Thread: A Liberal who GETS IT!

By JAMES TARANTO of the WSJ
Truth Laid Baird

This is a very heartening story from the Olympian, the daily newspaper in Washington's state capital:

U.S. Rep. Brian Baird said Thursday that his recent trip to Iraq convinced him the military needs more time in the region, and that a hasty pullout would cause chaos that helps Iran and harms U.S. security.

"I believe that the decision to invade Iraq and the post-invasion management of that country were among the largest foreign-policy mistakes in the history of our nation. I voted against them, and I still think they were the right votes," Baird said in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C.

"But we're on the ground now. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people and a strategic interest in making this work." . . .

Baird said he would not say this if he didn't believe two things:

• "One, I think we're making real progress."

• "Secondly, I think the consequences of pulling back precipitously would be potentially catastrophic for the Iraqi people themselves, to whom we have a tremendous responsibility . . . and in the long run chaotic for the region as a whole and for our own security."

The distinction Baird makes is a crucial one, and one that war opponents usually elide. Whether Congress made a mistake in authorizing Iraq's liberation is a separate question from what to do now. Yet war opponents act as if favoring a precipitous withdrawal logically and necessarily follows from regretting the decision to liberate.

Why? Part of it, we suppose, is a sort of binary simplemindedness: It was bad to go in, ergo it would be good to get out. Real life is more complicated. It may be that it was a mistake to go in but a precipitous withdrawal would compound the error.

But maybe those who argue for withdrawal seek precisely to compound the error. Failure in Iraq would vindicate the position of those who originally argued that the war would be a mistake. Likewise for those who supported the war but later change their minds--they may be cynical opportunists, but they may also have the zeal of a convert. If America loses the war, they win the argument.

And defeat in Iraq would vindicate not only opposition to Iraq but an entire worldview--what we've called the worldview of baby-boom liberalism. America's defeat in Vietnam was a triumph for baby-boom liberalism--a triumph that some seem never to have given up trying to relive.

In this respect, it's telling that Brian Baird, though liberal, is relatively young. He was born in 1956 and finished college in 1977, which means that the Vietnam tumult had wound down by the time he reached majority. To be sure, baby-boom liberalism has influence beyond its immediate age cohort (cf Barack Obama, born 1961). But maybe Baird is a tribune of a younger, more sensible type of liberal, one that cares more about doing right than being proved right.

It's refreshing to see an anti-war Democrat who gets it. It's not about being "against", but rather, we are there and need to SUCCEED regardless of partisan political desires.

The pertinent passage of Taranto's commentary:

Whether Congress made a mistake in authorizing Iraq's liberation is a separate question from what to do now. Yet war opponents act as if favoring a precipitous withdrawal logically and necessarily follows from regretting the decision to liberate.

Honestly, after reading that you made me rethink my stance but I still believe in a pull out. We shouldn't have invaded...therefore we shouldn't be there now. The author of the OP says that that is not a well thought out argument but it makes since. If we shouldn't have done at the start. Why should it be OK for us to stay? We have no business what so ever "liberating" another nation unless they ask us.

This is a response from Brian Baird on Jan 11 of this year in response to Bush's SOTU speech and his position on Iraq.

The following statement was issued by Our Congressman last night in response to George W. Bush’s intention to significantly increase military personnel, up to 21,500, serving in the Iraq occupation:

My first response to the President’s speech was one of profound sadness. Sadness at the loss of so many lives, sadness at the tremendous cost to our nation financially, and, frankly, sadness that the President has lost so much credibility with his own people and in the world. Every American and every member of Congress is absolutely committed to supporting our troops and ensuring their safety and success. The trouble is, I am not convinced that the steps the President described tonight will really enhance either the safety or the success of our troops and he has still failed to answer key and core questions about his strategy. I also believe there are a number of other measures and approaches that the President is neglecting that might be more effective in securing the safety of our own nation and of our soldiers on the ground. …
I was also troubled that, as he has done since before this conflict started and continuing in his speech tonight, President Bush has still never honestly and realistically told the American people how long this will take, what it will cost in lives and money, and how we will pay for it. If he cannot answer this, his strategy has not been carefully thought through, if he will not answer it, he is not leveling with the people. That was the problem before the war started and it is still the problem with what he has outlined tonight.
The founders of this nation intentionally and quite clearly gave the Congress the power to check an overzealous or irresponsible executive and Congress needs to exercise that power. We need to insist on answers to these core questions, and if those answers are not forthcoming or compelling, we need to demand a change in strategy and set clear limits on what will or will not be allowed to go forward.
Those, in the administration or within the Congress itself, who suggest that Congress should not or cannot exercise this authority have a different, and I believe dangerous, understanding of the foundation of our Constitutional Democratic Republic. If the President, the Congress, or the people themselves believe that Congress, as the directly elected representatives of the American people, have no voice in whether or not our country begins or remains at war, and whether or not our sons and daughters will be sent to die, then none of us, not the President or the Congress, has any business trying to bring a democracy to other nations because we have lost sight of how our own republic is supposed to function. That, in the long run, may be a much greater concern and threat than what happens in Iraq.

Now after the "comfy chair" tour that all REPS get he says pretty much the opposite. I don't know what his reasons are for this enormous flip-flop but it illustrates just one more scumbag politician afraid to be on the wrong side of an issue instead of standing up for what he truly believes.

Originally Posted by bpyke

Honestly, after reading that you made me rethink my stance but I still believe in a pull out. We shouldn't have invaded...therefore we shouldn't be there now. The author of the OP says that that is not a well thought out argument but it makes since. If we shouldn't have done at the start. Why should it be OK for us to stay? We have no business what so ever "liberating" another nation unless they ask us.

"Whether Congress made a mistake in authorizing Iraq's liberation is a separate question from what to do now. "

Originally Posted by namvet69

This is a response from Brian Baird on Jan 11 of this year in response to Bush's SOTU speech and his position on Iraq.




The following statement was issued by Our Congressman last night in response to George W. Bush’s intention to significantly increase military personnel, up to 21,500, serving in the Iraq occupation:

My first response to the President’s speech was one of profound sadness. Sadness at the loss of so many lives, sadness at the tremendous cost to our nation financially, and, frankly, sadness that the President has lost so much credibility with his own people and in the world. Every American and every member of Congress is absolutely committed to supporting our troops and ensuring their safety and success. The trouble is, I am not convinced that the steps the President described tonight will really enhance either the safety or the success of our troops and he has still failed to answer key and core questions about his strategy. I also believe there are a number of other measures and approaches that the President is neglecting that might be more effective in securing the safety of our own nation and of our soldiers on the ground. …

I was also troubled that, as he has done since before this conflict started and continuing in his speech tonight, President Bush has still never honestly and realistically told the American people how long this will take, what it will cost in lives and money, and how we will pay for it. If he cannot answer this, his strategy has not been carefully thought through, if he will not answer it, he is not leveling with the people. That was the problem before the war started and it is still the problem with what he has outlined tonight.

The founders of this nation intentionally and quite clearly gave the Congress the power to check an overzealous or irresponsible executive and Congress needs to exercise that power. We need to insist on answers to these core questions, and if those answers are not forthcoming or compelling, we need to demand a change in strategy and set clear limits on what will or will not be allowed to go forward.

Those, in the administration or within the Congress itself, who suggest that Congress should not or cannot exercise this authority have a different, and I believe dangerous, understanding of the foundation of our Constitutional Democratic Republic. If the President, the Congress, or the people themselves believe that Congress, as the directly elected representatives of the American people, have no voice in whether or not our country begins or remains at war, and whether or not our sons and daughters will be sent to die, then none of us, not the President or the Congress, has any business trying to bring a democracy to other nations because we have lost sight of how our own republic is supposed to function. That, in the long run, may be a much greater concern and threat than what happens in Iraq.

Now after the "comfy chair" tour that all REPS get he says pretty much the opposite. I don't know what his reasons are for this enormous flip-flop but it illustrates just one more scumbag politician afraid to be on the wrong side of an issue instead of standing up for what he truly believes.

"Whether Congress made a mistake in authorizing Iraq's liberation is a separate question from what to do now. "

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

"Whether Congress made a mistake in authorizing Iraq's liberation is a separate question from what to do now. "

I love the double-speak neocons use. "Authorizing Iraq's Liberation" Is that the brother of "Collateral Damage" or " Insignificant Losses?"

Here's what to do now, get the fuck out. As quickly as logistically possible. No doublespeak, no rhetorical expressions, no flowery soft-soaping.

Originally Posted by namvet69

I love the double-speak neocons use. "Authorizing Iraq's Liberation" Is that the brother of "Collateral Damage" or " Insignificant Losses?"

Here's what to do now, get the fuck out. As quickly as logistically possible. No doublespeak, no rhetorical expressions, no flowery soft-soaping.

It's Insignificant Losses until it happens to them or to their moms or pops. Then it comes pretty G'Damn significant!

Originally Posted by namvet69

I love the double-speak neocons use. "Authorizing Iraq's Liberation" Is that the brother of "Collateral Damage" or " Insignificant Losses?"

Here's what to do now, get the fuck out. As quickly as logistically possible. No doublespeak, no rhetorical expressions, no flowery soft-soaping.

These Neo Fucks will never get it or under stand, as far as I am concerned, they just put a fucking target on their forehead..

Originally Posted by namvet69

I don't know what his reasons are for this enormous flip-flop but it illustrates just one more scumbag politician afraid to be on the wrong side of an issue instead of standing up for what he truly believes.

I suppose he changed his mind after he went there to see things for himself.