Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I agree with you. But the argument that being in Iraq is keeping us safe from attacks is ridiculous, and that is what I was questioning. While I think that Iraq has increased the numbers who would attack us, we would be getting attacked either way.
Note -- I also think that Afghanistan MAY have increased the number who would attack us, but that was worth it. Until we got distracted and fucked up an opportunity.
Again, I agree that "we can do Iraq better" is a better message. Lieberman, however, never sent that message. He was busy lauding Rummy, and taking the Admin tack of saying that anyone who questioned any element of the strategy was effectively a traitor (not his word, but close enough).
As for Lamont's "pull out" strategy, as I've said before -- I personally am at a loss for what to do in Iraq, or how we extricate ourselves from this quagmire. Yes, quagmire.
Jaysus. I agree with you again. This is weird.
|
1. Re the "flypaper" thing, I used to believe Iraq was a terrorist diversion, and maybe it was, but not enough to deflect all attacks from our shore. I also think the "flypaper" argument is a terrible one for the GOP because its got the necessary "we're throwing away soldiers and money we could just use to protect our own borders" rebuttal built into it.
2. I agree re Joe. He was a bad example of what the Dems ought to do. He was a bit too strident in his GOP ass-kissing. I think an honest "We have to stick it out because if Iraq falls to the Islamists, we are in deep shit" coupled with a candid explanation of how retreating from Iraq would impact fueld oil prices here would be a good way to connect with voters and appear moderate.
3. I think we should crack Iraq in 3, establish a quasi-governmental oil trust and distribute its revenues pro rata to the three nations (Sunni, Kurd, Shiite).
