Carol Platt Liebau: And the Point Is . . . ?

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

And the Point Is . . . ?

It's not clear what the point is to this piece by Jeff Greenfield. He's arguing in effect that Republicans may not win political support based on the war on terror during this election season because . . . what? Chuck Hagel doesn't agree with Iraq policy?

Greenfield is one of the most experienced political analysts working -- that's why it's surprising that he'd make this kind of basic mistake. The question isn't whether people are 100% thrilled with Iraq, President Bush and his conduct in the war on terror; the question is whether anyone seriously believes the Democrats are going to offer something better.

This evening, on "The O'Reilly Factor," Dennis Kucinich put forth his plan for conducting the war. It was the same old same-old: Withdraw from Iraq, talk to other countries, make friends with our allies and one other banal suggestion that it's imposssible to recall, because we've heard them all before. And what, exactly, do the Democrats think such a "plan" would accomplish? We embolden the terrorists, offer Iran a way to extend its sphere of influence, and signal to the world that the U.S. isn't really serious about trying to combat people who'd like nothing more than to hack off our heads with butter knives.

Democrats like Kucinich, Lamont and the dynamic duo of Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean have no plan but abject surrender. Americans don't work that way, and whatever their criticisms about specific issues surrounding the war, they certainly don't want to abandon it -- and us -- to our enemies.


Blogger Editor said...

Hate to be the one to break it to you but Bush doesn't have a plan either.

3,400 died in the Iraqi civil war last month. Reports of terrorist attacks have jumped 4 fold from last year.

Heck of a job.

6:46 PM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

So editor,

Please describe for us just what plan would have the result you prefer without a deviation. That you don't like how the war is proceeding means nothing as it relates to whether or not Bush has a plan or how good the plan is. Or perhaps you know of some war in history that proceeded in the manner in which it was planned. The fact is, one make's the best guess possible based on the info available and then roll with it. It may seem like knowledge, but it's always only a guess in reality, because one cannot predict the future. The British thought they could put down the colonial rebellion in a week, while the colonials had similar thoughts about handling the British. And so it has gone in every war ever fought. Hell, you could say the same for almost every fist fight that ever happened. So to say Bush has no plan, when the first part, toppling Hussein, has been accomplished, and he doesn't "plan" the battle plan anyway, is just more irrational Bush-bashing. Get help for your BDS.

8:08 PM  
Blogger Editor said...

So much for Bush spending four months making stump speeches about his plan for victory. So Marshall is now saying Bush was lying the whole time.

8:59 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

Bush has had a plan from the beginning. It is a bold, comprehensive plan to completely re-shape the Middle East by freeing the people from despotic dictatorships.

The left has successfully disrupted (hopefully not thwarted)that plan to the great delight of the terrorists and the despotic dictators.

There have been tactical mistakes and adjustments. But the strategy - the plan - exists and offers the only reasonable solution I've seen offered.

As asked many, many times before, what alternative plan does the left have?

6:55 AM  
Blogger Editor said...


Perhaps you confuse Bush and God.

7:23 AM  
Blogger dodger said...

The left is fond of citing some poll that alleges 60% oppose the war on terror. I'm surprised. I would have thought 100% would oppose war and 100% would oppose terror.

Oh, did I forget to blur the question?

I agree with Greg and am on record as such with a letter I wrote my congressman, a gawd dam communist, in March, 2003.

The recent dust-up with Hezbollah has been described as a defeat for Israel and the US. This description is all over the place. If nothing else, note this. Israel crossed over the border of another country to get at some terrorists being harbored by that other country.

That's a victory. It establishes a precedent. It's going to happen more often. You don't get rid of 'em, we'll come over there and get rid of them for you.

Years ago there was a Doonesbury cartoon. Duke was on the phone. Some mob guys wanted to know why one bale was missing. Duke says, I'll check the computer. You have all this on your computer? Ya, to keep track. Tell ya what, Duke, we're sending a couple of guys over right now and they'll help you find the missing bale.

9:42 AM  
Blogger eLarson said...

The recent dust-up with Hezbollah has been described as a defeat for Israel and the US.

Certainly it has been described that way by Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.

Sidenote: Isn't it interesting how eager Syria was to go on record as supporting Hezbollah. Nothing like making a big, splashy, public admission that "Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism".

If nothing comes of it, the lefties in this country can rightfully relax that the Bush Doctrine is no longer in effect.

1:26 PM  
Blogger Editor said...


The proper word is failure. The Bush doctrine has proven to be a massive failure. Which is not surprising given that is Bush's legacy.

2:37 PM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

eddy-boy has some wacky idea that there be a specific time frame for these things. I wonder how he expects the bad guys to comply. Of course, he's really just another idea-free lib, who just talks trash rather than offering a real idea. Bush's plan ain't a failure because it ain't over. You don't have the intelligence to even comprehend the situation, much less whether any plan is working or not. You got an alternative? Spit it out if you can, otherwise, you ignorance is showing.

7:14 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home