Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Dobbs: Two new voices will drive Iraq debate forward

  1. #1

    Dobbs: Two new voices will drive Iraq debate forward

    [QUOTE]
    Two new voices will drive Iraq debate forward

    By Lou Dobbs
    CNN
    Adjust font size:
    Editor's note: Lou Dobbs' commentary appears weekly on CNN.com.

    NEW YORK (CNN) -- We heard two new voices this week in our nation's capital: One partisan and political, the other professional military.

    Both will likely play historic roles in the ongoing war in Iraq and determine, in some measure, whether the next year brings progress and success or further failure in Iraq and the Middle East.

    Lt. General David Petraeus, at his confirmation hearings to lead our troops in Iraq, told the Senate Armed Services Committee, "The situation in Iraq is dire. The stakes are high. There are no easy choices. The way ahead will be very hard, but hard is not hopeless."

    The highly regarded military officer noted, "We face a determined, adaptable, barbaric enemy," and he said that our enemies in Iraq "will try to wait us out. In fact, any such endeavor is a test of wills, and there are no guarantees."

    That's a far cry from the early, bold administration assurances of cakewalks and slam dunks.

    Newly arrived Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia is a member of that Armed Services Committee, and he gave the Democratic response to President Bush's State of the Union address. In noting that the majority of Americans no longer support the conduct of the war, the former Republican Navy secretary and highly decorated Vietnam veteran declared:

    "We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq."

    The words of both men deserve our attention and understanding. They also stand in stark relief to the language and the tone of those in the administration who have urged over the past three years "stay the course," as well as those who have urged immediate withdrawal or "phased redeployment."

    In my opinion, Sen. Webb is absolutely correct to assert that "the president took us into this war recklessly," and that "we are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable -- and predicted -- disarray that has followed."

    I doubt history will treat this president or this government kindly. But the reality is that there is no appropriate or acceptable way in which to withdraw.

    The grievous loss of more than 3,000 young Americans and the wounding of more than 23,000 demands that we leave Iraq not as we recklessly entered it, but responsibly and with the establishment of rational and effective policies that will guide our future relationship with Iraq and all of the Middle East.

    That honorable end will not be served by partisan rhetorical flourishes from Capitol Hill, the White House, or either political party. And our military leaders, who while subordinate to civilian leadership, must never be servants of politicians, or be more courageous on the battlefield than in their public expression of their professional military assessments and judgments upon which we all depend.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.
    [/QUOTE]

    Very realistic, thoughts?

  2. #2
    Yes, two actually.....

    The line about a new commander getting sword in gave me an odd insta-flashback to the movie Startship Troopers, when after the first failed assault, the old President is removed post-haste, and new Marshall is sworn in. Odd, I know, but I felt like sharing.

    Second, and more serious, is that it seems many formerly "get us out now" folks have changed tacts to a "there is no way we can leave now, the Presidents new idea sucks, but we don;t have any new idea of our own, just the knowledge that we cannot leave Iraq now, we must "fix it" first"

    And that change reeks, to me, of Presidential Election politics. It seems many former Dems and others who once claimed that getting out was the be all end al, now want to see us stay a while longer.....just long enough to ensure Bush cannot get out or look good before 2008, and that the War will still be the big issue that drove so many Repubs out in 2006.

    All I heard pre-2006 election was that the Dems were the PArty to get us out of this wrong War. Now? Now many of them say withdrawal is unaccpetable too, as is reinforcements, as is etc, etc, etc....all they want is to stay, so Bush can look bad enough to get the Presidency back in Dem hands in 2008.

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=Warfish]Yes, two actually.....

    The line about a new commander getting sword in gave me an odd insta-flashback to the movie Startship Troopers, when after the first failed assault, the old President is removed post-haste, and new Marshall is sworn in. Odd, I know, but I felt like sharing.

    Second, and more serious, is that it seems many formerly "get us out now" folks have changed tacts to a "there is no way we can leave now, the Presidents new idea sucks, but we don;t have any new idea of our own, just the knowledge that we cannot leave Iraq now, we must "fix it" first"

    And that change reeks, to me, of Presidential Election politics. It seems many former Dems and others who once claimed that getting out was the be all end al, now want to see us stay a while longer.....just long enough to ensure Bush cannot get out or look good before 2008, and that the War will still be the big issue that drove so many Repubs out in 2006.

    All I heard pre-2006 election was that the Dems were the PArty to get us out of this wrong War. Now? Now many of them say withdrawal is unaccpetable too, as is reinforcements, as is etc, etc, etc....all they want is to stay, so Bush can look bad enough to get the Presidency back in Dem hands in 2008.[/QUOTE]
    In response to the first paragraph, that was just hilarious.

    In regards to the rest, I'm glad you agree with me somewhat towards my view of politicians. 2008 will be the same as 2000 and 2004, there's no one candidate who will win, it'll just be the country deciding which candidate is less of a tool.

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=RutgersJetFan]In response to the first paragraph, that was just hilarious.

    In regards to the rest, I'm glad you agree with me somewhat towards my view of politicians. 2008 will be the same as 2000 and 2004, there's no one candidate who will win, it'll just be the country [B]deciding which candidate is less of a tool[/B].[/QUOTE]

    That is about the norm around these parts

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us