Article

2003-05-13 Iraq

Powell warns Iraq off fundamentalist regime

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred Pruitt 2003-05-13 07:35 am|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11139 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Let me tell you what I'm enjoying about liberalhawk's commentaries, though I don't buy all he says: his is the voice of what USED to be the mainstream of the Democratic Party: FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Scoop Jackson. Resolute and tough as hell on defense, genuinely concerned about civil rights and minorities.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party took a terrible wrong turn in 1972 when the party changed its rules and opened the door to the radical left. It maybe way too late to go back. Not when you have the teachers unions, far left sexual minorities, race activists, Hollywood, the chattering classes (in and out of the media) and the trial lawyers setting the agenda.

The Republicans have their own problems with the Christian right, but the power of the extreme bible-beaters is far less than the far left's power in the DP. Indeed, if the GOP jettisoned the religious right's agenda completely, ESPECIALLY its hatred of gays (which is a major problem for huge sections of moderate voters), the Dems would be completely finished as a viable party. If Dean is nominated, they ARE finished.

Posted by R. McLeod 5/14/2003 2:19:10 AM|| 5/14/2003 2:19:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 if we're really going to fight the fundies in Iraq, it wont take so much viciousness as patience - to slowly rebuild Iraqi society and build Iraqi democracy - more Wolfowitz and less Rummy. We have to commit seriously to NATION-BUILDING. In an interview in the WaPo today Wolfie makes clear that we have a LONG way to go in Iraq. He is not interested in a war with Syria or Iran now - the battle now is still in Iraq (where Baathist remnants still threaten civil society) If we get bored with Iraq, and with helping muslim arabs, and pull troops and resources out quickly so we can be ready to strike somewhere else, we are quite capable of blowing this.

It also just may take swallowing our anger and cutting a deal with the weasels - if you take Iraqi rebuilding seriously then getting a good UN resolution and real international participation (but not UN control) will be worth letting France getting off without significant economic punishment. We may need the UN in Iraq, and going forward - if the admin, in a desire to weaken the UN sacrifices help in Iraq, we (democratic hawks) will have to take up the issue in 2004.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-13 09:05:09|| 2003-05-13 09:05:09|| Front Page Top

#3 Regarding LH's comment: "We may need the UN in Iraq, and going forward - if the admin, in a desire to weaken the UN sacrifices help in Iraq, we (democratic hawks) will have to take up the issue in 2004."

Here come the partisan long knives. Et tu liberalhawk?

Posted by ColoradoConservative 2003-05-13 09:41:41|| 2003-05-13 09:41:41|| Front Page Top

#4 no longer than the knives that have been aimed at failed Dem policies. Bush will not get a pass if he screws this up. And, contrary to your earlier comments, its possible to screw this up by being too unilateralist or too isolationist (pre 9/11 bush's dislike for nationbuilding) as well as by being too soft.

Of course the dems toss it away if they nominate Dean or Kerry. And i am thinking that a Gephardt approach - focus on domestic differences and try to ignore foreign policy - may not work. Dems must make their own forceful arguments on foreign policy - how youd be SAFER (not nicer) under them - Joe L. can potentially make that case.

Of course if the admin sticks to a Wolfie policy and succeeds, I'll congratulate them and agree that they have succeeded in foreign policy. Im not that partisan - unlike some folks on both sides.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-13 09:52:28|| 2003-05-13 09:52:28|| Front Page Top

#5 Let's face it. The Dems would screw it up with ANY of the nine dwarfs.

Posted by ColoradoConservative 2003-05-13 10:54:32|| 2003-05-13 10:54:32|| Front Page Top

#6 Hey, you two ought to replace Clinton and Dole on 60 Minutes.

Posted by tu3031 2003-05-13 12:34:47|| 2003-05-13 12:34:47|| Front Page Top

#7 tu - im trying to discuss iraq and the middle east. One of the things i find annoying about lefties is that they seem unable to talk about this without focusing on Bush, the Florida election, etc. They seem not to really care about the middle east, just domestic politics - if Bush is for it, it must be bad. Idiocy, IMHO.

I dont particularly care for those to whom "if its Bush it must be good" You seem to think I should play the role of Clinton - I simply express concerns that are shared, i believe, by folks from the weekly standard, andrew sullivan etc. I suppose a certain poster isnt familiar with the weekly standard or andrew sullivan - since theyre not on "talk radio" perhaps he thinks theyre "liberals"

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-13 14:30:17|| 2003-05-13 14:30:17|| Front Page Top

#8 from Andrew sullivan:

"It's clear now that we have seriously under-estimated the difficulties of imposing order on post-totalitarian Iraq. The shake-up in leadership there suggests at least that Washington is aware of the problem. But some of the damage has already been done. It's hard to read stories about continued looting in Baghdad or dangerous chaos in the hinterlands, without wondering if the administration is as committed to the difficult task of reconstruction as they need to be. The real worry, it seems to me, is that some WMDs may have been transported out of Iraq, may be in the hands of terrorists, or simply on the market. We have thousands of gallons of anthrax still unaccounted for. This doesn't retroactively invalidate the war. Such dangers would have existed - and would have been even more dangerous - if Saddam were still in power. But it does mean we cannot afford any lapse in vigilance."

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-05-13 14:35:07|| 2003-05-13 14:35:07|| Front Page Top

#9 Liberalhawk. It wasn't a dig, it was a compliment. I'd rather watch you 2 go at it then 2 washed up pols.

Posted by tu3031 2003-05-13 14:54:31|| 2003-05-13 14:54:31|| Front Page Top

#10 Let me tell you what I'm enjoying about liberalhawk's commentaries, though I don't buy all he says: his is the voice of what USED to be the mainstream of the Democratic Party: FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Scoop Jackson. Resolute and tough as hell on defense, genuinely concerned about civil rights and minorities.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party took a terrible wrong turn in 1972 when the party changed its rules and opened the door to the radical left. It maybe way too late to go back. Not when you have the teachers unions, far left sexual minorities, race activists, Hollywood, the chattering classes (in and out of the media) and the trial lawyers setting the agenda.

The Republicans have their own problems with the Christian right, but the power of the extreme bible-beaters is far less than the far left's power in the DP. Indeed, if the GOP jettisoned the religious right's agenda completely, ESPECIALLY its hatred of gays (which is a major problem for huge sections of moderate voters), the Dems would be completely finished as a viable party. If Dean is nominated, they ARE finished.

Posted by R. McLeod 2003-05-14 02:19:10|| 2003-05-14 02:19:10|| Front Page Top

16:13 Tadderly
08:30 w_r_manues@yahoo.com
08:18 w_r_manues@yahoo.com
08:15 w_r_manues@yahoo.com
06:57 w_r_manues@yahoo.com
02:19 R. McLeod
01:57 R. McLeod
01:53 R. McLeod
01:41 R. McLeod
00:24 Phil_B
00:04 Phil_B
23:29 Frank G
22:35 Fred
22:15 Bubblehead
21:50 OKIE
21:42 OKIE
20:36 Alaska Paul
20:11 Douglas De Bono
20:08 Alaska Paul
20:06 Fred
19:38 Tony
19:21 rich_h
19:20 Tony
19:08 Tony
Merry-Go-Blog