Democratic Shift In Iraq Rhetoric
After spending several years trying to force the President to leave Iraq, due to the success of the surge Democrats are changing their rhetoric in Iraq.
Congressional Democrats are reporting a striking change in districts across the country: Voters are shifting their attention away from the Iraq war.
Rep. Jim Cooper, a moderate Democrat from Tennessee, said not a single constituent has asked about the war during his nearly two-week long Thanksgiving recess. Rep. Michael E. Capuano, an anti-war Democrat from Massachusetts, said only three of 64 callers on a town hall teleconference asked about Iraq, a reflection that the war may be losing power as a hot-button issue in his strongly Democratic district.
I never understood why the democrats employed the rhetoric of retreat. I realize they used other words to make it not sound like a retreat but if I was running the democratic party during the height of the anti-war sentiment I would of used the rhetoric of strategy change. Had the democrats been on top of Petreaus plan before Bush brought him in, and applied the necessary political pressure to get Bush to use Petreaus surge strategy they would currently be reaping the fruits of the success of the surge. It would of been a great political coup and resulted in significantly more positive coverage about how Iraq is now working.
As such, they squandered the political will by arguing a defeatist position and leaving open the more much more political palatable change in strategy approach to the GOP. No doubt part of the problem was that the democrats were listening to the far anti-war left and foolishly believed the majority of Americans echo this partisan desire to withdraw from Iraq. This was clearly not the will of the people, which was perfectly captured by the video in which democratic rep. Obey, frustrated by some citizens demanding a vote to withdrawal funding from the war, yells that they don’t the votes.
It was obvious to me that the majority of Americans did not want to leave Iraq but were definitely unhappy with the way things were progressing due in large part to the way the war was being covered. The fact that the democrats were unable to correctly distinguish between these two sentiments is what separates good politicians from bad politicians.
Good politics is finding the rhetorical message that matches the will of the majority. Republicans have consistently beat the Democrats in Iraq by finding the proper rhetorical message. Last night, over dinner, Michael mentioned that he liked Ron Paul because he does not spin his message. Ron Paul ’speaks the truth’ as he said. The problem with speaking the ‘truth’ is that a majority of people rarely share the ‘truth’. Your truth does not get elected with a minority. This is the case with Ron Paul and was most certainly the case with democrats attempting a withdrawal of the troops out of Iraq.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Yes, that would have been a shrewd move by the Democrats to have advocated a change in strategy instead of a pull out. Though I was against the invasion from the start, it has been clear for a long time that we did not have enough soldiers in Iraq to create any kind of effective security or administration of the country, but were instead limping along with just enough force to prevent utter chaos. We never had enough strength in there to carry out our mission, and the surge was the closest thing to a real effort we have seen this entire war.
However, since I have been against the mission from the start, yes I support Ron Paul because he would never have gotten this country entangled in an unnecessary foreign engagement to begin with. You may argue that leaving Iraq will allow the terrorists to build their strength and strike America, but last time I checked the Iraq war has created many more terrorists than existed prior.
There are many angry people in the middle east, and I agree with Dr. Paul that our occupation of their lands makes the US a focal point of their anger, a lightning rod for their wrath.
Nevertheless, we musn’t forget that most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Arabian, they based themselves in Afghanistan, and what remains of the al-Qaeda is now in Pakistan, so tell me Steve, what is with all this talk of Iraq?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:30 am
You need to check harder. Al Qaeda has been soundly defeated and demoralized in Iraq. The people of that country have rejected Al Qaeda making the gains of the surge possible.
Picking a fight with Al Qaeda worked beautifully because it offered people in the Middle East a view the kind of barbarism this organization would do to other Middle Easterners. Up to this point, as a Middle Easterner it was easy to applaud Al Qaeda efforts because their terror was directed at non-Muslims. That changed when the US invaded Iraq. At the same time many of the myths of the west were dispelled as it became more and more evident that US intention in Iraq were to bring a democracy to the country.
In the outset did the invasion generate a fresh set of recruits to do Al Qaeda’s bidding? You bet. The vast majority, in fact one might argue all of them, were used against the US military in Iraq. Its really hard to see this as a bad thing. Attacking the arm of a country that’s specific purpose is to sustain such attacks is desirable over the alternative, its civilians.
In the beginning of the invasion, recruitment for Al Qaeda increased and then were wasted against our Millitary. And somehow this is a bad thing? Meanwhile, over time people in Iraq and more generally the Middle East got to see first hand Al Qaeda’s barbarism which was in stark contrast to America’s magnanimity.
December 4th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
[…] writes in a recent post: There are many angry people in the middle east, and I agree with Dr. Paul that our occupation of […]