I am going to take a moment and step outside my portfolio and post something about Iraq. Generally, I am reluctant to write much about the war simply because so many others do so with much more skill. But I feel I have an opening. There has been something missing from the debate.
Every time Bush, Chaney, Lieberman et al speak on the subject of a draw down they assert two things:
- What’s left of Iraq and the rest of the Middle East will dissolve into chaos
- The terrorists (whoever they may be) will be able to gain the advantage of using Iraq to attack the United States.
Also thrown into the mix are assertions that:
- Terrorists will be able to use oil as a weapon against us
- Terrorists will be a step closer to their ultimate goal of establishing a caliphate
- This conflict is existential – our survival as a nation is at risk just as it was during WWII
My debate teacher used to tell me that an argument unchallenged was an argument accepted. So would some one please tell me why the Democrats are not aggressively challenging these assertions?
Where are the experts : Cole, Clarke, Albright and the others who could address these issues? Where are the white papers?
These seem to be the only arguments that resonate with what’s left of those who either still support the war or are undecided. To my thinking, this is a huge and unforgivable flaw in the conduct of this so-called debate on the part of Democratic leadership and the Democratic intelligencia.
