"Plan" 2: Not So Clear Kristol
posted by Will
Read the Washington Post's Peter Baker, and then read Bill Kristol.
How can Kristol draw these conclusions? If things stay more or less the same, it's going to be good for Republicans and the Bush administration? I think everything staying more or less the same has been the problem for the last couple of years. That's why this is all over the front pages. These guys sure love their rosy predictions...
cont'd after link
Kristol: "Bush's strong speech today means the GOP is likely to be--if Republican Congressmen just keep their nerve--the party of victory. Now it is possible that the situation in Iraq will worsen over the next year. If that happens, Bush and the GOP are in deep trouble. They would have been if Pelosi had said nothing. But it is much more likely that the situation in Iraq will stay more or less the same, or improve. In either case, Republicans will benefit from being the party of victory."
The strategy of Kristol and the like seems to be willful ignorance when it comes to the question Murtha raised--directly--of whether the American presence in Iraq makes the situation worse. It's either "victory" or "defeat" in their jargon.
As soon as any ideology has complete control, it becomes unwilling to even acknowledge the existence of criticisms, because it doesn't like to think it should have to bother with anyone or anything (even facts) that disagree with it. The idea that victory might be achieved more quickly and completely by planning a timely redeployment is apparently something Mr. Kristol cannot comprehend, so he resorts to silly things like calling his party "the party of victory". Even from his perspective, what is that supposed to mean? How dare he say that Congressman Murtha (along with Congresswoman Pelosi, by agreeing with him) makes the Democrats the "party of defeat"?
I would say that being a defeatist means not acknowledging that something as large and as important as the American involvement in Iraq is a dynamic situation, one that requires planning and firepower, but also adaptation and a willingness to adopt new strategies in response to new realities. Also required is the acknowledgement that there will be no easy answers, let alone perfect ones. Instead, what we got from the Bush administration, as the Washington Post's Peter Baker so rightly puts it, was stubbornness: "But broadly Bush gave no ground to critics who want a major course change, and the plan he released yesterday offered nothing new substantively."
The timing--arbitrary, except when seen as a response to Murtha and public opinion (yes, polls, yes, Bush listens to polls)--explains everything. Of course there's nothing new. This is more a Bush Plan for Political Triage than a "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq". Otherwise, why would it read like a press release from the RNC, with all those quotes from the President? Shouldn't military strategy be at least presented as nonpartisan?
How can Kristol draw these conclusions? If things stay more or less the same, it's going to be good for Republicans and the Bush administration? I think everything staying more or less the same has been the problem for the last couple of years. That's why this is all over the front pages. These guys sure love their rosy predictions...
cont'd after link
Kristol: "Bush's strong speech today means the GOP is likely to be--if Republican Congressmen just keep their nerve--the party of victory. Now it is possible that the situation in Iraq will worsen over the next year. If that happens, Bush and the GOP are in deep trouble. They would have been if Pelosi had said nothing. But it is much more likely that the situation in Iraq will stay more or less the same, or improve. In either case, Republicans will benefit from being the party of victory."
The strategy of Kristol and the like seems to be willful ignorance when it comes to the question Murtha raised--directly--of whether the American presence in Iraq makes the situation worse. It's either "victory" or "defeat" in their jargon.
As soon as any ideology has complete control, it becomes unwilling to even acknowledge the existence of criticisms, because it doesn't like to think it should have to bother with anyone or anything (even facts) that disagree with it. The idea that victory might be achieved more quickly and completely by planning a timely redeployment is apparently something Mr. Kristol cannot comprehend, so he resorts to silly things like calling his party "the party of victory". Even from his perspective, what is that supposed to mean? How dare he say that Congressman Murtha (along with Congresswoman Pelosi, by agreeing with him) makes the Democrats the "party of defeat"?
I would say that being a defeatist means not acknowledging that something as large and as important as the American involvement in Iraq is a dynamic situation, one that requires planning and firepower, but also adaptation and a willingness to adopt new strategies in response to new realities. Also required is the acknowledgement that there will be no easy answers, let alone perfect ones. Instead, what we got from the Bush administration, as the Washington Post's Peter Baker so rightly puts it, was stubbornness: "But broadly Bush gave no ground to critics who want a major course change, and the plan he released yesterday offered nothing new substantively."
The timing--arbitrary, except when seen as a response to Murtha and public opinion (yes, polls, yes, Bush listens to polls)--explains everything. Of course there's nothing new. This is more a Bush Plan for Political Triage than a "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq". Otherwise, why would it read like a press release from the RNC, with all those quotes from the President? Shouldn't military strategy be at least presented as nonpartisan?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home