Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1.    #1  
    This is a question I am sincerely looking for a left perspective on. PLEASE NO LEFT BASHING from right wingers and simply spewing AntiBush statements from the left, as I really am interested the left's (from moderate to far left) point of view.

    This last week I posted this:

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I agree there is a split among the left.....the Far Left and the Conservative Left.....concerning the redeployment or withdrawal from Iraq. And then there is a split among those who are Far Left and among those who are more central. Here is my personal observation:

    Split among the Far Left: There are those like Nancy and Murtha who call for immediate withdrawal and let Iraq fend for itself for the most part with limited support by us from within the region. Then there are others like you and Kerry who call for withdrawal based over a longer period of time, with some saying according to dates no matter what the situation is at the time while others are saying based on progress and positive goal marks.

    Split among conservative Left (and even ot a smaller degree within the central right as well): Those who want to withdrawal from Iraq because they feel we are losing the war. Those who want to redeploy because they feel we are progressing. Lieberman being the noted recent one on that side. It may sound like semantics, but it is a major difference because again one side would want to withdrawal set on dates no matter what the situation while the other side would redeploy based on meeting milestones within the progress of stabilizing Iraq and establishing the gov and it's security forces.

    With so many directions being published, stated, and rooted deep down by personal convictions, it is often hard to address one Left point of view without offending another's. I think this is true to a greatly reduced degree on the right as well when it comes to Iraq.
    Then this morning I read the following articles that seem to backup my basic observation:

    Democratic split on war
    By Bill Sammon
    December 2, 2005

    One day after President Bush gave a major speech outlining his plan for victory in Iraq, the Republican Party expressed delight that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi endorsed a pullout plan proposed by fellow Democratic Rep. John P. Murtha. Such a withdrawal is opposed by most Democrats, especially White House contenders and members of Congress facing competitive elections.

    "While Nancy Pelosi and the left wing adopt a defeatist position of retreat in Iraq, many other Democrats are scrambling to distance themselves from their pessimism," Republican National Committee spokesman Danny Diaz said yesterday.


    Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, in his portion of the Democratic Party's response to the president's speech, said he disagreed with Mr. Murtha's call for a withdrawal from Iraq. But yesterday, Mr. Kerry told NBC that America's "large presence is part of the problem."


    By sharpening the debate on Iraq, the president has also increased pressure on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who is widely regarded as the leading Democratic candidate for president in 2008. Mrs. Clinton, a lifelong liberal, opposes a pullout, which has angered her party's leftist base.


    Despite the overwhelming defeat, Mrs. Pelosi said Wednesday, "I'm endorsing what Mr. Murtha is saying. I believe that a majority of our caucus clearly supports Mr. Murtha."
    Yet the No. 2 Democrat in the House, Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, strongly disagreed with his leader.
    "I believe that a precipitous withdrawal of American forces in Iraq could lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists and damaging our nation's security and credibility," Mr. Hoyer said.


    Democrats find Iraq alternative elusive
    Party’s foreign policy experts differ on how to shift U.S. policy

    By Robin Wright

    Updated: 11:04 p.m. ET Dec. 4, 2005

    Around the country, many grass-roots Democrats are clamoring for a quick withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. On Capitol Hill, Democratic politicians have grown newly aggressive in denouncing the Bush administration's war strategy and outlining other options.

    But among the Democratic foreign-policy elite, dominated by people who previously served in the top ranks of government, there are stark differences -- and significant vagueness -- about a viable alternative.


    "I'm not prepared to lay out a detailed policy or strategy," said former U.N. ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke, who was widely considered the leading candidate to be secretary of state if Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) had won the presidency last year. "It's not something you can expect in a situation that is moving this fast and has the level of detail you're looking for."


    Highlighting the lack of consensus, some Democrats advocate withdrawing apace to change the dynamics in Iraq and the Middle East -- and to avoid getting bogged down or discrediting the United States. Others argue that it is a mistake to even talk about a timed drawdown. In between, still others propose an initial cut, while keeping a sizable force in Iraq or the region to promote stability and avoid repeating the Afghanistan debacle of the 1990s that helped produce Taliban rule.

    The biggest common denominator was the anguish of trying to define a Democratic alternative.


    Zbigniew Brzezinski is emerging as the most outspoken Democratic policymaker with an unambiguous alternative. He says it is time for Washington to "bite the bullet" and withdraw U.S. troops "rapidly," no later than the end of 2006. A more prolonged disengagement would put remaining U.S. troops in jeopardy.


    But three top strategists from the Clinton administration -- Holbrooke, former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright and former NATO commander Gen. Wesley K. Clark -- argue vehemently against imposing a deadline, timetable or politically driven drawdown on Iraq.


    Other Democrats have staked out various middle-ground approaches. James Steinberg wants the United States to limit the mission to training and more focused counterterrorism, while ceding the counterinsurgency against Sunnis to Iraq's military.


    The goal should also be prodding Iraqis to take more responsibility for their own security without waiting until they are "as fully capable as we hope they will be," said Chollet, 35, who has not served in a policymaking post but was foreign policy adviser to Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards.

    But even with his more aggressive approach to bringing troops home, Chollet does not favor timelines for complete withdrawal, and acknowledges "I don't know" when that will be.

    So my questions are simple.....

    1) From your left point of view, do you feel there is a simply multiple splits among the left at the moment or an element of chaos as the left attempt to develop their own alternatives in an attempt support their Bush critisims of Bush's plans for Iraq?

    2) Where do you fall among the left point of view concerning the timetable of withdrawal or redeployment?

    AGAIN: This is NOT a Bush Bashing thread! This NOT a Left bashing thread. I really want an honest personal left point of view on the Left without AntiBush proganda or Left Bashing spewing from either side.
  2. #2  
    I really think there are enough active Iraq threads in the OT forum. Try to keep the discussion in one of them.
    James Hromadka, TreoCentral Editor
    Houston - EST. 1836

Posting Permissions