Check out some similar questions!

speechlesstx · Jul 30, 2007, 09:55 AM

Just heard about this on the radio, Chris Matthews hosted a panel of Washington Post's David Ignatius, Time's Michael Duffy, NBC's Kelly O'Donnell, and U.S. News and World Report's Gloria Borger, discussing the repercussions of pulling out of Iraq. I'll post just one question and answer and you can read the rest...

Matthews asked Ignatius the following:

When we get a national intelligence estimate that says al Qaeda is back and strong, and all over the world, what good does this war in Iraq do to reduce that threat?

Great question. Even better, Ignatius by no means gave the normal liberal media member response (fasten your seatbelts):

Well, these struggles are different fronts of the same war. There is a radical Islamic movement that is active all over the world. It's seeking to hit U.S. targets and targets of our allies...This national intelligence estimate says that it has regained its strength, and most important, it has regained a safe haven in northwest Pakistan. And, the big question the U.S. is going to have to decide: that's a very stark warning, that they have, they have a platform to stage 9/11 level attacks. What are we going to do about it?

The notion that, you know, a defeat for the United States and its allies in Iraq is costless in terms of the larger war against al Qaeda is just wrong. I mean, you know, bin Laden said again and again, "The Americans are weak. If you hit them hard, they'll run away. They were hit hard in Beirut, they ran away. They were hit hard in Somalia, they ran away."

If, if the Iraq experience shows the same thing, that will be emboldening.

[...]

Whether it's Bush's argument or not, I think anybody who rejects it out of hand hasn't read Osama bin Laden's writings.

A rare moment of liberal sanity? Positioning themselves for the possibility of victory, that Bush may be right, or that a Democrat president won't pull out of Iraq in spite of all their rhetoric?

RubyPitbull · Jul 30, 2007, 10:34 AM

I don't think it means any of those things that you are theorizing about. It just means that Ignatius has done his homework. Do you believe that every politician has done their homework on this? Republican or Democratic presidential hopeful? Who is to say that if a Republican gets elected, he won't pull the troops out of Iraq?

RubyPitbull · Jul 30, 2007, 02:05 PM

Comments on this post
speechlesstx agrees: Do you think anything in the past 3 years has been analyzed more than the situation in Iraq?

Paris Hilton's personal situation perhaps? ;)

LOL. Obviously, it would be in the best interest of the candidates to be completely versed on what exactly is going on. I truly wonder how many actually take the time to do this.

ETWolverine · Jul 31, 2007, 07:47 AM

First, this is the second time in as many days that I have heard about liberals who are arguing in favor of staying in Iraq. Yesterday (Monday) there was an Op/ed article in the NY Slimes that said essentially the same thing... that leaving Iraq would be a Bad Thing. And we have also seen Joe Biden say it as well in the pseudo-debate he participated in last week.

The fact that so many pundits have all been changing their stance at the same time cannot be a coincidence. And why now?

I believe that the fact that the Surge Plan has been having such a strong effect in Iraq has much to do with it. The Libs don't want to get caught on the wrong side of history when things end up improving in Iraq. So they are triangulating. They haven't changed their opinions. Most of them don't have an honest opinion that they believe in anyway. They have merely taken steps to reposition themselves politically in light of the evidence that the surge is working. If they can do that without giving Bush any sort of credit, they'll do it. If they can do that while at the same time stating that they still believe the war was a mistake in the first place, they'll jump at the chance. If they can somehow argue that a pullout/retreat wouldn't be so complicated if Bush hadn't screwed up in the first place, they'll be in hog heaven. But they don't want to be known as the ones who were betting on America's failure when success was actually at hand.

Watch how, as the surge continues to progress, Hillary goes back to saying that she was always in favor of the war... she even voted for it when Obama voted against it. Hillary has never met a position she couldn't straddle.

Elliot

BABRAM · Jul 31, 2007, 08:58 AM

Both Democrat and Republican parties have people that do not favor an immediate pull-out. I think that is the nuts and bolts of the issue they were discussing. As RubyPittbull mentioned that would be theorizing regardless of how much straddling the fence actually happens during campaigning. I think the Democratic party is more split on the issue than Republicans understand. It's just the far left liberals seem to outshout everyone including others in the spectrum of their own party.

Bobby

speechlesstx · Jul 31, 2007, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

First, this is the second time in as many days that I have heard about liberals who are arguing in favor of staying in Iraq. Yesterday (Monday) there was an Op/ed article in the NY Slimes that said essentially the same thing... that leaving Iraq would be a Bad Thing. And we have also seen Joe Biden say it as well in the pseudo-debate he participated in last week.

Speaking of Iraq and the pseudo-debate, have you read Cal Thomas' column on that?

The Libs don't want to get caught on the wrong side of history when things end up improving in Iraq. So they are triangulating. They haven't changed their opinions. Most of them don't have an honest opinion that they believe in anyway.

Exactly.

RubyPitbull · Jul 31, 2007, 11:14 AM

Honey, I have to say that I believe if not ALL, then most, politicians from both parties speak out of both corners of their mouths. They all want to do what is popular and it is a rarity to find one that hasn't flipped on his/her stance on an issue over the course of their political life. And, it ain't because they have suddenly become more knowledgeable about an issue or have "seen the light." The longer they are in the game, the more they learn how to play it. They do what I lovingly refer to as "The Washington Shuffle."

In the end, no matter what happens, this country will survive it.