democrat’s criticism better served cold
by Matthew Smock
Published: May 28, 2008
Many Democrats have said over the past few months that Hilary needs to throw in the towel now or the Democrats are doomed in the general election. From the other side of the isle, several Republican icons have been encouraging party members to cross over and vote for Hilary to keep the Democratic Party at war with itself. But really, the Democrats have nothing to fear; it’s 2008 not 1968. It’s not going to matter how long the primary season drags on for the Democrats, there is no fundamental rift within the Democratic Party as there was back then. The two candidates are now simply fighting for demographics and personality points more than they are over the issues.
Regardless of who wins the nomination - and it is almost surely going to be Obama - the Democrats are going to give the Republicans a run for their money and more than likely win the White House. Coming out of a very unpopular presidency, Americans are going to show the Republicans the door. I don’t care if the Democrats put Hillary and Obama or Ralph Nader and Jesse Jackson on the ticket; whomever it ends up being is going to prove troublesome for McCain, whose Republican Party’s image has been greatly tarnished by its leader over the last eight years.
The question for the Democrats is not how they are going to win, but what they are going to do when in power, most importantly with the situation in Iraq. The Bush Administration lost the trust of the American people long ago, and the Democrats have been Chicago Sun-Times-caliber critics of Bush’s presidency, making a November victory for them almost inevitable. But the big question still remains unanswered, how are they going to solve the problem? And before you post your candidate’s, “I’ll have the troops home in 6 months” quote, remember, when pressed during the debates to commit to bring the troops home before the end of their first term, none of the Democratic candidates would do it. Why not? Because at that time the surge appeared to be working masterfully, and what presidential candidate wouldn’t want to be considered a war hero? Despite all the rhetoric, the Democrats have made no legitimate case for real change.
And this is not a new election-year phenomenon for the Democrats. Though there is no question that it was the Bush Administration that pushed for the invasion of Iraq from late 2002 to early 2003, the Democrats waited until it was clear that neither Sadam nor Iraq was a threat to national security before letting the accusations fly. As the accusers, the Democrats were, ironically, also the criminals; Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Reid and company joined hands with Mr. Frist, Mr. McCain, Mr. Brownback and the rest to hand over their constitutional Congressional powers to the president. Despite this fact, the Democrats were still able to successfully place the blame solely on the shoulders of the Republican Party. With that accomplished and a promise to end an unpopular war, the Democrats stole Congress in 2006. Of course, the fun ended right after the midterm elections. The Democrats criticized their way into Congress, but they didn’t solve anything while in Congress. They broke their promise, and the war continued.
Maybe I’m not being fair. It’s hard to get anything done as a Democratic Congress when there’s a Republican president to veto your every move. So, when the Democrats win the presidency for the same reason they won Congress, they should have a united government and therefore no excuses. The Democrats will finally be able to solve the problem they’ve been criticizing for so long, right?
Probably not. The American public is becoming increasingly war weary, so it only makes sense that Obama and Clinton promise withdrawal from Iraq (unless, of course, remaining in Iraq were to poll well among constituents.) But just like the Democratic Congress, our new president will not live up to his (or maybe her) promise. Whoever takes office may realize that troop withdrawal is not in our best interest. If Iraq is still unstable a year from now, they may find it in their best interests to keep troops there (as both candidates have repeatedly stated). Withdrawing troops among such instability would leave open opportunities for terrorist activity and stoke fear among a post-9/11 American public. Furthermore, withdrawal could further damage our image in the international community. I don’t think the world would look kindly on us if we needlessly invaded a sovereign nation then left it to rot.
So, troop withdrawal will end up depending on how things shape up in Iraq, not on who is elected or on campaign promises. I congratulate the Democrats for hoodwinking the public into turning the Congress over to them in 2006 and for using the same solve-nothing tactic in 2008. However, the fact remains that both parties were responsible for getting us into this mess and neither party has a plan to get us out. Democrats, both your criticisms and your proposed solutions are pointless, so spare us.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
May 28th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
First off I would agree with you that the democrats should be able to unit in November and beat McCain. The problem is that once Obama wins the nomination(and he will), there’s going to have to be a cooling off period before some of these angry Clinton supports will vote for him. The longer Hillary stays in the race, the less time there will be. If she bows out now we’ll have almost 6 months, but if this goes to the convention we’ll have maybe 3.
Secondly, when you made your list of democrats who supported the war, you’ll notice you didn’t include Mr. Obama. He’s stood against this war from the very get go. Nobody can try and blame him for getting us into this mess.
Lastly, about a year or so ago I might have agreed with you that pulling our troops out would be bad. In the same vein as you break it you bought it, we destroyed this country, and therefore have a responsibility to help repair it. The reality is though that the disaster that will follow the U.S. withdrawl from Iraq is inevitable. Whether it happens now or 10 years from now there will be civil war in Iraq and we can’t fight it for them.
Realistically all we are doing at this point is spinning our wheels. The Iraqi people will have to stand up and fight for their own country without our help eventually. Like a parent teaching their kid how to ride a bike, eventually we have to stop running a long side of them, and let them try riding on their own.
Yeah they might fall down at first, and we may even have to go back in and help them out a little. But we can’t keep riding the bike for them. They’re as ready now as they’ll ever be.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
First off, you are correct that Obama never supported the war in Iraq, and he certainly has that to his advantage. However, at the time of the Iraq Resolution, he was a state senator, representing a very liberal district in the South Side of Chicago. We can only speculate as to whether Obama would have supported the war had he been in the Senate at the time of the invasion, representing the entire state of Illinois and present at the Senate debates. Nonetheless, I think Obama has been very solid when fielding foreign policy questions. He wants to do what makes sense, rather than standing behind some foreign policy ideology, because he realizes that every case in world affairs is different and must be treated appropriately, given the nature of it.
Still, I don’t think its practical or right to make promises of withdrawing troops for either Obama or Clinton. Whether we can or the speed in which we can withdraw troops will depend on circumstances. I like your analogy of the kid on the bike, and I think we do need to let the kid go when we can, even if he stumbles, at some point, or even pull the plug, so to speak, if we aren’t achieving any progress whatsoever. However, being a candidate for president and being the commander in chief are two different things. Obama should wait until he is commander in chief, with advise coming from experts in the military, his cabinet, his staff, and other agencies, to make a wise decision, rather than making a promise to the people beforehand. Americans are concerned about their troops, but they, along with the rest of the Western world, are also worried these days about national security. Point is, just as Obama’s stance on Iraq may have been different if he were in the Senate in 2002, he may just as well reevaluate the situation when he sits in the Oval Office. I, along with many, want to see all the troops come home, but only when its safe to do so or its clear that things will never be safe in Iraq. Obama should say something like that rather than making promises.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
on of Obama’s favorite lines in this primary with respect to troop with drawls is that “we need to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.” The idea that he or Senator Clinton would just yank everyone out of there immediately without caution for the repercussions is a silly idea that’s been made up by the right.
All three candidates running for president have plenty of military advisers in there ear, and you can be sure that the incite of the good Gen. Patreous will be taken into account once in office. The reality is though that military people naturally look for military solutions to problems. If they didn’t believe the military option could work they wouldn’t be good military people. That’s why in my opinion, military minded people don’t belong in a diplomat’s chair.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Would Ian say that General Colin Powell doesn’t belong in a diplomat’s chair? It seems to me that Generals who have been in battle are more wary of war than politicians who simply comment from the sidelines.
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I’m not saying you can’t be in the military and understand deplomacy, but it’s the military’s job to figure out how to fight the war, it’s the presidents job to figure out when war is actually necessary. If you’re a military minded person, you’re more likely to look for a military solution whether it’s necessary or not. Even Colin Powell was wise enough to cut his ties to this administration a long time ago.