The War Is So Over -- So 'Last Year' -- Pundits Declare
Posted: 1/30/2008 | By: Greg Mitchell
Even after all of these years of flim-flam and false predictions regarding Iraq, I still find it amusing that so many pundits have declared that the war is no longer a major issue in America, or at least in the 2008 political campaign. They seem to be quoting John Lennon ? ?War Is Over? ? except they mean it in a very different way.
All you had to do, as if you should need any further illumination on this, was to watch Wednesday night's GOP presidential debate at the Reagan Library.
All three of the major candidates not only failed to find any fault with the war, they competed to see who could promise to stay there longer and offer the toughest terms for departure. The rhetoric escalated from wanting to make sure the place was ?secure? to wiping out every single ?safe haven? for al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and god knows who else (Roger Clemens?) to -- as Mitt Romney said -- full ?victory.?
Mike Huckabee was asked point blank if he agreed with John McCain that we might have to stay there for 100 years and he wouldn?t even reply, suggesting he thought this sound quite sensible, rather than the ravings of a man man. One might expect a pious man of god to say, ?Gosh, that would be unacceptable, think of the lives destroyed,? or some such thing, or at least point out the budget-busting catastrophe in that scenario.
In any case, to listen to any of debates in the past months and then say the war is dead as a hot button issue in absurd, considering the stance on the war taken by the two Democratic frontrunners. Now, it?s true Hillary Clinton came out against the war too late, and exactly what she and Barack Obama want to do about withdrawing is not precisely clear -- and surely open to reality checks once in office. But while the Republicans argue about who is most against any withdrawal (or even any sort of timetable), the Democrats are full-throttle in favor of a phased pullout beginning ASAP.
So the issue is dead? It?s hard to believe that some of our leading press and TV commentators could be so vapid as to say that the issue is in retreat simply because it has not been a barn-burner in debates ? when the Democrats on their side, and the Republicans on there side, agree with each other (Ron Paul aside).
Even the polls that show that the economy now edges the war as the top issue in many minds do not suggest that the concern about Iraq is fading but mainly that worries about the economy (which influences just about everything in one's life) are understandably rising.
And it?s a false question anyway: Citizens now have absolutely no confidence that anything will be done about the war for the rest of the year. The president, and the Democrats in Congress, have made that clear, even as they promise quick economic relief.
You don?t think the war as an issue won't spike in the fall when the ?pullout soon vs. stay there forever? debate between the two candidates for president is raging? It sure looks like Ron Paul will not be getting the GOP nod.
Just imagine if somehow Super Tuesday, next week, really did decide the nominees, and a few days after that, one of the networks sponsored a debate between the GOP and Democrat winners and the two candidates agreed to appear. What do you think that would be like when the question of the war came up?
I?d buy tickets to that one. I bet none of the pundits would be taking a bathroom break when that issue about to come up.
*
To comment or read more, go to E&P Editor Greg Mitchell's blog.
All you had to do, as if you should need any further illumination on this, was to watch Wednesday night's GOP presidential debate at the Reagan Library.
All three of the major candidates not only failed to find any fault with the war, they competed to see who could promise to stay there longer and offer the toughest terms for departure. The rhetoric escalated from wanting to make sure the place was ?secure? to wiping out every single ?safe haven? for al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and god knows who else (Roger Clemens?) to -- as Mitt Romney said -- full ?victory.?
Mike Huckabee was asked point blank if he agreed with John McCain that we might have to stay there for 100 years and he wouldn?t even reply, suggesting he thought this sound quite sensible, rather than the ravings of a man man. One might expect a pious man of god to say, ?Gosh, that would be unacceptable, think of the lives destroyed,? or some such thing, or at least point out the budget-busting catastrophe in that scenario.
In any case, to listen to any of debates in the past months and then say the war is dead as a hot button issue in absurd, considering the stance on the war taken by the two Democratic frontrunners. Now, it?s true Hillary Clinton came out against the war too late, and exactly what she and Barack Obama want to do about withdrawing is not precisely clear -- and surely open to reality checks once in office. But while the Republicans argue about who is most against any withdrawal (or even any sort of timetable), the Democrats are full-throttle in favor of a phased pullout beginning ASAP.
So the issue is dead? It?s hard to believe that some of our leading press and TV commentators could be so vapid as to say that the issue is in retreat simply because it has not been a barn-burner in debates ? when the Democrats on their side, and the Republicans on there side, agree with each other (Ron Paul aside).
Even the polls that show that the economy now edges the war as the top issue in many minds do not suggest that the concern about Iraq is fading but mainly that worries about the economy (which influences just about everything in one's life) are understandably rising.
And it?s a false question anyway: Citizens now have absolutely no confidence that anything will be done about the war for the rest of the year. The president, and the Democrats in Congress, have made that clear, even as they promise quick economic relief.
You don?t think the war as an issue won't spike in the fall when the ?pullout soon vs. stay there forever? debate between the two candidates for president is raging? It sure looks like Ron Paul will not be getting the GOP nod.
Just imagine if somehow Super Tuesday, next week, really did decide the nominees, and a few days after that, one of the networks sponsored a debate between the GOP and Democrat winners and the two candidates agreed to appear. What do you think that would be like when the question of the war came up?
I?d buy tickets to that one. I bet none of the pundits would be taking a bathroom break when that issue about to come up.
*
To comment or read more, go to E&P Editor Greg Mitchell's blog.