From the Olympian:
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, a five-term Democrat, voted against President Bush ordering the Iraq invasion  at a time when he was in a minority in Congress and at risk of alienating voters. He returned late Tuesday from a trip that included stops in Israel, Jordan and Iraq, where he met troops, U.S. advisers and Iraqis, whose stories have convinced him that U.S. troops must stay longer.
With Congress poised next month to look at U.S. progress in Iraq and a vote looming on U.S. funding for the war, Baird said he’s inclined to seek a continued U.S. presence in Iraq beyond what many impatient Americans want. He also expects Gen. David Petraeus, who oversees U.S. troops in Iraq, to seek a redeployment of forces. “People may be upset. I wish I didn’t have to say this,” Baird said. He added that the United States needs to continue with its military troops surge “at least into early next year, then engage in a gradual redeployment.”
[…]
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.”
Over at the Campaign Spot, Jim Geraghty is willing to give Baird credit for his honesty, and he’s right to do so.
But what strikes me about Baird’s statements is how obviously conflicted he is about making the admissions that he’s making, and how careful he is to lay out his anti-war bona fides as a way to bolster his credibility — not because he hopes it makes a better case for supporting the surge, necessarily (it does, but that seems almost secondary here), but rather because he hopes it will buy him a bit of forgiveness from the New American Center, who is given to purging its apostates in the service of “unifying the narrative” and defending their own peculiar brand of “democracy.”
In other words, it seems to me that Baird is torn between his conscience, and the likelihood that his picture will show up on Jane Hamsher’s blog in blackface.
But perhaps I’m just being cynical.
Still, Geraghty raises an interesting question:
What happens if a signficant number of congressional Democrats say, “we’re willing to stay some time longer, to ensure the job is finished properly,” while their presidential candidates are chanting, “Get out now, get out now”?
That depends. But if the true believers among the netroots have their way in the primaries (and here I differentiate the true believers from the cynical kingmakers, who I suspect will find a way to support any candidate they think can get the Dems to power, regardless of her stance on Iraq), the answer may very well be Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, ’72, Redux.
Though sadly, we’d get Al Franken and Rosie O’Donnell instead of Hunter Thompson.
He’s saying that Iraqi perceptions of US commitment are integral to achieving success. He is so dead.
I guess I’m cynical too, because I agree that any Democrat who comes out in favor of staying the course in Iraq has to qualify their position in this manner. The fact that his position is a very reasonable one does not help him at all, though. All that matters to the fringe is whether or not you’re paying lip service to getting us out of Iraq now.
I’m also cynical enough to believe that most who advocate getting out now are pandering, since they know it’s very unlikely that immediate withdrawal would ever pass with a 2/3 majority in both houses. Thus, it’s a politically safe position to take. Too bad it damages the morale of our fighting men and women and damages our perceived position to our enemies as a nation with a backbone.
I wish I could figure out how to do that on purpose.
It also reinforces the fantasy position that the U.S. ought not use its military strength unless and until we are attacked, and even then, our response ought to be “proportionate.” It’s one thing when those ideas are held in faculty lounges; when members of Congress shout it out repeatedly, they gain legitimacy.
TW: Flemings Murtough. Nope. I got nothin’.
Or perhaps his conscience, assuming he has one.
[…] Others talking about this:NRO, Protein Wisdom. […]
Sure hope Baird is ready for his Kos-ectomy.
Very interesting. Baird was my Congressman when I lived in Washington, so I’ve been getting his constituent e-mails for years. If he believes we’re finally making progress in Iraq, then so do I. It’s one thing for invasion-boosters to claim progress, as they’ve pretty much been doing that all along, but when invasion-bashers make these claims, it’s news.
Making progress in Iraq…
I don’t know what to make of the claims that we’re finally making progress in Iraq, because we’ve been lied-to so many times already. So this is significant:
U.S. Rep. Brian Baird said Thursday that his recent trip to Iraq convinced …
I don’t know about the Koses and Mahas and Hamshers of the world, but I don’t see Nancy Pelosi letting Mr. Baird off the back bench any time soon.
And I hope the Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, ‘72, Redux comment isn’t supposed to mean the Redskins are doomed. Well… okay. Maybe it doesn’t doom them anymore than they already are.
I don’t see why it’s a blockbuster. As a moonbat, I would be perfectly happy if we would start a “gradual redeployment†sometime next year. That’s a decent compromise.
The problem is that Bush doesn’t want to redeploy  ever. His whole strategy is based on the idea that we have to stay until we “win,†and since we cannot “win†an Iraqi civil war, that means we have to stay forever.
The conflict is not between people who want an abrupt withdrawal and those who don’t. It’s between people who want to think about leaving, and people like Bush who refuse to entertain the idea. Serious people want to find the best way to leave, America haters like Bush want us to stay forever, and thereby be defeated and humiliated.
M.A., maybe we should hold hands and sing a song. You wanna?
Perhaps a Kingdom of Fear Redux instead? Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch.
Fixed that for you.
I think if you spell that Knew Omerican Senter, you’ll get the right initials.
You’re right, Al Franken and Rosie O’Donnell would do a shitty job of the Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail Redux. That’s why we’re counting on you, Jeff. Only you could do justice to the bit where the Silky Pony breaks down in bitter tears of despair and frustration, or describe the press plane after 37 days of following Her Thighness and her entourage. And, of course, the only beverage suitable for this assignment is Wild Turkey 101. It’s going to take several cases, plus all the red pills from all the sofa cushions. Maybe even adrenochrome [shudder]. But I’m sure you’ll do whatever it takes.
“We can’t stop here. This is [moon]bat country.”
Comment by M.A. on 8/17 @ 1:29 pm #
I don’t see why it’s a blockbuster. As a moonbat, I would be perfectly happy if we would start a “gradual redeployment†sometime next year. That’s a decent compromise.
I see yer problem right here! There is no compromise in war. When you compromise in war it’s called losing.
tw; incoherent 1880. Space aliens. Gotta be.
Conscience? Or am I reading the context wrong?
Conscience, yes. Fixed. Thanks to the 50 people who noted my deathly encounter with the quasi-homophone.
I blame P90X. And Bush.
That opinion is so full of logical fallacies, it’s not worth wasting my time on. You should slap the shit out of whatever professor force-fed it to you: you didn’t get your money’s worth.
I will, however, make one suggestion you may find mind-boggling (sit down so you don’t hurt yourself): the President may actually be acting from entirely noble motives. I realize this idea never occured to you, but–hey–life is full of mysteries.)
Good work McGehee
– So is this to be the latest gambit, as in “Oh ok, maybe we don’t really mean “leave immediately”, not because we really care, but who the hell needs the blood of another million or 2 Iraquis on our hands, and this way we can just say that as stupid as this war was from the very begginning, we’re there now, so WE the imperious Left will just have to stay the course and help you bumbbling NeoCons fix things.”
– Gag me with a spork. If this is a carefully crafted “leak” of the latest version of the monthly “new reality”, it isn’t going to get the Ill-Liberals out of the anti-American corner they’ve painted themselves into.
ooops – meant good work cranky-d -but good on McGehee too.
Bull. That particular conflict is between people who are too ignorant to pound sand (often wilfully) and folks who are trying to get something done while being mobbed by yapping Chihuahuas.
Let us try to be absolutely clear, mmkay? Including accounting for the nuance. I hear you folks are good at that; let’s see your chops.
Hypothetical situation: You are in a conflict. Your opponent has A, B, and C. (It doesn’t matter whether A, B, and C are weapons, tactics, diplomatic support, or what; it only matters that A, B, and C can be used against you to make you yield.) Therefore you must expend time, effort, and resources to prepare counters for all three.
Now: Your opponents announce (credibly; if not, it’s somewhat different) that they will not employ B. Something of a relief, no? Since you need not counter B, there is no need to waste anything on it. All your resources may now be divided between A and C; your counters for them will be stronger, because you can devote more resources to them.
But from your opponent’s point of view it looks quite different. If they announce that B will not be used, they have effectively strengthened your defense against A and C, making it more likely that you, rather than they, will prevail in the conflict. From their POV that’s a stupid thing to do; they want to win. In fact, if they don’t intend to use B, the smart thing for them to do is devote just enough resources to it to convince you that they will — because it means you have to divide your resources against three credible threats instead of two.
And dammit, this isn’t even Conflict 101; it’s Remedial Resolution 05 (hr. arr.), Elementary Concepts. There are no options which are “off the table”, because anybody who does that becomes more likely to lose.
You don’t know whether Bush “wants to stay in Iraq” or not. You only know he says he wants to stay until the job’s done — in perfect compliance with the principle outlined above. If our opponents become convinced that America won’t stay in Iraq, they need not spend the resources — recruiting, training, building political allegiances — necessary to counter that long-term measure, and can devote all their efforts to the short-term goals of killing people and building up local strongpoints. See how that works? Or is it too nuanced for you?
Regards,
Ric
TWs: havens The ::sigh:: That’s certainly a related subject.
Ric: I doubt MA truly believes what it spews, more like it’s hoping to fool other people into thinking Bush wants to stay in Iraq “forever” and have them gallop to his side.
Of course, it’s possible MA could be incredibly stupid enough to presume that because it thinks we’ll have to stay in Iraq forever then it must mean Bush wants to stay there forever, so maybe I’m crediting it with too much intelligence.
(M.A.’s been around the blogosphere spewing much of the same. I guess since it’s showing up here it must have been kicked out of another blog or two. Much like alphie’s shown up elsewhere after being asked to leave this place.)
Another Democrat joins the “traitor” ranks…
Bad news for defeatist Democrats like House Majority Whip James Clyburn:
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 Ir…
– Even more to the point, if Bush, any President for that matter, had his way, Iraq would have immediately settled down into a relatively peaceful quasi-Democratic Muslim country at the end of the initial war, after Hussien was deposed. Especially if you believe Bush to be the insane meglomaniac the moonbats paint him to be. The last think he wants is a slow excruciatingly protracted occupation, thereby robbing him of glory during his time in offise.
– Its total far left demogogery, and worse idiocy to claim otherwise. But this bullshit trope is absolutely vital to the rest of the Lefts stageplay politic’s, and “NeoCon hedgemonic” propoganda. Nevermind it absolutely flings itself in the face of reality.
– In fact, quite the contrary to Ill-Liberal claims, Bush has every reason to do the exact opposite to what they claim he wants. Dumb. Just plain dumb. The Nutroots fabrications do not even pass the common sense test when you apply their own criteria. This cannard seems to escape the intelligensia some how.
I think everyone is missing the political dynamic here.
First, let me say that I think Baird is being courageous here, and I pray that he is telling it like it is.
That said, I think it would be very easy to overstate how courageous he is being. Might he get in the dumps with Pelosi and the nutroots? Certainly.
But Democrats being reasonable on matters of war and security helps Hillary, who has not been off on an anti-war tirade and who voted for the war, be more electable.
And if Baird is in good with the next POTUS, I doubt he will worry about the Speaker being miffed at him. Heck, she might not even be his ‘boss’ then.
Baird may herein be doing the right thing for his country, his preferred Presidential candidate, and himself all by just telling the truth.
M.A.,
“The problem is that Bush doesn’t want to redeploy  ever. His whole strategy is based on the idea that we have to stay until we “win,†and since we cannot “win†an Iraqi civil war, that means we have to stay forever.”
I don’t know why this would scare you, even if you believed it. Bush won’t be in office in another year and a half. So if he wants us there forever is irrelevant; he can only influence what happens while he is President.
Unless you are one of those thinking that he is itching to pull a Chavez, in which case I suggest either quitting the shrooms if you’ve been partaking, or starting to if you have not.
Thanks to the 50 people who noted my deathly encounter with the quasi-homophone.
Sorry. I wouldn’t even have noticed, except Allah had that one line in his headlines.
You’re right, Al Franken and Rosie O’Donnell would do a shitty job of the Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail Redux. That’s why we’re counting on you, Jeff. Only you could do justice to the bit where the Silky Pony breaks down in bitter tears of despair and frustration, or describe the press plane after 37 days of following Her Thighness and her entourage. And, of course, the only beverage suitable for this assignment is Wild Turkey 101. It’s going to take several cases, plus all the red pills from all the sofa cushions. Maybe even adrenochrome [shudder]. But I’m sure you’ll do whatever it takes.
Jeff, you will need appropriate Council. I’m your man.
The conflict is not between people who want an abrupt withdrawal and those who don’t. It’s between people who want to think about leaving, and people like Bush who refuse to entertain the idea. Serious people want to find the best way to leave, America haters like Bush want us to stay forever, and thereby be defeated and humiliated.
Dude….pass that over here…it’s cool, I’m on vacation.
The best part of the Baird article comes in the final paragraphs where another Dem/Lefty demonstrates the rampant ignorance of her party as to what is really going on in Iraq.
“We do owe them something  reparations and help,” Crist said of the U.S. obligation to Iraqis. “But we are not good at delivering that through the military.”
Perhaps she should do a little research before she forms her opinons(http://charliefoxtrotblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/ignorance-on-iraq.html). But I think she formed her opinions on the military a long time ago…..
M.A., when the loudspeaker said to avoid the brown acid, you took it anyway didn’t you?
CF – I hadn’t read what Bowen had said about the Commander’s Emergency Response Program before. Nice post. But that word “reparations,” that carries some implications, some really sick ones.
But Democrats being reasonable on matters of war and security helps Hillary, who has not been off on an anti-war tirade and who voted for the war, be more electable.
Good point – Hence Jeff’s observation of the so-called “principled” nutroots will have no problem checking their integrity at the door thus revealing their opposition to the war to be callous opportunity based, not genuine – ie bullshit artists
Camp Zama – United States Army Japan is the Army Component Command of U.S. Forces Japan (USFJ)
Turns out U.S. troops are still in Japan, M.A.. How do you feel about that? Related questions: how come Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton didn’t bring those troops home? How come Barack Obama doesn’t want to bring those troops home now? How come Markos Zuniga doesn’t want to bring those troops home now?
(those are rhetorical questions, M.A., that means you don’t have to answer them)
[…] had to, that he would be judged and found wanting if he failed to. Similarly, these gents — Baird, Ellison, McNerney, Durbin, and Casey, among others — are speaking out because they feel they […]
For what it’s worth I don’t think there is a US politician that “hates America.” However, there are a shitload that, like my mother in law, are convinced that they could drive better than the person at the wheel and won’t shut the hell up about it. Sadly, we can’t stop the car and tell them to get out and walk so they can get a better appreciation for being along for the ride.
TW: universal grants: its what the prof’s slit throats for…
Bush “hates America”? Lord. I am not a big fan of this president’s policies, but what a moronic and absolutely stupid thing to say. You know I have never really heard anyone in the administration question anyone’s patriotism or love of country, but I do hear it a lot on the moonbat side. Fucking tards.
I agree, Bush does not “hate America.” That’s putting him in the Al Quaeda camp, and I think it’s a stretch at least. I suppose we will have to maintain bases and a presense in Iraq for many years. I am not stupid enough to think that’s a surprise; in my opinion, the whole enterprise was a calculated effort to establish an American presense in the region. It’s just that the pretense of a war was so badly handled. It was supposed to be so quick and easy, but it didn’t shake out that way. Now it’s left for future administrations to manage the aftermath. But we will certainly be there.
The fate of the Iraqi people has always been a snickering aside for this administration, in my opinion. That our honorable troops have to try and function under that cynical lap dance for the neocons is an outrage.
It was supposed to be so quick and easy, but it didn’t shake out that way.
Foreign policy doesn’t need to be high-calorie for your family to love it, you know.
How funny is that? Great rejoinder.
Yeah, well. It’s all I had really, and I’m having trouble pinning you down on this one. We agree on the Bush America hatred thing. I disagree with you with respect to the way you think the Administration regards the fate of the Iraqi people. How can you arrive there in contrast to how the Democrats regard the fate of the Iraqi people?
But here’s what I think. I think the Iraqis have been – you’ll love this – anointed. And inasmuch as it’s “Bush’s War,” they have been anointed by Bush. They have a destiny. It is these people that will prove or disprove the hypothesis that there is nothing intrinsic in Islamic cultures that precludes representative governance. It’s a huge responsibility that is nothing if not reflective of a deep respect for their ability to rise to it.
It is much expected statement from politicians, they always double standard. They used to change their views, even their beliefs according to the situation and to attract the voters. Baird also not differing for that category of politicians…
conservatories newcastle
“The fate of the Iraqi people has always been a snickering aside for this administration, in my opinion. That our honorable troops have to try and function under that cynical lap dance for the neocons is an outrage.”
So basically you are outraged by an opinion of the neocons largely formed by outrage, which you find outrageous, which makes you outraged, which makes you hate the neocons, whose actions you find outrageous because you hate them and they outrage you? Is that about right then?
Outrage is its own reward.