The Reality of The GOP On Iraq

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:54:56 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

David Brooks, as always an apologist for the GOP, writes:

To simplify a bit, roughly 20 senators, led by John McCain and Joe Lieberman, believe in Gen. David Petraeus and the surge. There are roughly 30 Republicans, led by Dick Lugar, John Warner and Lamar Alexander, who believe that the U.S. should scale back its mission and adopt the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations. There are roughly 30 Democrats, led by Carl Levin and Jack Reed, who also want to scale back and adopt the study group’s approach. And finally, there are roughly 20 Democrats, led by Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold, who just want to get out as quickly as possible.

(Emphasis supplied.) If it is true that "[t]here are roughly 30 Republicans . . . who believe that the U.S. should scale back its mission and adopt the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations[,]" then where is their proposal? Are we to expect the Lugar-Warner proposal today to do this in a meaningful fashion? I won't hold my breath. More.

And of course, Brooks provides his obligatory dissembling in favor of the GOP:

In theory, it should be possible to get the 30 Republicans and the 30 Democrats who support the study group’s framework together to embrace a common plan. But Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, is doing everything he can to prevent a bipartisan consensus. It’s much better politically for the Democrats to stay united and force the Republicans to vote with the president.

Funny how Reid offered the GOP equal treatment for the Graham Amendment that was to be given to the Webb Amendment and how GOP Leader McConnell, realizing the Webb Amendment would easily pass, and the Graham Amendment would fail, backed out of the deal to offer both amendments an up or down vote.

Let's face it. It is the GOP Leader McConnell who blocks consensus because it would force President Bush to veto a change in course in Iraq and force GOP Senators to break with the President.

Brooks gives away the game here:

The questions go on. Deadlock in Baghdad will be matched, in paler form, by deadlock in Washington. The next change in policy will not come from Congress or the White House. It will come from General Petraeus in September. His recommendations — on troop strength, political strategy and everything else — will be the only coherent platform in town.

The plan is to kick the can to Petraeus, who will plead for a few more Friedman Units, which the GOP will demand he be given, until Bush is no longer President. In then in 2009, the game of 'who lost Iraq?' will be used to intimidate the next President into 'fighting them there . . .'

< BALCO Leaker, Despite Pleading For Scooter Treatment, Gets 30 Months | Conrad Black Guilty of Lesser Charges >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Reality of The GOP On Iraq | 11 comments (11 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Brooks is a dishonest SOB (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by andgarden on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:56:58 AM EST

: Yes (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Edger on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 11:31:19 AM EST

That too.

Yeah cuz David Petraeus is also a master (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 11:17:18 AM EST

of political strategy too.......who knew. Brooks is almost too ridiculous to comment on and David Petraeus is only a soldier and sadly for the GOP not even close to God as he has broken the 6th Commandment too many times to even get into heaven now. I'm glad that I'm not McConnell because yesterday on the House floor seemed very very well done and orchestrated and I wouldn't want to be in the cross hairs of all those geeks from the debate team, and they've only just begun. The Republican base loathes nothing more than someone who gets their butt squarely kicked so McConnell needs to acknowledge that his days fighting this fight for the low I.Q. in the White House are very numbered or he can end up fading into the low lights of history. Speaking of history, I got a bad vibe yesterday of being a very old woman gumming my corn on the cob when one of my grandchildren in grade school starts reciting a history timeline and because the Democrats will save America's butt "W" will get noted for being the President when America launched a successful attack on terrorist networks. A lot of details get lost in timelines, I'll probably have a heart attack while I'm gumming because of that.

David Brooks (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by mjames on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 12:27:48 PM EST

I avoid reading his column like the plague, but today I made a mistake and was forced to fire off this letter to the editor:

In his column today, David Brooks tells us that the Iraq recommendations from General Petraeus in September will be the "only coherent platform in town."

But how can we expect the truth from General Petraeus in September - on the single most important political issue to Bush - when this administration doesn't even permit the supposedly non-political Surgeon General to speak honestly about matters of science and health?

There are millions of us, now, Mr. Brooks, who are neither as foolish nor as naive as you.

: Considering that the military is really (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 12:52:55 PM EST

a socialist organization and institution, how can a dictator like Petraeus be America's leader in delivering Democracy to Iraq? It just keeps cracking me up how Republicans continue to tell me that Petraeus is going to figure this all out for me and deliver it. If Petraeus is like every other life term soldier I know, he remembers what it's like to live in a democracy when he gets home at night and his wife slaps him upside the head and tells him to go put some REAL CLOTHES on.

: The Iraqi Ambassador to the U.S. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by oculus on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 02:19:11 PM EST

was interviewed on NPR yesterday. He sounded like a Bush clone, but spoke much, much better:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11891013

It's truly (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by taylormattd on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 01:13:35 PM EST

amazing how much inertia exists on this issue.

Fear is a powerful motivator. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Edger on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 01:24:58 PM EST

Blatant fear started all this didn't it? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 02:01:01 PM EST

They knocked down our towers and we all got scared and from that point on everything went completely to the firey hot place. I intend for those who used the tribe's natural fear against all of us for their own designs to be very afraid of what the tribe can do to liars and thieves and cheaters and the inhumane. Fix it or fry.....take your pick NOW.


: Sad to say it (none / 0) (#9)
by Edger on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 02:18:55 PM EST

But now the Democrats are using it to avoid ending the Iraq Debacle:
They are counting on getting your vote by default, beacause they know that people are afraid that if they DON'T vote Democratic EVEN if the Democrats will not end the occupation the will end up with the rethugs back in power... if they are elected next year in spite of that fact that they continue the occupation... WHAT DIFFERENCE is there between them and the rethugs?
What difference? NONE. It won't be any different from electing rethugs.
The only hope you have, the only hope any of us have, is to threaten the Democrats with loss of support. It's the only way to change the paradigm.
But:
I intend for those who used the tribe's natural fear against all of us for their own designs to be very afraid of what the tribe can do to liars and thieves and cheaters and the inhumane.
Fix it or fry.
Take your pick NOW, Nancy

Kicking the can (none / 0) (#11)
by Alien Abductee on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:10:16 PM EST

to Petraeus - it was right in Bush's speech this week:

There was one moment in today's speech when Bush might have signaled--contrary to all the other, more explicit signals he was sending and repeating over and over--that a shift of some sort could be in the works.
The moment came when he noted that the point of the surge is to provide security for the people of Baghdad, so that Iraq's political leaders could have the breathing room to make "progress" toward unity and reconciliation...
"I call upon the U.S. Congress," Bush said, "to give Gen. Petraeus a chance to come back and tell us whether his strategy's working, and then we can work together on a way forward."
Notice that, suddenly, the surge is "his" strategy--the general's, not the president's. Is Bush's plan to hold back, stay the course, demonstrate his firm commitment and good intentions--until the chief commander in the field tells him that the chances for military success look grim, mainly because the Iraqi politicians aren't pulling their weight?
The most compelling critique of the surge is less military than political in nature. The purpose of the surge, as Bush himself said today, is to provide security so that Iraq's political leaders can negotiate a deal in peace. But if the politicians are incapable of striking a deal, the surge is futile and should be abandoned.
Bush accepted the critique's premise--about the purpose of the surge. Is he now waiting for Petraeus to hand him the four-star seal of approval for the critique's conclusion, too?

David Brooks is as much of an idiot as ever, but Joe Klein is starting to come around - he even comes right out and calls Bush a liar.