Likelihood of Success

Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog

They’ll be for it after they were against it

Posted by Ron Coleman on October 30, 2007

Rudy spins a nice meme:

Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani said Monday that two of the Democratic candidates will change their minds again about the Iraq war and agree that it was the right decision.Asked at a town-hall meeting to characterize the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq, Giuliani said they have done an admirable job.

“Do I think the mission overall in Iraq is the correct one, I think without a doubt it is,” the former New York mayor said at Insight Technologies, which makes tactical weapon lights and laser systems for the military.

“And I think the Democrats are going to change their minds about it again,” Giuliani said, noting that Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards voted as senators for the initial invasion in 2003.

Nice little rhetorical move.


18 Responses to “They’ll be for it after they were against it”

  1. Ara Rubyan said


    “Do I think the mission overall in Iraq is the correct one, I think without a doubt it is,” the former New York mayor said…

    What is the mission again, exactly?

  2. Does it matter? The Democrat platform is based on short term polling, not long term planning. If (as it seems to be going now) the Iraq situation continues to improve, you’ll see the Democrats flip as soon as that polling hits the “51% happy with current progress in Iraq”, we’ll hear some quotes about Nuances, this and that have changed, and they were really for it all along…then they’ll take credit for any and all successes.

    That’s if I understand the playbook.

    Hillary hasn’t come out as firmly against the war in rhetoric as Obama and Edwards have…which is why I don’t think it’s too much of a leap to see her as being “for” it when the general election hits.

    Get ready for the spin.

  3. Ara Rubyan said

    “Does it matter?”

    Man, that’s cold. Are you serious? Nearly 5 years into the occupation and you say it doesn’t matter why we’re there? Wow. Just wow.

    “If (as it seems to be going now) the Iraq situation continues to improve…”

    Dude, come on! “Success” of any kind is always measured as steady progress toward a worthy goal. Absent the goal, it’s preposterous to say things are “improving.”

    Fact is we’re still there because the White House has one metric and only one for measuring success: the preservation of George W. Bush’s legacy. And given that we’ll probably be there on January 20, 2009, that’s the only way you can suggest — with a straight face — that things are “improving.”

  4. My original quote was in regards to the what Democrats think. Does it matter to you? For your kind, it’s just a reflexive reaction to Bush…does it matter to them what the goal is, what the meaning of the war is, what the reasons of the war are…I don’t think so. For them it’s as simple as polling, and the Republicans are “for it”. It’s not cold on my part, it’s a observation that any reason that I give you, won’t matter, because Bush is bad. The left doesn’t see beyond that…

    So the question is, does it matter? Is any reason any one gives enough of a reason for you? Or does the disgust and hatred with Bush permeate every little bit of rational methodology the left might have?

  5. Doesn’t matter…

    Iraq war deaths show sharp decline.

    Embrace our “loss” right? Find every little bit of bad, regardless of the good…the glass isn’t half full…it’s all empty and was originally filled with oil that Halliburton sucked out at the cost of our troops to make Cheney rich right?

  6. Ara Rubyan said

    I had a simple question that you have still not managed to answer. I’ll ask it again:

    “What is the mission, exactly?”

  7. Is this something I’m really supposed to answer and will be able to answer to your satisfaction?

    My short answer: Establishing a functioning Democracy in Iraq for America’s self interest.

    Have you really never heard anyone address the administrations stated reasons, or are the stated reasons just not to your exacting standards?

  8. Bob Miller said

    Any mission statement that would apply to Iraq applies even more so to Iran. At some level, it must have been judged that taking on Iraq would be more doable.

  9. Ara said

    “Establishing a functioning Democracy in Iraq for America’s self interest.”

    Thank you.

    Now — if that’s the goal — what about Iraq makes you think the situation is “improving?”

  10. Read the newspapers…see where we are now when compared to 3 years ago. I’m not going to wax intellectual with someone just so they can play a self congratulating game of “gotcha” and chortle about their cleverness.

  11. Ara Rubyan said

    “wax intellectual?”

    What does that mean? I asked you a simple question.

    Holy cow, man. The answer to that question requires you to be an intellectual? Man oh man. The bar has been set pretty low, hasn’t it?

  12. Let me answer it simply then.

    Violence and deaths due to violence are continuing to decline.
    They have a democratically elected government.

    That seems to mean things are improving? Is everything perfect? Absolutely not…but I don’t see war as a Zero sum game.

    For every statistic that people of the left jump on to decry how much of a failure it is, once that works out, they jump to the next one.

    What are you jumping to now to represent how we’ve failed?

  13. …and why are you asking that I filter these statistics when you know very well what I’m going to say and point to. I say “wax intellectual” because what this is going to become is some sort of setup/knockdown exercise I get with lefties at my site. I get it, guide me so you can crank out your predetermined talking points, then I’ll do the same. I’m not going to change your mind with statistics, and you’re not going to change mine with anecdotes.

    I’m not a military man, and I tend to defer to the experts in the military when it comes to successes and failures at war. Whether that be Generals who are currently there, or real imbedded journalists. You can turn to Joe Biden or Charlie Rangel.

    I believe that’s the understanding…

    Now I’m done with a conversation that started with Ron stating Giuliani’s thoughts, and me stating why I think Hillary will change positions as well, and ended with you asking me (a cubicle jockey, and arm chair pundit who works in technology) to justify the entire war and it’s goals and successes simply so you can guide a conversation in a direction that let’s you rattle off your list of complaints about George Bush.

    Are you really open to the possibility of agreeing with me? Is there anything I can say that you haven’t already heard by some talking head on a TV or in a Newspaper? Doubtful…

  14. Ara Rubyan said

    Actually, I am open to your point of view which is why I originally asked what y’all thought the mission was. Why would I bother to ask unless I was interested in your answer?

    Without some sort of understanding on that fundamental question, all we’ll ever get is a bunch of emotional blow-back. Not something I am interested in.

    I appreciate you finally answering the question as best you could. Me? I’m suspicious of any body-counting exercise after witnessing the Vietnam War, Gen. Westmoreland and Robert McNamara. Just my bias. And that’s not to mention that ethnic/religious cleansing is mostly complete now in Baghdad — Shiites and Sunnis have moved into their own zones. But numbers are numbers, so score one for you.

    But as for “establishing a functioning Democracy in Iraq for America’s self interest” (your words) what symptoms do you see that indicate we’re anywhere near achieving that? I’m not even sure “Iraq” exists anymore. We’ve pretty much, de facto, arrived at a place that Gelb and Biden described quite some time ago: 3 separate entities with little or no central control.

    What comes next doesn’t encourage me — it worries me. Turks going into Kurdistan, Iran making common cause with Shiistan and the Sunnis…well weren’t they our enemy waaaaaay back when? Don’t you think they’ll turn on us again if things suit them?

  15. Of course they’ll turn on us.

    If Iraq, hypothetically, does split into 3 pieces, shouldn’t your side be okay with that, because that’s what they want?

  16. Ara, no “y’all”‘s or other four-letter words on this blog!

  17. Ara said


  18. Ara Rubyan said

    If Iraq, hypothetically, does split into 3 pieces, shouldn’t your side be okay with that, because that’s what they want?

    My side? Honestly, I couldn’t say what “my side” wants. But I essentially agree with your definition of our mission = “establishing a functioning Democracy in Iraq for America’s self interest.” So if Iraq splits up in the way we’ve described, that’s not good for America’s self-interest. For starters, a weaker Iraq means a stronger Iran.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: