Thursday, January 25, 2007
|
|
FAQ - The Pledge!
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
6:58 PM
|
|
1) I see you right wing bloggers who are demanding a loyalty oath as virtually goose-stepping through the internet. I am gobsmacked. I am filled with heart-ache.
Huh? Are there any questions?
2) What is the purpose of the pledge?
It is not a loyalty oath. Nothing like it. The pledge rests on the premise that Republicans who are supporting the anti-surge resolution are doing so as a craven political play. The pledge is merely a way of showing them that it is an extremely poor political play. And since political advantage is the coin of their realm, we think it may serve to change their hearts and minds.
3) But isn’t it somehow unseemly to demand that these people sign a petition to show their loyalty to the White House?
Again, as is so often the case, you completely miss the point. We’re not asking the Senators to sign the pledge. We’re asking people who will move any Republican who votes for the resolution to the head of their s**t list to sign the petition. The pledge is merely a way for the grassroots to communicate their feelings to the Republican Party.
4) Have you taken the pledge?
Yes. Enthusiastically.
5) What about the notion that this whole exercise is the equivalent of summoning a circular firing squad?
There’s nothing circular about it. This petition is directed at a handful of Republican Senators who, the petition’s signers feel, are willing to weaken the war effort to serve their own political agendas. To elaborate on your firing squad analogy, we’ve got over 10,000 signatures. 10,000 people firing at four or five Senators does not a circular firing squad make.
6) Will these Senators or the Republican Party care about the signers? After all, about 120 million people voted in the presidential election. What’s the big deal about 10,000 people signing a petition?
It’s a huge deal. Bloggers and blog readers are much better informed than the typical citizen. Their collective opinion can serve as an early warning sign for politicians who might be curious how something will play with the larger audience. In other words, the reaction of the blogosphere and the growth of the petition is a leading indicator of how the wider conservative public will view the resolution vote. For an excellent discussion on this topic, read the chapter on mavens in Malcolm Gladwell’s “Tipping Point.” (Reading the whole book wouldn’t be a bad idea – it’s a fine work.)
7) Isn’t it a bit unseemly that you’re trying to enforce loyalty in this manner?
No. And for what it’s worth, we’re not asking anyone to violate their principles. This entire exercise is premised on the view that the Republican Senators who will support the resolution will do so not out of any sort of conviction but due to political expediency.
8) But what of those that really feel in their core of cores that the surge is a mistake?
They have a right to speak their mind. Or let’s put it this way – they had Petraeus there and had every right to engage him over what they obviously consider to be his shoddy tactical analysis. But now that day is past. The only constructive thing that can come out of an anti-surge resolution is that a bunch of Senators can cover their tushees if the surge doesn’t work. The price we’ll pay for the Senate covering its collective derriere is too high.
9) What is that price?
Showing the enemy that we’re not united. Showing the enemy that the majority of our government is so desperate to get out of Iraq, it is willing to pronounce defeat even before the most serious fighting has begun.
10) But what if the Senators feel we’ve already lost?
Then they should say so. If they really want to go for the political courage full Monty, they could even propose a way forward in the war against Radical Islam. But I haven’t heard a single Republican Senator say we’ve lost, including the ones who are planning on supporting the resolution.
11) So where do I go to sign the petition and buck up our faltering solons?
Right here. Do it.
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com
|
|
Jeffrey,
Just out of curiosity, what are the pressing issues which you believe liberal bloggers ought to give attention to, as opposed to writing about the pledge ? |
|
I'm disappointed in my fellow liberal bloggers for paying this pledge concept so much attention. There are so many more pressing issues than whether or not the far right are organizing against the politicians that are rapidly deserting them. Let'em burn.
Jeffrey
http://www.idolator.net |
|
As you can probably see from my previous post, my dissent from the Hewitt view is a right-wing, not a left-wing one. I think we should %$#& our enemies up, then give them the opportunity to get along with us on our terms.
Believe me, I'd love to win in Iraq (whatever "winning" means now), and I hope the surge "works" (whatever "working" means), since Bush has committed us to it. I'm just extremely pessimistic about it.
I don't, however, buy into the "fight them there or fight them here" meme. The negative effect of a defeat in Iraq, though real, would be much less tangible than terrorists suddenly all hopping flights to Reagan National with their AK-47s. And I question how much of that negative effect we can now avoid, even if we manage to eke out a situation in which we can claim victory. Obviously victory would still be better than defeat, even at this late date, but we have already squandered much prestige in this debacle. It is unlikely that we will come out of this with our interests enhanced. The question is how best to minimize the damage.
I also should make clear that I do not favor any variation of the "non-binding resolution." The Senate should either vote on a cutoff of funds or not vote at all, since the power of the purse is their only constitutional means to determine military policy. A non-binding no-confidence resolution is foreign to our system of government. Were I in the Senate, I would abstain.
(Individual senators have every right to criticize any policy, of course, just as we all do.)
I will not be signing the pledge, however. |
|
Start with not getting bogged down in the UN, not justifying the war by repeatedly talking about how mean Saddam was to his own people, not relying on (or even thinking about) the silly idea that "we would be greeted as liberators," planning for the worst-case--not just the best-case--scenario in the aftermath of Saddam's fall, sending enough troops in the first place to do the job right, not making Iraqi democracy our war aim, not pretending that we could go to war with Saddam and his eight closest friends and leave the rest of Iraq out of it, not permitting Moqtada al-Sadr to live after he raised his hand against us, not permitting the Iranians and Syrians to fight us in Iraq, not preventing the Marines from doing their job in Fallujah....
In other words, good policy would have consisted of fighting a war, rather than undertaking Operation Mister Nice Guy. And if that's politically impossible in today's world, then we should not have invaded Iraq at all.
Face it; we are the world's only superpower, and we are on the verge of losing a war to a sad collection of p***ant barbarian tribes. Surely you can see that there have been some policy mistakes somewhere in there. It's comforting to blame it all on Chuck Hagel, but he isn't Commander-in-Chief.
How are we going to deal with the ChiComs if we can't see off Moqtada al-Sadr? I'm sure glad I'm not Taiwanese.
|
|
We have two choices. Win or lose, not just in Iraq, but in any war.
I'd truly love it if we could all get along, but seriously, how likely do any of you on either side think that will ever be? Are you willing to let the bullies of the world walk all over you, even to the point of killing you, just because you choose not to defend yourselves?
The next logical question is do you defend yourself on their ground or on yours? If you decide to defend them on yours, fine, but you're not leaving yourself much wiggle room. We could, of course, withdraw all our troops to this country and post them on the borders to keep out the unwanted--but that doesn't work very well, given the length of our borders. It also doesn't protect us from nasty things lobbed at us from other continents, or shipped in through our ports.
It all comes down to your personal survival against people who want you dead. So many of them have said this so many times it's hard to believe there are so many people in this country who still refuse to take those pronouncements seriously. All I can ask is "What will it take to convince you these people mean what they say?"
|
|
"This entire exercise is premised on the view that the Republican Senators who will support the resolution will do so not out of any sort of conviction but due to political expediency."
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if Republican senators go against their own party, incur the wrath of right-wing war supporters, and risk their own reelection chances, and do vote for the nonbinding resolution, that means they are politically motivated -- but if those same Republican senators decide not to vote for the resolution because they don't want to lose funding and campaign support, they are acting out of principle and conviction, not political expedience?
"Showing the enemy that we’re not united."
And a nonbinding resolution in the Senate is the only thing that reveals our unity or lack of unity to the rest of the world? If Republican senators vote no on the nonbinding resolution, that convinces terrorists in Iraq that Congress and the American people all agree with Pres. Bush that the troop increase is necessary and justified?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would take people like Hewitt (and, I have to sadly admit, Mark Steyn) far more seriously on Iraq if they would admit forthrightly that the mess we're in is the fault, not of some sort of nebulous "setbacks," but of Bush's bad policy decisions--decisions which they enthusiastically supported. |
|
|
I hereby pledge to believe whatever slogans I am told without questioning it, to continue and further the Bush Administration's war policy, first to invade Iraq, a country that did not attack us on 9/11, eliminate Saddam Hussein's noexistant WMDs, and engage in nation building which Bush was so supportive and positive while Clinton was involved in his own nation building misadventure so it is definitely unpatriotic to speak out against the Commander in Chief when our country is engaged in armed conflict. I will try to justify my misinformed opinion by pointing out the hypocrisy of the left to justify my own hypocrisy. If someone confronts me with "facts" or "history" I will say that they are just thinking negative, obviously love the terrorists, or just flat out lie. |
|
Opposing the war as they sit safely behind their desks...
Why can't they be a real man and support the surge like I'm doing, safely behind my desk...
Oh, wait. |
|
I'm a Republican from Virginia, and I've signed the pledge. For what it's worth, here's my letter to Sen. Warner:
Dear Senator Warner,
I am appalled. I consider your proposed resolution on the “new strategy in Iraq” to be providing aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war. You are encouraging your fellow Senators, and the American public in general, to question the ability of our President, and our troops, to engage and defeat the enemy. Islamic jihadists everywhere are cheering you on, knowing that the withdrawal of public support for our troops and their mission will inevitably lead to American retreat, and victory for our enemies.
Please realize that your resolution is erroneous in many of its assertions, the most serious concerning the primary objective of the overall U.S. strategy in Iraq. The war in Iraq is only one front in the “war on terror,” which has but one primary objective: to engage and defeat violent Islamic jihadists, everywhere. We must not fail.
I consider myself to be a conservative, and have voted for Republican candidates my entire adult life. I have, in the past, contributed to Republican candidates, the Republican Party of Virginia, and the Republican National Committee. I will not vote for, or contribute another dime to, candidates and parties that do not fully support the President, the troops, and their mission in a time of war. And just to be clear—I have not abandoned the Republican Party; it is the Republican Party that has abandoned its core conservative, pro-American principles, and the millions, like me, who still believe in them.
Please consider, and answer, if you will, whether or not you would have sponsored and voted for a similar resolution:
• To second-guess General Washington, after a series of defeats in 1780, but before the “surge” onto the Yorktown peninsula in 1781?
• To second-guess President Lincoln, after appointing General Grant to command the Army of the Potomac in 1864, but before the “surge” from the Rappahannock to Appomattox?
• To second-guess President Roosevelt, after Allied troops were pinned down at Anzio in 1944, but before the “surge” into Normandy?
• To second-guess President Truman, after the battle for the Pusan perimeter in 1950, but before the “surge” into Inchon?
I urge you to withdraw your resolution, and to vote against any resolution which would harm the morale of our troops, and strengthen the resolve of our enemies.
|
|
So I'll back away from my earlier comment about this being a "loyalty oath." But I still see the Pledge as an attempt to shore up a united front that no longer exists.
Sadly, there is no need to pretend that our enemies don't know how divided we truly are. And a good chunk of that blame, yes, rests on President Bush, whose poor decision-making led us to this difficult stage in the war.
I'd like victory in Iraq as well, but with our military's resources stretched thin and fatigued, I'm not sure what more we can ask of our servicemen.
The war is unpopular because American casualites are continuing despite a lack of any visible progress in Iraq. Moreso, the president's past exhortions for support have grown tiresome - what once seemed like resolve now looks like pigheadedness. You can hardly blame a minority of Republicans for beginning to break under that pressure.
So what should we do? That decision, ultimately, rests with Bush. And as I don't believe his current actions are wise, I still refuse to sign any pledge, as it amounts to blaming his critics for his mistakes.
You want an alternative? We withdraw from Baghdad into the south and into Anbar. Force the Iraqi government to secure the city. As neither the Demorats, or President Bush himself, is asking for the actual number of military required to secure Baghdad, we must extricate ourselves from the middle of the sunni-shia arab civil war.
|
|
|
Well, since Al Gore lost Florida (and hence the 2000 election) by, oh, about five to ten percent of that, one could start by axing him. Just sayin'. |
|
An important one, at least to me! Another way to express disgust with the Senates RINO's is to contact them directly. Unfortunately, the only one now in my state is Normy and he's already claiming to see the light, at least for today. Tomorrow might be a different day?
Another good way would be to hold a protest march on St. Paddy's Day, that would catch Teddy off guard!
|
|
|
Its a fine idea, but the critics do have a point, its only a starting place. Considering 12k people have aleady been blown past, I have the distinct feeling that there is a true groundswell of support out there. Maybe more than half the country wants us out of Iraq, but i suspect they only want that in a general sense. I truly beleive the pro-surge people are far more dedicated to their viewpoint. This is a good first step. |
|
Too generic. Covers the entire country. No way to really verify who signed it (you always get a sizable minority of pranksters who sign those things).
Just like you want the "magic bullet" in medicine, you need to hone in on the wobbly Senators and change their minds. Direct contact is the most effective (through the U.S. Senate email system or by telephone). The pledge also dilutes that effort because you sign it and think "well I have done my job." Doing an email to a Senator is a bit more complicated (they make you fill out contact info every time) but definitely worth it--even if you are from another state. |
|
Maybe this is just me (I was one of those kids in high school that hated those clique student groups that would form)--but this pledge idea is really bad. Here's why, a 10,000 person petition sounds ok, but it will not put the fear of God into a U.S. Senator. It is like a boycott, they sound good but often really don't accomplish all that much and mostly make conservatives look weak.
Have a couple of thousand voters (from the Senator's own party and preferably the same state) write in to that specific Senator and say they are withholding support, donations, and votes--that carries some water.
If your local Senator is good--send them a brief word of thanks and send your letter of wrath to the GOP Senators who are going wobbly. |
|
|
|