressing as fast as it should” (forgetting how long it took America to get its act together).
6. When Iraqi sheikhs and the government appear to be reconciling, when Shiite militias stand down, when Muslims, Christians and others raise a cross on a newly-reopened church, claim that “a Civil War is imminent”.
7. Steadfastly maintain that Iraq’s problems are “not military” and that the solutions are “political”, ignoring that security is a necessary predecessor to any political solution.
8. Claim again and again that we’re dealing with “the wrong problem,” that Iran’s influence is what’s at work in Iraq (while conversely demanding that no military action should be necessary in Iran).
9. and finally, never fail to move the goalposts whenever your hastily-constructed straw arguments are in danger of being demolished by facts.

Isn’t it a little presumptuous for people who think Democrats are traitors to be giving political advice to those same Democrats when they’re leading in every poll by every measure and when the Bush administration’s political capital is well south of subprime?

I wouldn’t presume to give political advice to Republicans, but I am willing to recieve the advice their presidential campaigns present. Specifically, every candidate is trying to distance himself from the failed Iraq policies and persona of George W. Bush. Again, that’s not my advice for a hypothetical candidate, it’s what Rudy, Mit and John are actually doing.

I will dispense some suggestions for war cheerleaders: war isn’t at all like a football game. In war, it is possible, even likely, that both sides will lose. One side may indeed lose less completely than the other, but calling that a victory would be silly.

More important, opposing the war isn’t the same as rooting for defeat. I’m not rooting for anything, I’m taking the facts as I see them, analyzing them and drawing conclusions. The war just isn’t a psychodrama for me, it’s a policy question and I just don’t think the policy we now have will ever work.

Such is the case in Iraq. America invaded a country that had neither attacked nor even threatened it with and then proceeded to destroy that country’s infrastructure and inflame ethnic and religious divisions to the point of civil war.

How can any future outcome possibly be called victory? This war will always be a stain on American history and the hundreds of billions of dollars we borrowed from our children will never magically reappear in the form of oil revenue, or any other revenue, for that matter. Needless to say, the beautiful American boys and girls killed in Iraq will never come back either.

What the chauvanists here make plain is that they see “war” as some kind of moral blank check. Their core assertion as that any doubt or check on the government’s power to wage war is a threat to the nation’s survival.

They need a blank check because the policies they advocate are so costly in blood, treasure, human rights, political and diplomatic capital that they CAN”T EVEN BE ASKED TO ESTIMATE, what the final tally is. Don’t ask, is their message. Just spend, spend, spend. And anyone who asks questions is a traitor.

The American people are on to this scam, a very old one and while a slim few may react to improvements in Baghdad security by easing their opposition to the war, it is a lost cause.

By Jove, I think he’s got it! Well, almost. There certainly can be a principled position of opposition to the war, but the great majority of the Congressional Democrats didn’t adopt that that position initially — they voted to support it. Then, when things were going badly, when it looked like they might gain political advantage in opposing the war, and urged on by their nutroots left wing, their tune changed — now the line was that the war was lost, and we should cut-and-run, though of course they lacked the political courage to put their votes where their mouths were. And now it looks like events are about to undermine their latest about-face again, and they’re already starting to spin themselves dizzy as they try to tack with the polling winds. They can’t win morally or on principle because, with a few honorable exceptions on both sides of the debate, they’ve dug themselves into a hole with their partisan hackery that’s too deep to climb out of. Just keep digging, Nancy & Harry!

But………but…………but………BUT…………….
THAT’S NOT FAAAAIIIIIR!

I think we’ve heard that [the war a stain, etc.] from you already, jimbo — it’s quite wrong, of course, and the multiple errors it encapsulates have been pointed out repeatedly. Saying it over and over doesn’t make it any more rational. Using caps doesn’t make it any more convincing. Since you’re dispensing suggestions, here’s one for you: try engaging with an argument rather than indulging in mere repetitious rhetoric….

This is what we’re dealing with. BB can’t envision any better outcome than abandoning the Iraqis, despite the obviously predictable outcome that would ensue from such an abandonment.

How come “unwittingly” self-effacing? Were we not critical of Democrat politicians for forsaking principal for popularity? Isnt your question yet another example of polling numbers over values? How does the word “presumptuous” fit into your argument at all?

Polling numbers does not equal principal. Especially when Democrats are doing everything they can to maintain the illusion that it just isnt worth it. How valuable is public opinion then? Why dont we argue this issue on its merits?

“More important, opposing the war isn’t the same as rooting for defeat. I’m not rooting for anything, I’m taking the facts as I see them, analyzing them and drawing conclusions. The war just isn’t a psychodrama for me, it’s a policy question and I just don’t think the policy we now have will ever work.”

I disagree. I think there’s every possibility It will work. I agree it will take time, cost money, cost lives. Whats the Democrat alternative? Abandonment. Tell me Its really not that simple.

Now liberals can spin this as freeing more resources against Bin Laden because for liberals it limits a very real global threat of radical Islam to one guy. Find him and we can pretend the problem goes away. You have to know better, you just dont care.

“They need a blank check because the policies they advocate are so costly in blood, treasure, human rights, political and diplomatic capital that they CAN”T EVEN BE ASKED TO ESTIMATE, what the final tally is. Don’t ask, is their message. Just spend, spend, spend. And anyone who asks questions is a traitor.”

I think its a gross mischaracterization, but just out of curiosity, why would we see it like that? To what end? Whats our motivation? It would be interesting to hear you say why we want to spend lives and money in this manner. As you say, it certainly couldn’t be for the political capital! Then why?

“What the chauvanists here make plain is that they see “war” as some kind of moral blank check. Their core assertion as that any doubt or check on the government’s power to wage war is a threat to the nation’s survival.
“

Funny that the invasion of Iraq also had the blessing of 30 Democrat politicians until the poll numbers when south. Now many liberals are saying that Iraq is a distraction from other world problems that may require military force…that we are not supposed to take as a “moral blank check” invitation for the use of military power. What is it you do want? You want to pretend there really isnt a need for the military. That there really isnt a threat to this country. That 3,000 dead Americans in one morning is a sacrifice we must pay for being ourselves, and that moral assertiveness in US foreign policy should be confined to a “Free Tibet” bumper sticker.

1. Claim that the invasion will be a “quagmire” (without any evidence to back up the claim).

No evidence? Stumbley and the other chauvanists are the ones saying their is no end in sight for the U.S. occupation. They admit it’s a quagmire, they’re just unwilling to use that word.
We’re hundreds of billions of dollars in the hole on Iraq and the lights still don’t work in Baghdad for most of the day, oil wells are producing far below capacity and are in fact being destroyed, the parliament isn’t functional, millions of refugees have fled and Iran’s power within Iraq is still growing. These are the facts, Stumbley.

2. State that Iraq is the “wrong country” and that we “should’ve utilized our resources to capture bin Laden”

One difference between adults and children is that adults learn that limited resources means limited options. In other words, they learn that you can’t have a candy bars and steak for dinner. It’s one or the other. Children, however, do not understand this. In their minds, it’s perfectly fine to buy the bicycle AND the train set AND the video game. They don’t understand that a dollar spent on the bike is one they won’t have to spend on the train. People who think the U.S. can invade any country it wants, at any time, without diminishing its military resources for other conflicts, such as the one in Afghanistan.

3. When the invasion goes well, claim that “casualties are too high” (though lower than almost any other conflict, and in fact lower than some peacetime years) and that the US “didn’t provide enough armor or supplies for the troops”.

The invasion hasn’t gone well and the casualties are not “lower than almost any other conflict.” Half a million Iraqis are dead from this invasion. More than three thousand Americans have been killed and tens of thousands have been seriously injured. That’s more than any conflict in more than three decades. Those are facts, Stumbley. Your statement is fantasy.

4. When the “surge” is proposed claim that it’s the “wrong tactic”. When it appears to be successful, claim that “it’s too little, too late.”

“Appears to be” to whom? Any success is limited and tentative. As I’ve explained, the losses are final and irretreivable. At best, the surge has succeeded in slowing the rate of defeat. What facts show that this will be different from the killing of Saddam’s sons, the capture of Saddam himself, the elections, the “handover” of “sovereignty” and every other false dawn that was treated by the mediocre media as “Success in Iraq,” but which led to only more killing, more expense and more excuses from war cheerleaders.

5. When it appears that the success of the “surge” may actually lead to sustained periods of lowered violence, claim that “the political situation isn’t progressing as fast as it should” (forgetting how long it took America to get its act together).

“Lowered violence”? What exactly does Stumbley mean? If violence is insignificant in Iraq, the troops should be preparing to withdraw yesterday. Presumably, Stumbley is imagining invasions or attacks on Iran, Syria and so on, so the troops will need a bit of rest. The measure of success is simple: our troops are on their way home. By that simple, concrete, factual measure, Stumbley is admitting the war’s a huge failure.

6. When Iraqi sheikhs and the government appear to be reconciling, when Shiite militias stand down, when Muslims, Christians and others raise a cross on a newly-reopened church, claim that “a Civil War is imminent”.

This is just Stumbley’s fabrication. No one’s claiming “civil war is imminent.” Most, if not virtually all, Americans know that a civil war is underway in Iraq. And Iraqi sheikhs and the government aren’t “reconciling.” Stumbley, apparently, either doesn’t recall or doesn’t know that the Iraqi government’s policy had been to disarm tribal militia. They have surrendered on that policy and are now focusing on trying to recruit specific militias in hope of dividing the insurgency. They have yet to reach the point where these militia can be disarmed and/or incorporated into the Iraqi military itself. These are the facts, Stumbley.

7. Steadfastly maintain that Iraq’s problems are “not military” and that the solutions are “political”, ignoring that security is a necessary predecessor to any political solution.

Again, no one’s making that claim. The claim is that the solution to Iraq’s security problems is primarily political. As everyone from Patreaus to Perle have admitted, there is no military solution. Stumbley just pulled that one straight out of his butt.

8. Claim again and again that we’re dealing with “the wrong problem,” that Iran’s influence is what’s at work in Iraq (while conversely demanding that no military action should be necessary in Iran).

Inasmuch as the U.S. “success” is so far limited to diminishing problems it directly, immediately created by invading Iraq, I think it’s safe to say that the problems in Iraq aren’t related in any way to preventing radical Islamists from launching attacks on the U.S.

9. and finally, never fail to move the goalposts whenever your hastily-constructed straw arguments are in danger of being demolished by facts.

“Goalposts” are irrelevant. This isn’t a football game. There is no “score” that will bring back the lives and treasure squandered on this war. Let’s keep focused on the costs and benefits of the war. If the costs are greater than the benefits, it’s a loser. There are no “goalposts.”

This after:
“Half a million Iraqis are dead from this invasion”.

How many are to die after we hastily retreat? Suddenly, that cost is on no significance.

“As everyone from Patreaus to Perle have admitted, there is no military solution.”

Not a military solution alone, you should say. There would have to be a political solution, no one argues that. You skirted Stumbley on the issue. How do you reach a political solution with out military security? Your not interested in finding out. In any case, at the very least you should stop couching your arguments in moral terms.

It’s a sobering slap. The truth is, the people fighting the war won’t be able to sustain it, and we won’t be able to respond to another threat with all our guys over there policing the joint.

The issue of supporting it or not will be decided by the American people in the next election. The dems just have to point out the billions and billions spent, the massive corruption and cronyism and lack of oversight and a progress report on the political front which has stalled. The American people need look no further than Afghanistan and Pakistan to see just how failed a strategy the war was in an attempt to keep us safe. And, all fingers point to Bush and co.

Our troops have done everything we have asked them to do. With honor and courage and more sacrifice than they should ever have been asked. The fact that it has been fought by so few in our country points to the ugly hypocrisy…we all want them to win it for us, but we personally don’t want to have to shoot the guns, or spill the blood.

The American people will not allow this to continue. It will eat away at them until they throw down the gauntlet and play umpire at the last republican up to bat and strike them out. The dems don’t have to do a thing in their position on the war. All they need to do is say “it is what it is” and it is all about the GOP. People are smart.

Metaphor alert!

Many, though certainly not all, Democrats have shown the same pusillanimity in opposing the war that they did in supporting it in the first place.

For these Democrats, Hillary among them, the failure in Iraq is primarily a political opportunity and only secondarily a tragedy for America and the people of Iraq.

I don’t support these Democrats, though I can imagine a circumstance in which I would vote for them as the lesser of two evils.

And, one of the biggest reasons the war supporters here are so unpersuasive is that there argument hinge exclusively on hypotheticals. IF we withdraw, X will happy. IF we stay long enough, Y will happen. Given that on every single point from WMD to elections and allies, the conservatives have been wrong about the “what ifs” of this war.

When we talking about “winning” wars, we may want to look back at Afghanistan in the 1980s. That’s won “we” “won” hands down, according to the mediocre media.

Really. Were the people of Afghanistan better off? Was American security enhanced?

Well. We do know that bin Laden’s movement was hatched in Afghanistan and metastasized directly from there.

We know that the Reagan administration lobbied and won for lifting U.S. sanctions on Pakistan for developing nuclear weapons, because Pakistan was the essential ally in the U.S. “secret” war in Afghanistan.

More specifically, Pakistan’s intelligence agency was in charge of “secretly” distributing U.S. money to bin Laden and comrades–even as Pakistan’s Khan was selling nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran and others.

Later, after Afghanistan’s civil/tribal wars were won by the Taliban, U.S. allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia became the regime’s primary supporters and enablers.

Look where “winning” in Afghanistan lead. What makes anyone confident that “winning” in Iraq would lead in a different direction?

Not to mention a tragedy for Al Qaeda. Oh the humanity!

(We draw a discreet veil over the metaphor alert, so as not to embarrass further those who don’t grasp what that means.)

No one is advocating a hasty restreat. Rather, the only proposals are for an orderly, planned withdrawal.

Under the present configuration, the U.S. occupation is unsustainable, even BY ITS OWN PROJECTIONS.

Withdrawal from Iraq is an indisputable outcome. The only question is when and under what circumstances.

My position is that planning for the withdrawal should begin immediately, as it will be militarily and diplomatically complex. Once a plan has been developed, we can begin to implement, preferably with renewed help from our traditional allies and Iraq’s neighbors.

How many people would die in such a withdrawal? There is indeed a risk that fighting could escalate, though predictions of mass killing of the kind that’s gone on recent years are surely overblown. Why are people who’ve been insisting for six long, brutal, deadly years that we’re meeting with “success” in Iraq now arguing that a withdrawal would occassion a bloodbath. Can’t they see the contradiction?

And, as any child could tell you, there is a big difference between bad things you make happen and bad things you allow to happen. It’s called responsiblity and supporters of this war spend more of their time evading it than anything else.

So, where does that leave the Sunnis in the official alliance? The Kurds? How does this new alliance help to bring the other political elements into the fold?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/405lrbpc.asp?pg=1

But the Dems’ mistake is sitting on the sidelines, rooting for our team to lose. I do not for a moment accept the bizarre assertions that the Dems are “principled” antiwar pacifists. They are treasonous. Their identical position re Vietnam, blocking aid tothe winning side in 1974, caused the deaths of millions of Lao, Viets, Cambodians. With their Dem. offspring now in DC calling for a pullout and doing their level best to make our troops impotent, is it any wonder most Iraqis tremble to side with us?

So let’s not delay our verdict: Democrats today are vermin. The “principled” Democrats are like “moderate” Muslims; both are avidly needed, both are very rare, endangered species.

Those on the left do not perceive the same threat as those on the right.

If everyone perceived the same threat, you would then have the problem that those on the left rarely perceive the American/Western example of freedom as a good thing. They rarely perceive democracy, and Western civil values, as solutions to national problems.

You are making some brilliant arguments, and I have enjoyed reading your reasonings. Yet, at the very foundation, you are most often talking right past each other, imo.

I have no doubt thats true. I think the “talking past each other” thats going on is purposed, which is why Laura launched into the “talking points” memo while bunkerbuster looses his own argument the moment he makes it. I had asked bunkerbuster what he thinks motivates us “chauvanists” to spend blood and treasure so recklessly. Laura acts as if she’s convinced its for oil and war profits, but its clear that’s what she would like to believe. So instead about talking about the issue, its the talking points.

So how do each ideology perceive a threat here?

The right perceives the threat in that failing to fight violent religious thugs in Iraq and other regions weakens our resolve. It weakens the trust of those who live in that region and depend upon our matching our commitments to freedom and democracy. The threat we perceive is that if we give-up because its too hard in Iraq, we will be less willing to stick it out anywhere else that matters until we’re running around in our own countries (Europe and Canadians as well), trying to nail down when the next mass casualty event is going to take place, because we havent done enough to fight their violence and their radicalism on their own turf.

What the left is afraid of? That we might win. Worse, that we might be right. That you cant just slap it on a bumpersticker and move off to save the spotted owl. That all morals are not relative or subject to reductionism, and that there are real and subjective differences in culture or that evil actually exists. Thats what the left fears. A conscious.

Prime example; bunkerbuster:
“How many people would die in such a withdrawal? There is indeed a risk that fighting could escalate, though predictions of mass killing of the kind that’s gone on recent years are surely overblown. Why are people who’ve been insisting for six long, brutal, deadly years that we’re meeting with “success” in Iraq now arguing that a withdrawal would occassion a bloodbath. Can’t they see the contradiction?”

A contradiction? How? The “success” (less violence) is derived from an increase in US ground forces in Iraq. Not the absence of it. I’m pretty sure your dismissal of post US pull-out violence comforts you more than it does the Iraqi people. Overblown did you say? Thats amazing. Whats it matter to you though? As long as its off your Television screen and out of your conscious.

How do you explain that every poll shows a majority of Iraqis favor U.S. withdrawal?

And ask yourself this, Harry: Just how certain are you a carefully planned U.S. withdrawal would lead to massacres?

Would you say your more sure, or less sure, than you were that Iraq had WMD?

Are you more sure, or less, than you were that the U.S. invasion would be greeted with flowers and candy?

Are you more sure, or less sure, than you were that Saddam was working with Al Qaeda?

Just how sure are you that you’ll finally be right, just once, for the very first time, about something in Iraq?

And let me spell out the contradiction for you:

According to the conservative media, we’ve had nothing but success in Iraq. The invasion was tactically brilliant, our troops like gods and our leaders “steely” and “undaunted” and “courageous” and on and on. Nothing but good stuff. The bad news? That was all evil propaganda from the treasonous media, simply not true.

But if that’s the case, why was a “surge” necessary? If the invasion is a success, why aren’t we even planning a withdrawal?

The answer is simple and obvious. We cannot withdraw tomorrow or next week or next month, because the situation remains chaotic. How can we call that a success?

Anyone can predict success in the future, or claim that the rate of failure has slowed, but you can’t do either rationally unless and until you admit that the invasion initially failed.

Maybe will find a cure for cancer, but if the biopsy shows it’s metastasizing, you may want to seek remediation of some sort.

Harry9000 wants to know what I think motivates “chauvanists” to spend blood and treasure so recklessly. Glad you asked Harry.

They’re confident it won’t be either their blood or their money that gets spent. They know our children, not us, will pay financially for this war and only the most economically desperate classes will sign up to fight it.

It’s no accident that Bush has refused to call on Americans to volunteer for the war, or to take any special steps to pay for it. He’s a good enough politician to know that support for the war is based on the assumption that it isn’t bankrupting the economy and that only the lowest-economic classes who volunteer because they perceive it as the only viable way out of poverty will actually fight in it.

One reason support for the war has declined so precipitously is that the economy has failed to gain momentum. A lot of semi-chauvanists and fence-sitters are losing their jobs and/or their homes and, naturally, are in a much less gracious mood when they learned that still more tens of billions are needed to continue the “success” in Iraq.

Not everyone who supports the war is a chauvanist. But anyone who equates dissent with disloyalty is indeed a chauvanist. If the shoe fits, wear it.

But if that’s the case, why was a “surge” necessary? If the invasion is a success, why aren’t we even planning a withdrawal?

See kids, this is called setting up a straw man so you can knock it down. It can often work well, because it’s much, much easier than knocking down actual arguments. On the other hand, you do have to careful not to be too blatant about it, or it can make your whole case look flimsy, as in the specimen here.

The problem with this example is that not only can you not find one “conservative” who argues that “we’ve had nothing but success in Iraq”, you can’t find any human being who says that. Indeed, everyone saw that the war was going badly — conservatives and honorable liberals hoped to find a way to turn it around, because they realized that more was at stake here than the fate of one particular administration; dishonorable (and obtuse) liberals hoped that it would not turn around, because they couldn’t see what was at stake other than a nice, politically opportunistic election issue (the polls!); the anti-American, anti-Western left, on the other hand, hoped that it would only worsen, because they were smart enough to at least realize the stakes, and wanted to see America defeated.

Hence the surge (and the possibly more important change in tactics that accompanied it) brought new hope to the conservatives and honorable liberals, but brought only consternation, upset, and fear to the mixture of opportunists and, yes, traitors who hoped to find some advantage in an American defeat.

Not everyone who opposes the war is a traitor. But anyone who hopes to see their country defeated is a traitor. If that shoe fits, wear it.

That wasn’t my point at all. Rather, it was that conservatives have been cheerleading the war, not analyzing it objectively. Partly as a result of that, they’ve insisted the war was being won, even when it was rather obviously being lost.

Many conservatives assert that any failure to cheerlead the war is somehow disloyal or, even, treasonous. Given that, no one should take their assessments as genuine.

Sally asserts:
“Indeed, everyone saw that the war was going badly — conservatives and honorable liberals hoped to find a way to turn it around.”

Well, not everyone, Sally:

Here’s a brief overview of some of the most risible, and dead wrong, we now know, cheers coming from conservatives over the years since the start of the war:

Richard Perle, September 22, 2003
“A year from now, I’ll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush.’’

Frank Gaffney, Jr. Front Page Magazine, September 30, 2003
“The characterization of the post-war situation in Iraq as a “failure” - or, even a “miserable” one - has become so frequently and so vociferously applied that an observer could be forgiven for believing it is accurate. It is not. I have concluded that - far from a failure - the U.S.-led effort to consolidate a Free Iraq is on a decided, if still tentative, trajectory for success.’’

Ann Coulter, on Fox News Channel, May 28, 2004.
“The war is going magnificently.”
(That’s after Abu Ghraib, after the siege of Fallujah and long after destruction of the U.N headquarters.)

Fox News Channel, Dec. 2, 2005
“Winning Iraq: The Untold Story” A full documentary dedicated to showing that the U.S. is winning the war. Unfair and unbalanced, of course, but more importantly, dead wrong, as we can now demonstrate.

J.R. Dunn, “The American Thinker,” November 18, 2005
Essay titled: “Winning in Iraq - and losing at home’’
“Based on mainstream media reporting, many Americans, including some in elective office, are coming to the wrong—headed conclusion that we are losing our war in Iraq. The facts say otherwise.’’

Year after year, time after time, conservatives either claimed or predicted victory. Why on earth does anyone expect someone to believe them this time?

What would take to make conservatives take responsiblity for getting so much about the war wrong? Why do they think that even though their predictions have been wrong time after time after time they can insist that the people who disagree with them are somehow deranged, or evil or treasonous?

“dishonorable (and obtuse) liberals hoped that it would not turn around, because they couldn’t see what was at stake other than a nice, politically opportunistic election issue (the polls!); the anti-American, anti-Western left, on the other hand, hoped that it would only worsen, because they were smart enough to at least realize the stakes, and wanted to see America defeated.”

Sally, if you are going to make this argument, please back it up. Can you site actual proof of any American wanting defeat? This argument is used time and again without any salient example of who exactly these people are, these traitors. Also, can you tell us who these leftists are who are wanting to use it as an election issue, along with some quote or fact?

Is the failure of U.S. diplomacy “defeat?”

To the extent that you can call liberal objections to the war “rooting” for defeat, you can certainly say that conservatives were “rooting” for the failure of U.N. inspections in Iraq. In the same way, plenty more are now “rooting” for the failure of U.S. diplomacy with Iran and some, even, for a failure of diplomacy in North Korea.

Keep in mind, I don’t believe the many non-wingnut conservatives actually root for the failure of diplomacy. Rather, they are deeply suspicious of diplomacy and, in Iran and North Korea, believe that it has already fundamentally failed, even as talks are still ongoing.

My point is rather that many conservatives feel free to oppose U.S. diplomatic efforts and gleefully declare them dead on arrival, but you never hear anyone in the mediocre media accusing them of “hating America” or “seeking America’s defeat.” Why is that?

So let me see — is that “hyperbole” talking now? Or do you mean it this time?

It’s certainly true that people from time to time let their hopes get the best of them, and make mistakes in doing so — for people of good will (conservative or liberal), those mistakes were to err on the side of American and Iraqi defeat of the “insurgent” butchers; for opportunists and people of ill will, those mistakes were to err on the side of American stalemate and defeat, Iraqi “civil war”, and victory for the terrorists. I leave it as an exercise for both Laura (who likes to play dumb) and Bunker here to cherry pick quotes from that latter camp, whose predictions, based upon their hopes, have invariably been of American humiliation and defeat, from Afghanistan to Iraq, and onward now to Iran. Everybody makes mistakes — it’s the direction of, and motivation behind, the mistakes that’s revealing.

I think it’s an important point since you raise it so often. Can you do that?

Where the Gen contractor (bush and administration) say “I’m going to build you a lovely house” to the clients (American and Iraqi people). Just sign the paperwork and we’ll get started. It’s just that the GC doesn’t bother to pull a permit, digs the foundation on swampland and ships in timber that is rotted. The construction workers (American soldiers) are constantly telling the GC, “you can’t build with this wood, it’s rotten”, not to mention there are no nails to fabricate the frame. The CG tells the workers, “just tie it together, use whatever you have, we have deadlines” and the workers do what they are told, scratching their heads.

Heavy rain and delays and cost over runs, and the clients get nervous. The GC tries desperately to keep the client happy and goes ahead and puts sheetrock over the rotted frame, just to show that they are making progress. It’s just that they missed some steps along the way, like plumbing and electricity.

More costs over runs and the clients have now brought their attorney into the mix. The GC gets nervous and brings in more workers, keeping them busy 24/7. The workers tell the GC that the sheetrock they used is hollow and they don’t have any insulation. The CG tells them to just start putting the windows and doors in. We have deadlines.

As the last coat of paint gets slapped on, the clients look at the GC and ask, “where are the outlets, the lights, the sinks? The GC tells them, “look, I know it’s rudimentary, but it’s a fine house.” All the while the GC is thinking he just needs to get the sale wrapped up. Banner headlines in the local paper announce the completion of the lovely new house; the plumbers and electricians union are none too happy and plan a protest at the grand opening. Thing is, the GC had their licenses pulled and banned them from attending. The lovely new structure gleams in the sunlight. It brings a tear to the eyes of those in the community. The money changes hands and the keys are given to the clients.

One year later during a heavy rain, the house starts to creek and crumble. The clients run outside and see all their hard earned money disintegrate before their eyes. The GC has closed up shop and moved to another state. All the workers stand in the client’s yard and sadly say to the client, “we should have used nails”.

But this isn’t a case of that. It’s a case of conservatives consistently, repeatedly getting the war in Iraq wrong. And consistently, repeatedly for the same reasons. This isn’t a case of from time to time, it’s a case of time after time. And they’re doing it again.

Some conservatives have turned against the war themselves and many more no longer actively support it, either out of embarrassment or disgust. It’s getting to where it’s only the wingnuts still chanting the pom pom routines, but the recent round of victory speeches may briefly bring some of the apostates back in line.

Because its pretty hard to conclude you hate your own country by opposing diplomatic means to undermine it.

Sheesh.

Actually, I know of no conservatives (much less any “chauvanists”), who are fundamentally opposed to diplomatic efforts, just diplomatic efforts made from a position of weakness or not backed by credibility. You’re not likely, for an example, going to get a concession from N. Korea on its nuclear weapons program unless N. Korea perceives a credible threat of loosing it through an air strike. As it is, N. Korea’s position for a long time seemed to be nothing more international extortion to pay for the fact that their version of socialist paradise is no better than anyone elses.

We can, however, make the argument of liberals and progressives seeking America’s defeat in the weakening of US military resolve, therefore weakening this country diplomatically. Why would they do that? You’ve lost the ability to objectively judge better than/worse off thru the horrid liberal mindset of cultural and moral equality.

After all, its all good right? Supposedly, if no culture or religious practice can be seen as superior
to another there would be no reason for war, because we all would be equal. No “chauvanists”, no war. Liberals seek a defeat in Iraq because it takes America down a notch. Its better we flounder around seeking OBL, a much narrower defined goal rather than propping up liberty and democracy in the heart of a religiously disturbed culturally depraved region, because liberals dont think we should be able to make such judgements. Its all just a “chauvanists” short-sighted misunderstanding of someone elses culture. The honor killings, the beheadings, the car bombs the assassinations the explosive laden suicide vests in the name of Allah. All a cultural misunderstanding. High jacking commercial aircraft and fly them into office buildings in New York? Hell. Its probably our fault.

With that rationale, its easier to believe that threats of widespread post “cut & run” violence is “overblown”. Why dont you just say it doesnt matter. That would be closer to the truth.

Bunk again on what motivates conservatives to continue to fight this war:
“They’re (the “chauvanists”), are confident it won’t be either their blood or their money that gets spent. They know our children, not us, will pay financially for this war and only the most economically desperate classes will sign up to fight it.”

Yes, yes, yes….but why