Kristol: Pathetic (The me-too Republicans wimp out on Iraq)

The Weekly Standard ^ | November 15, 2005 | William Kristol

[RWR8189]

Pathetic.

One expected no better of the Senate Democrats, who want to get out of Iraq as soon as possible, or sooner than possible--most of them don't really care--and who want to embarrass president Bush. But couldn't the Senate Republicans have stood and fought against passing an irresponsible resolution suggesting that Americans want to get out of Iraq more than we want to win?

The Republican leadership may have figured they didn't have the votes to defeat the Democratic proposal without giving their members a weaker alternative to vote for. But better to lose such a vote by a small margin than to go on record voting for a resolution that sends a signal of irresolution and weakness at precisely the time when a message of strength is most needed. After all, in precisely a month, the Iraqis will vote for their first government under the new constitution, and one thing they must weigh in their calculations is whether they can count on U.S. staying power in the fight against the terrorists. With today's vote in the Senate, the Republican leadership, apparently working hand in glove with White House staff, showed itself today to be tactically myopic and politically timid.

One hopes Republicans in the House will show more spine. One trusts that President Bush will not bend in any way to these winds of worry. One hopes that a year from now this vote is simply remembered as a minor hiccup on the way to success and victory in Iraq. But one doesn't win a war by showing weakness. And one doesn't win a political fight by half capitulating to one's opponents, and, in effect, accepting the premises of their critique.

All honor to the 13 Republican senators who stood up against the me-too, we-want-to-get-out-as-well-but-not-quite-as-quickly, Republican leadership: Bunning, Burr, Chambliss, Coburn, DeMint, Graham, Inhofe, Isakson, Kyl, McCain, Sessions, Thune, and Vitter. Let's hope their colleagues reconsider and join their ranks in the near future.

--William Kristol

[George W. Bush]

This gives the President an opportunity to address a joint session of congress, every 90 days, get national attention to his assessment of the WOT. Although I think the pubbies were spineless in their adopting this resolution...it can have a positive affect. Just think of the President addressing the nation every three months on this issue -- a one way dump of the President's message to the world.

Exactly. I think I'll bet on the prestige of the presidency and the management of Rove. And the Dims (propped and scripted by MSM) will have...Harry Reid and Dick The Turban Durbin?

Gee, who to bet on? What a dilemma.

Thanks for not being a Chicken Little.

Rove: "No, oh no, please don't throw me in that briar patch..."

[Peach]

Thanks for those links; so the senate is trying to limit the damage done by SCOTUS.

[austinite]

I have outgrown the Republican Party.

[Cboldt]

so the senate is trying to limit the damage done by SCOTUS.

Your USA Toady article said that too.

[Bush 100 Percent]

"It's a minor point, really about nothing - except that, like a flash of lightning, it illuminated the hole where Allen's character would be, if he had any."


Well Said. Exactly why he lost me.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Re-read the posts from the period. They are probably archived. Most of the GOP Senators voted to cut off money for bombing during the war. Freepers actively and strongly criticized the war while it was underway. This convenient revisionism is a site to behold.

I suspect that if Al Gore had been president on 9-11, conservatives would still be the leading peaceniks and Ron Paul would be one of many.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Disagre. The beig difference is that a Republican was president on 9-11 and a Democrat was president during Kosovo, thus the the knee jerk partisans went into action (9-11 didn't change human nature!). The only one who has been consistent among the whole motley lot is the heroic Ron Paul

.

[cubreporter]

Good! Thank you.

[cubreporter]

Thank you very much.

[newgeezer]

I get the impression SoDak conservatives are very fortunate to be represented by the likes of Senator John Thune.

We Iowans only wish we could be so lucky.

[libill]

Civil war is certainly a possibility, but is also undesirable and I would rather not see that happen and is surely not my wish. In that case the Whig party was replaced by the Republican party. The formation of a new major political party does not have to result in civil war.

Regarding the issue of civil war and identity divide in America it cannot be denied that a major divide exists between Boston, MA. and Oklahoma City, OK for example. That divide exists whether it's visible or not. In a noble effort to heal it often the division is denied and hidden. Unfortunately that only serves to mask it without treating the underlying problem and periodically it rears its ugly head as in the presidential debates of 2004.

I don't know what the answer to the division is and have absolutely no desire to witness a civil war, but I am certain that sweeping it under the rug and pretending it doesn't exist is not it.

Regarding the wimp republicans there exists a disconnection from the party base and in my view America itself in favor of personal concerns and that is what I was targeting as a reason for a new party. There is a large group of Americans that cringe at the thought of voting for a Democrat, but also will not support fake republicans either and as a result will not vote at all.

Whether these problems can be solved without a civil war is my wish and identifying the true cause is the first step, not hiding it. Hopefully a strong leader will emerge to deal with this problem and I hope it is G.W. Bush.

[XenaLee]

Sorry....but....I consider myself a conservative (your category of 'The Right'?) and I resent being put in ANY position of comparison with 'The Left', since there IS no comparison, as they are a group of unhinged (Rush is right!), hate-filled/hate-fueled morons. Could you possibly add another category or rename 'The Left' to 'The Wackoleft'?

[EQAndyBuzz]

Our positions (I am also a Conservative) are diametrically opposed. So there is a compare/contrast between the two.

Call it Truth vs lies, good vs evil, patriotic vs unpatriotic, there is still a comparison.

[AlienCrossfirePlayer]

#168

FReepers should ask their US House member to have S.Amdt. 2518 to S. 1012 be removed in conference.

My cite is wrong--should have been S. 1042.

[MississippiMan]

Have the President's speeches on that very subject escaped your notice?

Sorry, but an objective view of Dubya's statements simply do not reveal a clear exit strategy, at least not a realistic one. He, along with any other Republican president, certainly suffers at the hands of an incredibly biased media, but there's more behind his sinking poll numbers than just that standard fare. There are plenty of Republicans giving him low marks right now, as well.

You can pretend that Iraq is going exactly as expected, but it's glaringly obvious to any objective observer, including his supporters, that this is not the case. Reality: Iraq is not going to turn into some bastion of freedom and western democracy. And the longer he hangs around chasing such an unattainable goal, the harder it's gonna be for him or anyone else to get the support of the people for future actions that will almost certainly be needed elsewhere. Syria and Iran come to mind.

MM

[Buckhead]

What part of his strategy do you find unclear or unrealistic? It seems perfectly plain to me.

Iraq not going exactly as expected -- of course isn't - that is a ridiculous criteria for success or failure in a war. As they say, the enemy gets a vote, and people make mistakes. The "Reality" is we are winning in Iraq, and there is no doubt about it. The Sunnis have been coopted, and the political support for the insurgency is greatly diluted, and grows weaker every day. As long as we don't quit, we are going to win. The only way we can lose is if we give up. Therefore, anybody who advocates quitting is advocating victory for the beastly savages of darkness.

Iraq as a western democracy is another ridiculous criteria that you throw out to argue that it's hopeless. An Iraqi democracy will be a gigantic strategic success for the US for many, many years to come, with highly beneficial regional and global consequences. The Iraqis are well on their way, of that there can be no doubt.

People have to pick who they want to win in this war, the bloodthirsty savages who will destroy civilization, or us. It's one or the other.

The notion that surrender in Iraq puts us in better position to win with Syria or Iran is foolish beyond belief. Victory with either foe is essentially impossible without staying the course and winning in Iraq. Who in either country would be so stupid as to stand with us if we abandon our friends in Iraq on the cusp of a great triump because of a freaking blip in the polls?

This is no time to go wobbly.

[Miss Marple]

I agree with you. I don't unerstand these weak-kneed people who think this has been a failure. It took us 40 years to win the Cold War. It took 5 years to win WWII.

Loss of life in both was far greater than the Iraq War. The whiners are letting the MSM decide acceptable casualty rates and benchmarks of success. That is ridiculous.