Dems In Disarray (Ongoing...)

Jeff Goldstein reprises the anti-war comments of some leading Dems.

And the WaPo delivers a Pearl Harbor day message to the Dems in Disarray:

Democrats Fear Backlash at Polls for Antiwar Remarks

By Jim VandeHei and Shalaigh Murray

Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 7, 2005;  Page A01

Strong antiwar comments in recent days by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have opened anew a party rift over Iraq, with some lawmakers warning that the leaders' rhetorical blasts could harm efforts to win control of Congress next year.

Several Democrats joined President Bush yesterday in rebuking Dean's declaration to a San Antonio radio station Monday that "the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

The critics said that comment could reinforce popular perceptions that the party is weak on military matters and divert attention from the president's growing political problems on the war and other issues. "Dean's take on Iraq makes even less sense than the scream in Iowa: Both are uninformed and unhelpful," said Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), recalling Dean's famous election-night roar after stumbling in Iowa during his 2004 presidential bid.

Rahm Emmanuel is nervous:

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), the second-ranking House Democratic leader, have told colleagues that Pelosi's recent endorsement of a speedy withdrawal, combined with her claim that more than half of House Democrats support her position, could backfire on the party, congressional sources said.

These sources said the two leaders have expressed worry that Pelosi is playing into Bush's hands by suggesting Democrats are the party of a quick pullout -- an unpopular position in many of the most competitive House races.

"What I want Democrats to be discussing is what the president's policies have led to," Emanuel said. He added that once discussion turns to a formal timeline for troop withdrawals, "the how and when gets buried" and many voters take away only an impression that Democrats favor retreat.

This actually makes sense (so I am not worried that Dems will do it):

While the party is divided over the specifics of Iraq policy, most Democratic legislators are slowly coalescing around a political plan, according to lawmakers and party operatives. This would involve setting a broad time frame for drawing down U.S. troops, starting with National Guard and reserve units, internationalizing the reconstruction effort, and blaming Bush for misleading the country into a war without a victory plan.

The aim is to provide the party enough maneuvering room to allow Democrats to adjust their position as conditions in Iraq change -- and fix public attention mostly on Bush's policies rather the details of a Democratic alternative. A new Time magazine poll found 60 percent of those surveyed disapproved of Bush's handling of Iraq.

Well, yes - Dem leaders evidently must do something to placate the vocal portion of their party, which is intent on re-fighting the intelligence wars of 2002.  And for the rest of us, some sensible plan to carry us forward from 2005 would be helpful - screaming "We should never have gone in, and I told you not to" is not exactly an exit strategy.

Meanwhile, let's file this under "Say What You Mean, And Stand Tall (Even If You Stand Alone)":

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said that while Pelosi estimates more than half of House Democrats favor a speedy withdrawal, she will lobby members in today's meeting against adopting this as a caucus position.

Ahh!  The "Out Now" Dems are right, but if the party ran on their actual views, well, the American public might not be quite ready for their wisdom.  Unbelievable.

I would think the Dems could attempt in 2006 just what John Kerry attempted in 2002 - endorse the broad outline of the Bush plan (Iraqification and withdrawal), then change the subject to domestic issues.  But first they need to help their Chairman and their House Minority Leader recover from their Vietnam flashbacks (with Kerry, it is not a flashback - it's the ongoing feature film).

MORE:  Top Spin du Jour, or "Strength in Disunity"

Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.), who represents a district Bush won easily in 2004, said he disagrees with Pelosi and Dean but does not see that as a problem. "The national press is playing up the fact that Democrats do not speak with one voice on Iraq," he said. "We should wear it as a badge of honor because it shows we are not playing a political line with war and peace."

Dems in Disarray - it's not a bug, it's a feature.

Comments

[clarice]

Cecil--I think it's almost impossible, too.
I think if it's by air we will have to use Iraqi facilities for support.What about those subs in the Indian Ocean?

[kim]

The article mentions ground forces. Let's hope this is sabre rattling, but the problem is that you can wave big swords at crazy people and it doesn't deter them. The nihilism of the ayatollahs will ultimately undermine them just as it has the terrorists in Iraq.
============================================

[noah]

Technically I don't believe it is really practical to have multiple sites engaged in centrifuge enrichment. But I will defer to any among us that has real technical expertise.

[clarice]

noah, are you suggested some of these are dummy sites?

[clarice]

suggestING, I mean

[clarice]

Best facilities map I could find:http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/images/iran_map_nuke-s.gif

Best information:http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke-fac.htm

[Rick Ballard]

CT,

Israel doesn't have any flying gas stations? Or is the problem parking one over Basra?

Gotta love that "Iraq is keeping us from dealing with Iran" line. I know math is real, real hard for those folks but does that mean they can't interpret a simple map?

I thought the complete target set for the Iranian problem was on the order of 25 major and 250+ 'other'. I just wish Qum was on the first wave 'nothing left standing' list.

[Bruce Moomaw]

Me: "Especially since the biggest reason we should never have gone in is that having our military tied up there is preventing us from doing anything militarily effective to prevent Iran from acquiring the Bomb..."

Cecil Turner: "As discussed above, this is completely backwards. Nothing short of a threatened invasion would be effective, and there is no way to invade Iran except from Iraq. (It's the only place with a staging area accessible from a deep-water port--which is required for positioning heavy equipment.) Far from 'preventing' such an operation, OIF was a prerequisite. And sorry, but anyone who suggests otherwise is operationally illiterate."

Except that the very fact that we have tied up most of our military with occupying Iraq also makes it impossible for us to stage ANY kind of effective military action to disrupt or slow Iran's nuclear program -- including really massive air raids, or large-scale commando raids. And, as I mentioned, it also makes it almost impossible for us to stage any kind of emergency action if the Dear Leader is emboldened by his possession of the Bomb to try a conventional invasion of South Korea -- or if a threat arises that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is about to fall into pro-al Qaida hands.

Of course, the Bushites invaded Iraq precisely because they were absolutely certain that the occupation and reform of the place would be a "cakewalk" (in Ken Adelman's immortal phrase), and that (along with the other advantages of such a development) we COULD then use Iraq as a staging ground for a similar invasion of Iran -- where, once again, we would doubtless be greeted by cheering crowds throwing flowers, many of them not even attached to Molotov cocktails. (Remember that frequent prewar slogan of the neocons: "Men go to Baghdad. Real men go to Damascus and Teheran.") Surprise!

[Bruce Moomaw]

Rick Ballard: "Gotta love that 'Iraq is keeping us from dealing with Iran' line. I know math is real, real hard for those folks but does that mean they can't interpret a simple map?"

The map is easy to interpret, Rick. So is the fact that our military is currently strained to the limit just keeping the lid on Iraq, which is why the Bushites themselves are no longer talking about any military action against Iran.

[clarice]

Well, Bruce. we do hear your argument. We just find it unpersuasive, believing as we do that having out men and material on Iran's border makes it easier, not harder, to deal with them.

[clarice]

ouR men and materiale

[clarice]

ouR men and materiEl---last shot and now to bed. Niters.

[kim]

Round trip lightly loaded, maybe. The Iranian nuclear facilities are duplicated, deep, dispersed, re-inforced and among civilian papulations, and with foreign technicians living in them. It is very difficult to do, but what are the options? Talking them out of it? Not bloody likely.
===================================

[Cecil Turner]

Except that the very fact that we have tied up most of our military with occupying Iraq also makes it impossible for us to stage . . .

"Most"? Looks to me like our Iraq deployments surged to ~157,000 for the election, out of a total US force of more than 2.2 million. And, of course, they're "tied up" in the staging area.

And, as I mentioned, it also makes it almost impossible for us to stage any kind of emergency action if the Dear Leader is emboldened by his possession of the Bomb to try a conventional invasion of South Korea [. . .] or if a threat arises that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal . . .

In the first place, ROK's (slightly smaller, but vastly more effective) armed forces are more than a match for the DPRK. In the second, most of what we bring to the Korean campaign is airpower, which is the least part of what's "tied up" in Iraq. Pakistan is a nuclear power with a population of 160 million (and if you really wanted to pressure them militarily, you'd need basing in either Iran or India) . . . I'm not sure what sort of conventional military action you envision there, but it ain't gonna happen.

Remember that frequent prewar slogan of the neocons . . .

Ah, slogans. Very nice. I note you do a lot of commenting on military matters, Bruce, but it mostly seems to be from a political perspective. Just out of curiosity, do you have any actual experience at any of this? Because if so, it isn't showing.

[Cecil Turner]

Israel doesn't have any flying gas stations? Or is the problem parking one over Basra?

They have 'em: "Boeing 707s had been converted for in-flight refueling of F-15s and F-16s." The problem is where to set up the track (optimally, at mid-to-high altitude). Though again, if we help, that part's workable. And preserving tactical surprise is a major consideration. Iran is reputed to have some fairly effective air defenses; giving away surprise both invites casualties and significantly reduces the likelihood of success.

[kim]

BM: The Bushites invaded Iraq precisely because they were absolutely certain etc.

Such precision and certainty. Why can't we train that into people? How do you do it?
============================================

[clarice]

Well, Mark Steyn reimnds us this morning, the US cannot attack Iraq until we are ABSOLUTELY sure the nukes are operational--like when CNN's NY HQ is a hole in the ground.

[clarice]

Here's an interesting piece on the Times article about Israel attacking Iran.
Joint effort?

[TP]

C. Wouldn't be surprised to see them come through Afghanistan.

[clarice]

I don't know, TP. I do know that if we are assisting in any way, we are now in better position than we were 4 years ago.