INDCJournal

Friday, June 30, 2006
INDCJournal: "The current Democrat position isn't that of a peacemaker. 'Let's you and him fight. Hey, did I say stop? Keep fighting.' The only logical end I see to the Democrats' varying positions is that the insurgents need to be fought to avenge US soldiers, but US soldiers themselves should not be a part of that fight. The Iraqis should fight our battles for us, but we should not help them fight our battles. There are essentially only two ways Iraq can end up as a stable democracy: kill enough insurgents to effectively neuter them, or make some sort of deal with them. Democrats are opposed to both. Then again, the incoherence comes from assuming the Democrats want Iraq to become a stable democracy."

1 comments:

Skookumchuk said...

Then again, the incoherence comes from assuming the Democrats want Iraq to become a stable democracy.

Many Democrat media celebrities and at least some of their leaders don't. After all, haven't Jeanine Garofalo and Howard Dean both said that Iraqis were better off under Saddam?

As I recall, Dean defended his remarks by talking about the lack of electric power and so forth following the invasion.

Remember Lenin's famous dictum - Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country.

If these things are the only indices by which you measure human happiness, then no, you don't care if Iraqi democracy succeeds or not.