I didn't think Baird was a turncoat, just because he came to believe that we should stay there longer (you know where "there" is).

In fact, I believe that he was reacting rationally to a very bad situation, a nightmare in fact -- one that will follow us far, far beyond the time the Stupidest President Ever is back to cutting brush, and Cheney is in his grave. Such is the legacy the neocon Republicans have left us with -- a horrible, horrible albatross.

Yes, in many respects, I'm with Baird -- that we owe the Iraqis and that part of the world at least one more attempt at providing some security, IF we can, and within the limits of our capabilities (our now severely reduced military strength, and depleted budget, and the very dangerous indebtedness that Bush and the Republicans have put America into.)

But the moment I heard Baird refer to "those who want a precipitous withdrawal," I knew, he had picked up the Republican talking points. He spoke those words on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer this evening.

Few, very few are demanding a "precipitous" withdrawal. Yes, there are a couple demanding that we leave Right Now, but most people talk about STARTING the withdrawal. Nobody thinks we can do this tomorrow.

Baird, I gave you credit for your change of heart, but when you start criticizing your fellow Democrats with the "precipitous withdrawal" red herring talking point of the Republicans-- you have become a turncoat, with that single, simple phrase.

Pat

From an editorial in today's WSJ:

In the Hell Hath No Fury sweepstakes, groups like MoveOn.org are gearing up to take on a new set of perceived traitors in their midst--Democrats who have acknowledged some success from the troop surge in Iraq.

Chief among the targets is Washington Congressman Brian Baird, whose indiscretion was recognizing progress on the ground, despite having initially opposed the surge and having opposed the war in the first place. After a recent trip to Iraq, Mr. Baird said: "One of the things that gets very little attention is that virtually every other country I visited says it would be a mistake to pull out now."

We hope he took his flak jacket home from Baghdad. MoveOn is rolling out an ad this week in Mr. Baird's Washington district, in which a former soldier tells of being shot at in 2003 by the Iraqis he had fought to liberate and calls America's continued presence in the country "wrong, immoral and irresponsible." What does this have to do with the wisdom--or lack thereof--of the current strategy? Nada, which tells you something about MoveOn's honesty.

The group doesn't aim to engage in debate, but to punish and silence Democrats who dare to think for themselves. There's a pattern here: When John Dingell contradicted party orthodoxy on global warming and auto mileage standards this year, MoveOn ran ads in his Michigan district calling the 81-year-old Congressman "Dingellsaurus."

quote:

Originally posted by Coalage500:
From an editorial in today's WSJ:In the Hell Hath No Fury sweepstakes, groups like MoveOn.org are gearing up to take on a new set of perceived traitors in their mids

I really resent MoveOn.org putting advertisements out against him, though. It's a serious waste of MoveOn money.

It could be that I feel sympathetic -- I think we are morally bound to stay in Iraq for at least some more time -- as long as there is any PRACTICAL ability to make any changes, and if we can PRACTICALLY fund it. If not, we should get out.

And I think the onus needs to be put on Bush RIGHT NOW -- to START FUNDING TODAY'S WAR WITH TODAY'S
MONEY. Bush's tax cuts pamper the rich, and in the light of the war, they are IMPOVERISHING THE NEXT GENERATION.

My beef with Baird was that his words took on a right-wing-talking-points tone, when he implied that those Democrats who want to withdraw, expected to do so _immediately_ .. "precipitously," as the talking point goes. I really disliked him then and there for that, but, I have since modified back to liking him, at least to a certain extent, since I believe basically the same thing. I don't have to vote on him, though.

Pat

Both Brian Baird and Gordon Smith had segments on the Lars Larson show of Tues., 9/11/07.

Baird pretty much agreeing with Larson on the alleged efficacy of maintaining the U.S. presence (although Larson couches his argument in phrases such as "need to stay in Iraq for the defense of America" and "we've spent too much blood and trteasure to just pack up and leave"- Baird would not resort to such idiocy in order to justify maintaining the presence).

Gordon Smith, on the other hand, said, "80% of the problem is political and I've met with leaders of different factions and there's no talk of cooperation, rather just about getting the upper hand."

Baird staking out the extreme position on this as regards the NW delegation.

Baird's stance scares me. It makes me wonder what kind of arm twisting goes on behind the scenes. So many in Congress, Democrats and Republicans aren't making sense. The polls are against what they do and, yet, they do it anyway.

What is scaring them so much that they ignore their constituents and side with Bush and Cheney?

quote:

Originally posted by Becks:
What is scaring them so much that they ignore their constituents and side with Bush and Cheney?

You raise a good point, there. I don't know why anyone hasn't questioned Michael Hayden (CIA? I think?) or anyone else, directly, about if the _really_ believed that there was no political use of the warrantless wiretapping. Knowing what we know about the Atty Gen. scandal, and Alabama, Mississippi, Wisconsin, and New Jersey (ground zero on the manipulation of the attorneys general by Karl Rove et evil al, as has been gradually seeping out in the news), is there anybody in their right mind who would categorically say that at least _someone_ in this administration hasn't used the illegal wiretapping system to find some blackmailing dirt on some of our congressmen? I wouldn't put it past them. This is the most evil administration in history.

Pat