[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Jeffy, you need to learn the difference between an “article” (your word) and an “Opinion piece” or Op-Ed. It makes no sense trying to have an intelligent discussion with someone who doesn’t know the difference.
The New York Times publishes opinion pieces from lots of different people. Like a couple of weeks ago, they printed an opinion piece from Joe Lieberman where he claimed that our mission in Iraq was a stunning success. Crazy, I know, but the New York Times prints all kinds of stuff. They always have.
It’s not surprising to see Pollack pushing for continuing the occupation, since he wrote a book called “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq” in 2002. He’s hardly an unbiased source.
Michael E. O�??Hanlon “is regarded as one of the most militaristic major national security experts” in the Democratic Party according to Wikipedia. Maybe you enjoyed his article “Clinton’s Strong Defense Legacy” (Foreign Affairs, November/December 2003). He also wrote a book in 2003 called “Expanding Global Military Capacity for Humanitarian Intervention”.
To sum up, Jeffy, these two guys are major hawks and cheerleaders for the war in Iraq, so it’s not surprising to see that you’re excited because they happen to reflect your own point of view.
Woop dee doo.[/quote]
Yes, Brad would prefer that there were no Democrats allowed to diverge from the anti-war opinion. The party of inclusiveness doesn’t embrace disparate viewpoints (e.g., on abortion).
It’s very sad – all the old-line “Scoop Jackson” hawkish Dems from the Cold War have been drummed out of the party by aging hippies and their young followers.
I’m not sure exactly when the phenomenon took hold; as recently as the late 90s, liberals were quick to argue that the military cost of an invasion/occupation was worth it to avoid a genocide, whereas now the position is seemingly that genocide is an acceptable cost to endure for getting out of Iraq ( http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1313874.html ).
There are a few left in the old model though – Joe Lieberman, for example. They are not so willfully obtuse as to latch on to the idea that America’s defeat in Iraq would be a problem only for Bush and those pesky neocons.
Brad and others won’t believe – can’t believe – that anything good is happening. So the ad hominem criticisms of the messenger (see Brad in the thread he started on General Petraeus).
Reports from the ground be damned – at least to those who view any success in Iraq as damaging to their political chances, which to them seem to be more important than the best interests of the country or avoiding possible genocide.
THe fact this op-ed was carried in the NYT and was penned by liberals from Brookings is important. It forces the conversation to re-open. Even such media outlets as CNN now have to discuss the possibility that the war in Iraq might yet be won.
Maybe they’ll even cover some of the good news that has been coming from Iraq recently, or take an honest look at what will be necessary to achieve a lasting stability.