Immigration Worries Readers
Two very different treatises are drawing the attention of Readers Who Comment (RWC) today: one on the absence of political progress within Iraq, the other a David Broder column suggesting that immigration and a two-Clinton presidency are potential big problems for the Democrats.
The comments on the Broder column contain the usual impolite and personal attacks that all columnists endure, but also a number of intelligent observations about the central assertions: illegal immigration is a huge issue, and some Democrats are worried about the political cost of the prospect of having both Clintons in the White House. Fair game for any columnist, especially one who has never stopped being an outstanding reporter.
The Iraq story, by Tom Ricks, says that U.S. military officials are distressed that little political progress is being made by Iraq's Shiite dominated government at time when the so-called surge has produced sharp declines in attacks on both U.S. forces and Iraqi civilians. Our RWC take this opportunity to debate again the wisdom of the war, attack the administration for starting it, attack the central thesis of Ricks's article or assert that desire for oil was the real reason for starting the war, not the promotion of democracy in the Mideast.
We'll start with the Broder column. ked22 said, "...a whole column on election politics and no mention of the Iraq Occupation. I think we know who is getting burned out."
But Brittman1 wrote, "Broder is spot on, as usual. The bigger of the two issues is immigration. The GOP will bash Latinos in '08 just like they bashed gays in '04. The Dems blew it then, and they may blow it again next year. The GOP is the party of hate, and they're ready to start spewing it again."
johnycheng1 is one of several to make this point in writing, "Even though the Clintons are sharing the power in the White House, it can not be worse than the Bush and Cheney relationship Besides,HRC has been demonstrating again and again she is independent of her husband when it comes to important decision making process."
And chuckandbecky added, "We're coming to the end of a ghastly team presidency. What's the problem with having a competent and caring one?"
cjones210 asked, "...Even if Republicans can make immigration THE issue, why would anyone believe they have the answer to the problem? They had 6 years of total control of all three branches of our government (years since 9/11) and not only did they do nothing about immigration they did little or nothing to secure our countries borders, transportation systems, ports & borders and chemical plants.."
rwamail said that "The Democrats must respond to the question...why should US citizens pay for services provided to ILLEGAL ALIENS!"
jonawebb gets the last word today, saying, "I think the question about Bill Clinton being back in the White House has been asked over and over. And yes, if Hillary gets elected he will be. OK? Also, by the way, if Hillary gets elected the last four Presidents will all have been named either Bush or Clinton. I understand this bothers some people, who probably shouldn't vote for Hillary...Could we talk about something else?"
All comments on the Iraq story are here.
All comments on the Broder column are here.
Now to Iraq and the Tom Ricks story.
JohnTovar gets my comment of the week award for this, quoted in full: "What does this mean? are we wining or not?"
danieleteodoru was one of many raising the oil argument, saying, "...Remember when Maliki dared to suggest universal amnesty for Sunni and Shia insurgents and demanded a date certain for US withdrawal? These people can't understand that they are an obstruction standing on where we want to drill for OUR cheap oil with which to fill-er-up our SUVs..."
And bulkybob questions the validity of Ricks's reporting, asking, "How can this author say the core rationale for the troop surge is to create security for political action to exist, say that security gains are being made, yet call into question the ENTIRE rationale because the political action isn't strong enough YET?..."
walkman1956 offers an often-heard suggestion, writing, "get the hell out of Iraq and quit babysitting them,let them figure their own lives out..."
losthorizon10 said, "This is why the escalation of troops, oh, excuse me-- the "surge" is not working. The Iraq government is no closer to being independent than it was a year ago..."
And BrianX9, who seems to comment on every Iraq story, said, "This was a great article. Thanks to all contributors, named and not. The overarching question is:
Who will fix Iraq? Will it be the State Department, or the military, or the neighboring Sunni Arab states? There doesn't seem to be any consideration for the idea that Iraq is for Iraqis to run, to govern, to fix..."
ocayholidays said it is "...transparently dishonest to blame the Iraqis for the destabilising of their country resulting from the unprovoked murderous invasion led by the U.S.A. It will be several generations before the resulting social and material damage is completely repaired and the utterly inept, even savage, conduct of the U.S. military is merely exacerbating the situation. No wonder that the generals are seeking to blame the Iraqis for the mess..."
The article quotes an unnamed U.S. official as saying "We've got six months because the military is leaving" and PBosleySlogthrop thinks he has spotted a trend. He writes that "...Reading that line... reminded me of the countless times I have read or heard some senator or congressman or general or diplomat or journalist or pundit say, in effect, "we've got six months" or "the next six months are critical." I did a quick and dirty Google search and, sure enough, page after page of those "we've got six months" comments going back at least to 2005..."
We'll close on this topic with beth-wade, who wrote, "...I have a nephew-in-law who has just returned to Iraq for ANOTHER tour. I am NOT a happy camper. Yes, I will send love and packages. But I cannot protect him. I hate this war, both for the Iraqis and for our troops and for our country. I'd rather see those troops fighting our government, as politically active citizens, for the freedoms we have lost."
Posted by: fxsiptnifb | January 15, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: ycxvygnfuw | January 15, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: hogfuykwxh | January 14, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: iirvgiwiwc | January 12, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: cshsfawefg | December 28, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: ivxarruzge | December 16, 2007 9:22 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: wmb | November 16, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: mason | November 15, 2007 7:56 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: Angelo Mancuso | November 15, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: Dhananjay | November 15, 2007 4:17 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: Dr Coles | November 15, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: CRix | November 15, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: EAHarrison | November 15, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: H5N1 | November 15, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: HeavyJ | November 15, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: ljm | November 15, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: Ed Weirdness | November 15, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: lane filler | November 15, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.