Thursday, May 3, 2007

The Standard Examiner: Why Do Democrats Seek Defeat In Iraq?

I'm starting to think that Doug Gibson is working towards a career at Fox News. I think his columns would fit in nicely on the network where framing the argument in your favor, and supplying your argument with little (or no) supporting facts is common place. In his latest column, Gibson asks:

I would like to know what drives the Democrats to seek a defeat in Iraq. We are fighting an enemy as evil as any our nation has contended with. Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby may have the answer: Perhaps pols such as Pelosi or Sen. Harry Reid can't deal with the evil we confront?

Now the key assumption here is that they are seeking defeat. And of course if the are seeking defeat that implies a movement away from victory, which would require victory to be possible. But that's just semantics, why let things like reality and possibility get in the way when you have the chance to throw out lines like this
The Democrats' idea that we can peer through binoculars from Kuwait -- or Okinawa, as Rep. John Murtha suggested -- to protect Iraq is foolishness.

And since no one really believes that the Democrats are looking to lose in Iraq, even Doug Gibson, well maybe even not Doug Gibson, he proposes an alternative reason for the Democrat led congress's actions of late.
Party leaders understand that its electoral success in 2008 depends upon U.S. defeat in Iraq -- and our humiliation in the Middle East.

How else to explain Reid's comments -- reported by Jacoby -- of April 12, "We are going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Sen. (Chuck) Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding."

I will never forget the smile and wink of glee from Speaker of the House Pelosi when she got the 218th House vote to set a date to quit on Iraq. Discretion would have befitted a more somber attitude given the importance of the issue. But for Pelosi, it's all about the politics.

If asked I would imagine Gibson would say the best solution would be to stay the course, or give the surge a chance to work, or whatever the talking point of the week is. But by spewing forth talking points, he falls into the same trap as the right wing noise machine, and their largest member, FNC. Without saying how we achieve victory, or even what victory is or would look like in Iraq, they can continue to say we need to win. I think we need to find out exactly what Mr. Gibson has in mind when it comes to an American victory in Iraq. Here's his contact info, ask him what he would prefer happen in Iraq, and let him know there's credibility bonus points for not using White House talking points.
Doug Gibson,, Assistant Editorial Page Editor, (801) 625-4234

As soon as it's realized that there is no victory available, then one would start to say things like "hey, maybe we shouldn't have our soldiers over there." At that point one would have to admit that political stubbornness would be the only reason to continue our occupation of Iraq. Like Sen. Webb (D-VA) said following Tuesday's veto , "We won this war four years ago. The question is when we end the occupation." The answer should be right now, unless I'm wrong. But in order for me to be wrong, there is a realistically attainable goal for which we are striving. Upon our reaching this goal one could declare victory for the USA (mission accomplished?).

No one on the right seems to want to talk about the goal, only the consequences of us leaving 'the job unfinished', but can that be said when we don't know what the job is. Perhaps it's time for those on the right to reevaluate what they would like to see accomplished in Iraq, and some may conclude that our work there is done, that we can do no more good, which would of course, according to Gibson, be seeking defeat.

1 comment:

  1. Leave it to the Democrats to politicize the political process. How dare they?

    Why did the USA invade Iraq? Evidence suggests Karl Rove wanted Bush to run for re-election as a "war president." Bush recently referred to himself proudly as the "commander guy," sounding like a ten-year-old. What gives the GOP the right to criticize?