« Condi Rice and the GOP’s “Black Problem”
Rice for Veep? »



Iraq: Are the Democrats More Reasonable?

April 8th, 2008
By PETE ABEL, Managing Editor

Print Print

While I can’t answer the question from the title of this post with conclusive data, I can offer two, recent, contrasting anecdotes that seem increasingly representative of the partisan divide on this matter.

The first I found on page 2 of this article from the April 2 edition of Politoco. Though I’m still reading the “Responsible Plan,” so far, it measures up to the description in the article:

The Responsible Plan draws heavily from the Baker-Hamilton Commission’s report and from 17 bills that have been introduced in Congress; it would set a date to begin withdrawal, though it would rely on military advice for the pace of that redeployment.

And what is the “standard” Republican reaction?

“Their so-called ‘plan’ to precipitously withdraw from the region sounds an awful lot like repackaged talking points from MoveOn.org,” said Ken Spain of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

“It seems like the same sort of, ‘We need more diplomacy,’ the same sort of crap,” said another GOP source. “It’s the thinnest possible political cover for a strategy of irresponsible, precipitous withdrawal.”

Perhaps Mr. Spain and his friend, “another GOP source,” should check the meaning of the word “precipitous.” Right now, they sound like children in a tantrum, crying about a grey sky that’s actually blue, a stalled wristwatch that’s still ticking.

In contrast, consider the pledged approach of the chairs of the two Senate committees (Armed Services this morning and Foreign Relations this afternoon) that will engage Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker today:

“The last thing we should be doing is viewing this through a political prism,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden, D-Del., himself a former presidential hopeful, said Friday.

Similarly, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., said he would not exercise the prerogative of the gavel to allow Clinton to address the committee before the more senior McCain, who is the panel’s ranking Republican.

Under the custom that generally guides committee proceedings, Clinton would be the 19th speaker to be heard on the 25-member panel. McCain would be the second.

I realize those are only words and may prove to be empty promises. I also know there’s a lot more a committee chairman can do to skew a hearing than interferring (or not) with the order of speakers. I also acknowledge, once gain, that these are only two examples, ripped somewhat randomly from recent news reports. But as I suggested earlier — from everything I read, hear, and watch — I increasingly believe these examples are representative of the parameters, substance, and tenor of the current debate.

And thus — as much as I still cling to my frayed and tenuous Republican roots — I have to give this round in the fight for reason to the Dems, applauding them for moving beyond MoveOn’s counterproductive slander of last year and embracing the honey over the vinegar. If the Republicans follow suit, we might actually start to have intelligent discussions and find that elusive “third rail,” the one that helps us maintain stability in Iraq while ending our active engagement in the conflict there.



This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 8th, 2008 at 5:40 am and is filed under General David Petraeus, Newsweek Blogitics, Republicans, Democrats, 2008 Elections, Iraq, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 2 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Republicans as a bloc cannot relent in any war on the Iraq war no matter how reasonable.

    Picture a knitted sweater with a snag. If you pull on the snag then the entire sweater starts to unravel. That is what would happen to the Republicans: All of the lies, deceits, obfuscations, rationalizations and self-delusionment would come out.
    • ^
    • v
    "If the Republicans follow suit, we might actually start to have intelligent discussions and find that elusive “third rail,” the one that helps us maintain stability in Iraq while ending our active engagement in the conflict there."

    I'm sorry, I have to laugh. The Republicans put policy and coming together above immediate political gain? It's been five years, and except for a few noble exceptions, I've seen no sign of it. The only option is to beat them so badly in the elections that they finally become irrelevant.
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Condi Rice and the GOP’s “Black Problem”
Rice for Veep? »


By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or may not be accurate.

Read and Post at your own risk.