Posted on 04/08/2007 7:09:47 AM PDT by shrinkermd
On the surface, recent votes in Congress appear to signal a new Democratic determination to withdraw from Iraq. But the reality is otherwise. It is not only that the resolutions were drafted and adopted with the certain knowledge that they would be vetoed. More important, even if a future Democratic president did try to implement the new plans, the results would likely end up looking oddly similar to the Bush administration’s current strategy. In politics as in war, things are seldom what they seem.
If there’s one thing that Iraqis and Americans agree on, it’s that U.S. troops don’t belong in Iraq — and yet even now, the troops are still there. Elected officials of all persuasions are supposed to respond to public opinion. So what explains this gap? One possibility is that politicians realize that raw public sentiment cannot be translated into practical policy without taking account of the likely consequences. It is not enough to give the public what it wants today if tomorrow — or whenever the next elections are held — the public will be even angrier about where things have gone in the meantime. With office comes responsibility — if only because politicians want to keep their jobs.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
IMHO part of the "Iraq" problem is a "poll" problem. The polls all have an element of confirmation bias, and in addition, assume people are really interested and informed on this issue.
In the meantime, this is a crack in the NYT's antiwar armor.
>>The Undeparted (We Will Still be in Iraq After 2008 No Matter Who Is Elected)<<
How odd that the New York Times would be so lacking in confidence that the new speaker will successfully undercut the troops.
OK; I want a pony. Where's my pony?
The fact is that the democrats are desperate for Bush to lose this war. I suspect they would feel quite different about a perception that they lost the war. Look at Bill Clinton’s “victory” in Kosovo.
So we don't leave anyone there to help the allies we are training; and we just stop fighting Al Queda and leave by a date certain.
And of course they don't want any base or presence in a nation we just fought and died for, and which otherwise would be our ally.
While we pull our troops out we also make nice to all our enemies and the enemies of our ally. They should replace the "yea" vote in Congress with teh sound of a cuckoo clock.
My old Government teacher from the dark ages would have smacked him upside the head for that line.
“Your government is not a vending machine!”
It’s not the war that the Democrats are worried about. It’s their pure hate for our President. You can hear it in their voices when they talk about him. You would think that he is running for President again. I think they profess their hate in every speech so they don’t have to answer questions about their own policys. They change the focus on what’s right and wrong about our country and try and get the people to focus on hating our President.
You'll get your pony.
Clinton didn't have much trouble with Somalia and look at how well that turned out.
.
NEVER FORGET
.
It was a post-WATERGATE Democrat Congress that cut-off all U.S. Funding for the then Free South Vietnamese to fight for their own Freedom with, resulting in:
Pictures of a vietnamese Re-Education (SLAVE LABOR) Camp
http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1308949/posts
..”JOURNEY from the FALL”.. MoviePremieres = Fall of Saigon CLARITY..
http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1806248/posts
What Price to pay now, I wonder..?
12 Million suddenly missing Iraqi purple voting fingers..?
Bet on it.
.
NEVER FORGET
.
Friedman and Libby’s girlfriend Miller of the NYT did more to start this war than anyone...now they are positioning themselves to claim the vicctory...utter Leftist Filth.
Well, well, well. Someone at the Slimes has finally realized that if we pull out, that doesn’t mean the fighting ends, only that we will be pulled back in even if there is a Democrat president. And what is the Democrat position, to give Iraq to Iran? Even they would be forced to act at some level. That’s why I’m not blowing a gasket over Pelosi, Murtha and Reid yet - they have no plan that extends beyond one year. A year goes by mighty quick.
I always thought military strategy was supposed to be decided by military commanders, not public opinion polls. Was I wrong?
@ shrinkermd:
You might consider READING the NYT piece, which clearly says exactly the opposite — that the Dems will have to maintain troop levels in bases or along the boarder.
Just a suggestion...
-Axl
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.