A Quick Thought Experiment...
Published by BG on Thursday, September 13, 2007 at 3:17 PM.Testing the theory that opposition to Democrats is vastly more important than recognizing Republican mistakes as they unfold, here are two different stories:
1) Former Democratic Governor Bill Richardson (NM), in a campaign stop today in Ames, Iowa, spoke to a group of senior citizens regarding his plans on handling Iraq. "Unequivocal and premature withdrawal is not going to solve any problems, it will cause chaos in Iraq and will spiral the Middle East into a regional struggle with radical Islamists pulling the strings. We'd have to get back over there with UN forces, which are largely US-supplied anyway, to restore order."
Richardson spoke at length to the assembled voters and offered his ideas for accelerating a return to order in Iraq. "We've been playing 'Whack-a-Mole' for three years," he said, referring to the children's arcade game in which animated moles pop up in unexpected places at unexpected times. "What we need to do is work with the individual groups in each region, much like we've done in Anbar, and encourage their militias to evolve into regional police forces working under the direction of a strong centralized Iraqi government."
When pressed by a reporter as to whether that meant choosing sides based on who's winning in each region now, and working with now-dominant factions to provide arms and training, thereby bestowing "official status" and government endorsement on their often-oppressive militia activities, Governor Richardson replied, "I wouldn't have phrased it like that, but at some point we need to pick a side - even if that's lots of sides - and help them to victory."
And the second story...
2) (T)he Bush administration’s still-stay-the-course strategy calls for stepped up training of Iraq’s security forces while selectively removing sectarian militias in and around Baghdad. The United States and Iraq plan to spend an additional $14 billion on Iraq’s security forces this year, with $5 billion coming from U.S. taxpayers and $9 billion from Iraq’s budget, according to Lieutenant General Dempsey.
As that money is spent, the Iraqi army by end of 2007 will grow from 10 to 12 divisions and will have 170,700 soldiers—nearly 35,000 more than at the end of 2006. Iraq’s police force, including national, local, and border patrol units, will grow from 192,000 at the end of last year to 198,600 at the end of 2007. Impressive—except for the fact that many of these soldiers and police boast loyalties to different sectarian or ethnic leaders rather than to their national leaders.
The unconditional training of national Iraqi security forces risks making Iraq’s civil war even bloodier and more vicious than it already is today. It also increases the dangers that these weapons might one day be turned against the United States and its allies in the region.
If there's any doubt at all, I faked the first story entirely. Richardson said no such thing. Here's the source on the second one. My question is this... can anyone make a convincing case that if arming opposing militias in Iraq had been a Democrat idea, as opposed to an administration policy, that conservatives wouldn't be using that idea to tear down Richardson as uninformed and unserious?
Really?
1) Former Democratic Governor Bill Richardson (NM), in a campaign stop today in Ames, Iowa, spoke to a group of senior citizens regarding his plans on handling Iraq. "Unequivocal and premature withdrawal is not going to solve any problems, it will cause chaos in Iraq and will spiral the Middle East into a regional struggle with radical Islamists pulling the strings. We'd have to get back over there with UN forces, which are largely US-supplied anyway, to restore order."
Richardson spoke at length to the assembled voters and offered his ideas for accelerating a return to order in Iraq. "We've been playing 'Whack-a-Mole' for three years," he said, referring to the children's arcade game in which animated moles pop up in unexpected places at unexpected times. "What we need to do is work with the individual groups in each region, much like we've done in Anbar, and encourage their militias to evolve into regional police forces working under the direction of a strong centralized Iraqi government."
When pressed by a reporter as to whether that meant choosing sides based on who's winning in each region now, and working with now-dominant factions to provide arms and training, thereby bestowing "official status" and government endorsement on their often-oppressive militia activities, Governor Richardson replied, "I wouldn't have phrased it like that, but at some point we need to pick a side - even if that's lots of sides - and help them to victory."
And the second story...
2) (T)he Bush administration’s still-stay-the-course strategy calls for stepped up training of Iraq’s security forces while selectively removing sectarian militias in and around Baghdad. The United States and Iraq plan to spend an additional $14 billion on Iraq’s security forces this year, with $5 billion coming from U.S. taxpayers and $9 billion from Iraq’s budget, according to Lieutenant General Dempsey.
As that money is spent, the Iraqi army by end of 2007 will grow from 10 to 12 divisions and will have 170,700 soldiers—nearly 35,000 more than at the end of 2006. Iraq’s police force, including national, local, and border patrol units, will grow from 192,000 at the end of last year to 198,600 at the end of 2007. Impressive—except for the fact that many of these soldiers and police boast loyalties to different sectarian or ethnic leaders rather than to their national leaders.
The unconditional training of national Iraqi security forces risks making Iraq’s civil war even bloodier and more vicious than it already is today. It also increases the dangers that these weapons might one day be turned against the United States and its allies in the region.
If there's any doubt at all, I faked the first story entirely. Richardson said no such thing. Here's the source on the second one. My question is this... can anyone make a convincing case that if arming opposing militias in Iraq had been a Democrat idea, as opposed to an administration policy, that conservatives wouldn't be using that idea to tear down Richardson as uninformed and unserious?
Really?
Powered by ScribeFire.
