War and the politics of winning
Robert Rouse
November 21, 2005
Congressman John Murtha came out and declared we need to bring our troops out of Iraq immediately. To this end he has been derided by several members of Congress, several people have "respectfully" disagreed with his proposal and many on the right have called this 37-year veteran of the Marine Corps a coward. In reality, it takes someone with a real backbone and political courage to openly question Bush's personal war with Islam.
Many of the current Democratic frontrunners for the presidential nomination are a little gun shy. Some of this may stem from as far back as 1968 when Gov. Mitch Romney of Michigan claimed that the Johnson administration had "brainwashed" him into supporting the Vietnam War. Romney was effectively locked out of the campaign. The single problem I have with my man, Evan Bayh is his failure to come out in direct opposition to the war. However, a spokesperson for Bayh recently said he, ". . . believes that we need a plan to get our troops home as soon as possible, consistent with the national security interests of the United States." Unfortunately, he still doesn't support a timetable.
On November 13, John Edwards wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Post in which he opens with three little words "I was wrong."
Later, he adds "It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price."
While some will argue that this mea culpa may spell political suicide for Edwards' presidential aspirations, I have to believe that as more and more people come to the conclusion that our presence in Iraq is wrong and understand that the intelligence behind the decision was both flawed and manipulated, Edward's value as a candidate may rise substantially.
As far as the intelligence being flawed, that is not just a "liberal" talking point anymore. Sen. Pat Roberts, a Republican from Kansas and chairman of the Senate intelligence committee said on (this will kill you) FOX News, "a lot of us would really stop and think a moment before we would ever vote for war or to go and take military action . . . We don't accept this intelligence at face value anymore."
This may seem like a bold statement when you consider it comes from one of Bush's staunchest supporters. But is it really that bold? Several Republicans are distancing themselves from Bush and his policies out of fear. They know that as Americans are getting more fed up with both real and perceived evils coming from the White House that cozying up to Bush would probably be a political liability they cannot afford.
What this means is we will be seeing stronger shifts away from the war as both the 2006 midterm elections and the 2008 Presidential campaign approach. More death and destruction in Iraq will only serve to bolster anti-war sentiment and any politician worth his salt will know being for the war may end up being political hari kari.
Many of the current Democratic frontrunners for the presidential nomination are a little gun shy. Some of this may stem from as far back as 1968 when Gov. Mitch Romney of Michigan claimed that the Johnson administration had "brainwashed" him into supporting the Vietnam War. Romney was effectively locked out of the campaign. The single problem I have with my man, Evan Bayh is his failure to come out in direct opposition to the war. However, a spokesperson for Bayh recently said he, ". . . believes that we need a plan to get our troops home as soon as possible, consistent with the national security interests of the United States." Unfortunately, he still doesn't support a timetable.
On November 13, John Edwards wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Post in which he opens with three little words "I was wrong."
Later, he adds "It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price."
While some will argue that this mea culpa may spell political suicide for Edwards' presidential aspirations, I have to believe that as more and more people come to the conclusion that our presence in Iraq is wrong and understand that the intelligence behind the decision was both flawed and manipulated, Edward's value as a candidate may rise substantially.
As far as the intelligence being flawed, that is not just a "liberal" talking point anymore. Sen. Pat Roberts, a Republican from Kansas and chairman of the Senate intelligence committee said on (this will kill you) FOX News, "a lot of us would really stop and think a moment before we would ever vote for war or to go and take military action . . . We don't accept this intelligence at face value anymore."
This may seem like a bold statement when you consider it comes from one of Bush's staunchest supporters. But is it really that bold? Several Republicans are distancing themselves from Bush and his policies out of fear. They know that as Americans are getting more fed up with both real and perceived evils coming from the White House that cozying up to Bush would probably be a political liability they cannot afford.
What this means is we will be seeing stronger shifts away from the war as both the 2006 midterm elections and the 2008 Presidential campaign approach. More death and destruction in Iraq will only serve to bolster anti-war sentiment and any politician worth his salt will know being for the war may end up being political hari kari.
Print
Email
