The politics of partisanship
I haven't been doing many political posts recently because I'm just tired of it all. It's vexing that people in this country are so entrenched in their opinions that it doesn't matter what the other side offers, they just don't listen. This past week General Petraeus gave his report about the situation in Iraq, but did anyone listen? Both sides have their own opinions, so it didn't matter what Petraeus said. If he had said the war is a disaster and we need to get out right away, pro-war people would have spun it their way. If he had said the victory was imminent and it will take one year to settle things, the anti-war people would have spun it their way. It simply didn't matter. That's what bugs me.
Ronald Brownstein had a nice column in the Los Angeles Times this past week. He writes: "The one point that drew agreement from Republicans and Democrats alike was that Iraq's political leaders have too often failed to transcend their narrow sectarian interests to forge compromises in the national interest." Apparently, the politicians we elect to Congress do not have much sense of irony. That's because they're idiots.
It's just too frustrating to deal with. I am anti-war, as I've mentioned many times, but I'm against it as much for the bone-headed way it was prosecuted as for the fact that it's not in our national interest. A lot of people on the right say if the liberal media had been around in the early 1940s, we wouldn't have fought World War II either, because everyone would have been so gloomy about it. Well, I disagree. In fact, if we had had the media back then that we have now, we might have known about the Holocaust even sooner, and therefore fought with more fervor. Given the way the media gets into everything these days, it's certainly possible. But even so, that war was fought with a clear purpose and with clear objectives. I've said it over and over, that if Bush had bothered to outline a plan and, more importantly, allowed Congress to declare war (which is, you know, their job), more people would have been on board. I have often said that people did not take this war seriously when it first started. With 30,000 American casualties and who knows how many Iraqis, people are starting to. That's not to say if you take the war seriously you'll automatically be against it, but you will consider your actions more carefully. If only our politicians took it as seriously as the American people seem to be doing. Maybe they should "transcend their narrow sectarian interests." But it's probably not going to happen. And more people will die.
Ronald Brownstein had a nice column in the Los Angeles Times this past week. He writes: "The one point that drew agreement from Republicans and Democrats alike was that Iraq's political leaders have too often failed to transcend their narrow sectarian interests to forge compromises in the national interest." Apparently, the politicians we elect to Congress do not have much sense of irony. That's because they're idiots.
It's just too frustrating to deal with. I am anti-war, as I've mentioned many times, but I'm against it as much for the bone-headed way it was prosecuted as for the fact that it's not in our national interest. A lot of people on the right say if the liberal media had been around in the early 1940s, we wouldn't have fought World War II either, because everyone would have been so gloomy about it. Well, I disagree. In fact, if we had had the media back then that we have now, we might have known about the Holocaust even sooner, and therefore fought with more fervor. Given the way the media gets into everything these days, it's certainly possible. But even so, that war was fought with a clear purpose and with clear objectives. I've said it over and over, that if Bush had bothered to outline a plan and, more importantly, allowed Congress to declare war (which is, you know, their job), more people would have been on board. I have often said that people did not take this war seriously when it first started. With 30,000 American casualties and who knows how many Iraqis, people are starting to. That's not to say if you take the war seriously you'll automatically be against it, but you will consider your actions more carefully. If only our politicians took it as seriously as the American people seem to be doing. Maybe they should "transcend their narrow sectarian interests." But it's probably not going to happen. And more people will die.
posted by Greg | 1:11 PM
2 Comments:
No one listened to Petraeus because everyone was leaked, from Bush and others, pretty much what he was going to say. ("The general will say...") Much of the conversation became about whether MoveOn was besmerching the good name of the general with their NY Times General Betray Us? ad, which is largely besides the point.
I agree, BTW, with your problems with the war, not only the misguided reason for going, but the understaffed troops that were sent there.
I know it's a political third-rail, but maybe we DO need a draft again.
I've thought we needed a draft for years, Roger. I've actually thought it would be good for every single person to go into the military for two years after high school, before college (yes, even me, even though I didn't think this when I was 18). Military service builds a lot of different things, and I think it would be helpful.
Yes, a lot of stuff was leaked prior to Petraeus' testimony, but I doubt if anything he said would have mattered no matter what. But that's just me.
Post a Comment
<< Home