Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Ty -
Lamont's main plank is massive troop withdrawal. That's not acceptable, whether you agree with the war or not.
I offer this will complete sincerity and no hyperbole - it is not rational to advocate a large scale withdrawal at this point. Whether you agree we should be there or not, the forces are needed to keep stability. The case that Iraq is able to stand alone is not strong, and based more on wishful thinking than hard evidence (from what I've read). Given all this, Lamont is not a reasonable candidate for office. He's a fringe player pushing for an impossible policy change. That's not an acceptable alternative to Lieberman, particularly where you're saying the only objection to Lieberman is his squabbles with his own party.
Call me nuts, but the unity of the Democratic Party doesn't trump the country following a sound policy in Iraq. The Democratic Party's regressive machine mentality, which lieberman is bucking, is exactly what's left the party so damn castrated and inconsequential.
But then... maybe it goes deeper than all that. My suspicion is the Democrats simply can't make a decision because they're overinformed on everything. They see both sides of every issue and vacilate and try to placate everybody, which leaves no one satisfied and everybody angry. They understand every side to an issue, but can't seem to grasp that govt is in the decision making business. Perhaps this explains their love for slow moving programs and byzantine hierarchies. They like soft decisions with little downside - hedges - protective measures. Maybe this is why the Democrats are so favored by lawyers. No pain...
And no gain.
Bush is arguably reckless and overly ambitious, but he has made decisions.
SD
|
Having a lot of troops in the country is not exactly making it stable. There is a school of thought that the only way to resolve the conflict is to have the Iraqis stand up, and the only way to do that is for the Americans to leave.
On this issue, Lamont is how politics is supposed to work. Lieberman is behind a position that CT Democrats no longer support. Enter a primary challenger articulating a position that's where the voters are.
Even if Lamont is elected, it's not like he's going to be Secretary of Defense. What seems odd to me is that you would waste more time attacking a Democratic Senatorial candidate in CT for his Iraqi position than you would attacking the position -- or lack thereof -- of the assclowns who have been running this war for the last several years and who are now planning the next war with Iran.
