There's a reason I try to take this philosophical argument to a wider field than Iraq, and I supposed it's the same reason everyone else avoids it. Iraq appears to be the left's first major foreign policy "I told you so" since Vietnam, and not surprisingly, the most is being made of it.
This pretty much avoids their miserable record through the last part of the Cold War, and most other foreign policy issues. The only reason we won the Cold War is because Democrats weren't driving the bus during most of the critical last years.
If you lined up every current major Democratic leader, there ain't one of them that wouldn't make JFK puke, probably including his brother.
But hey, if you keep it to "we shouldn't have invaded Iraq," and nothing else, you're in the catbird seat. The world began in 2003, and everything else is gone down the old memory hole, including everything Clinton and the Democrats told us about Iraq to justify their military attacks back then. At last, the Left doesn't have to drag Vietnam up decades later to show their brilliance in foreign issues.
I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 because I thought he would be a great leader in a war. Nobody did. Like other presidents, he fell into it, and frankly, I still think he handled it better than Gore would have. But then, that's another untouchable subject. Everyone agrees Gore would not have gone into Iraq, but that's as far as I've ever been able to push it here.
I voted for Bush in 2004, during a war, because the choice I was given was not between him and Eisenhower, Roosevelt, or Reagan, but between him and John Kerry. Believe me, if Kerry had won, you would not have liked the results much better.
I stand by my ideas, among many, that confrontation and action often is the better choice than apathy or appeasement. If you want to insist that I'm always wrong on that, then take it beyond Iraq, or cut it out.
Flame » in reply to re: I would count that as a definite point for you.
Should we make a list over the past thirty years?
The whole thread (126 posts)
- Polarization
- Follow-up -- does NPR lurk at HZ?
- LOL (n/t)
- A thought on all of this from an observer
- TB vs 7 leftists...and the winner is...
- re: Why ? Because...
- "why there is such polarization?"
- re: "why there is such polarization?"
- re: "why there is such polarization?"
- I think I've got the answer.
- Yes?
- re: Yes?
- Yes
- understood (n/t)
- Yes
- Okay, I get it. (n/t)
- This is clearly a longterm project
- re: Clearly, a long term project
- This is clearly a longterm project
- re: Yes?
- Yes?
- Hogwash
- And yet...
- re: And yet...
- re: Isn't that the problem?
- No, it wouldn't be productive.
- "Providing so many rich examples of polarization isn't addressing the question, it's only reinforcing the need to answer it. "
- I'll throw you one clue...
- In other words...
- No.
- "I watch good! Red light stop, green light go, yellow light go very fast."
- re: No.
- No.
- In other words...
- re: And yet...
- re: And yet...
- Buchanan sidebar
- Follow-up -- does NPR lurk at HZ?
