Pollack Seeks F.U. For NOT Talking About Iraq

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 10:56:57 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Iraq Debacle and Surge supporter Ken Pollack, author of the 2002 book "The Case For Invading Iraq," not surprisingly wants Democrats to keep quiet about Iraq "until 2008":

[Q:] The Democratic candidates have been fighting among themselves over what to do. Your advice to the Democrats is what, to cool it until the election?
POLLACK: Certainly to cool it until early 2008. . . . We found the surge was definitely making some progress and in some areas it was making quite good progress.
But we’re also saying, “Look, it is very late in the day; Iraq is a deeply troubled country and dealing with its problems is going to take, not just a lot of savvy and a lot of resources, but also a lot of luck.” And therefore you can’t just simply say, “The surge is working, we’re done, we’re just going to let it continue on until it produces inevitable victory.” Because there’s no guarantee it’s going to produce inevitable victory. Therefore, you have to keep reassessing, and it may be that in early 2008, the progress we saw on this trip peters out. If it peters out, that’s important and that means you’re going to have to reassess.

Uh huh. How about we do this - how about Ken Pollack keeps quiet for about 6 months and then we can reassess that strategy in early 2008? If ANYTHING Ken Pollock has said proves true then he can talk some more. If instead, as has been the case for the past 5 years, everything he says is wrong again, then he keeps quiet for another 6 months. When we reassess.

These folks really have no sense of shame do they?

< Watching P*rn at Taxpayer Expense | Did Gonzales Commit A Crime? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Pollack Seeks F.U. For NOT Talking About Iraq | 19 comments (19 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I'm sure I've heard (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by andgarden on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:06:49 AM EST

Joe Lieberman say essentially the same thing before. "Stop talking about this; you're upsetting me!"

Occasionally, you're brilliant! (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by Ellie on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:28:33 PM EST

How about Ken Pollack keeps quiet for about 6 months and then we can reassess that strategy in early 2008?

If this caught on, it might even un-upside down society back to some semblance of normalcy.

It's certainly a more elegant proposal than perpetually telling the 75% of people who never wanted this endless war of lies to STFU for yet another corner-turning 6 mos.

Occasionally? (5.00 / 5) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:40:06 PM EST

: heh (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by andgarden on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:47:58 PM EST

Everytime there is any sort of (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 10:01:04 AM EST

discernable progress in Iraq it is always the stuff of crazy making in the long term. Whether it was Petraeus' Mosul in that early portion of the occupation or later the 3rd ACR's Tal Afar, no single small acheivement has meant anything to the overall stability of Iraq as a whole and all past achievements have crumbled in less time than it took for us to create it. Al Anbar happened because we left them alone and took ourselves out of the position of aggressor. I still believe to the bottom of my heart that an abuser can never directly deliver the people they have directly abused, America can never bring peace to Iraq because after the edge of desperation dulls Iraqis still must embrace these uniforms that tortured them, murdered them and called them collateral, and destroyed the very fabric of their society and their lives. If I were an Iraqi I could never do it. It would take a conscious continuous monitoring of self and constant internal debate to work with Americans, and that is after they won my mind.......they can never win my heart.......you can't rape, pillage and murder my people and ever have my heart. We can enable others to help Iraq but anything we ever directly bring to Iraq is covered with out own bloody fingerprints and can never honestly be respected by the Iraqi people. All they can do is submit to accepting our "gifts" while the bile rises in their throats. This emotional equation fueled by 250,000 Iraqi deaths will always equal fuel and fire for insurgencies attacking America as long as they remain there. I suppose politician won't get this though until they have broken the military to the point of needing a draft (which is just about where they are now) and the screaming and gnashing of teeth of the American people will finally wake them up, after sooooooo much chaos and death though......they should all be so ashamed but they won't be for a long time yet!

: I don't think Bush, Cheney, Rummy, and the other (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Aug 11, 2007 at 12:42:14 PM EST

assorted Neo-Cons are capable of feeling shame. They have proven that every day with their continued public appearances (including print and broadcast) with no acknolwdgement, not even a hint of an admission they were wrong; with their continued deadly inability to "rectify their errors of judgment" (how clincal that sounds) or offer any solutions.

The Baloons Problem (4.00 / 1) (#7)
by koshembos on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:51:18 PM EST

What is amazing about Pollack's approach is it naivety and simplistic manner. OK, so now we are doing great in province X. For him its a sign of progress. How can a person working for a highly sophisticated research organization as Brookings not know that the insurgents from province X reorganize and set up shop in province Y? Progress becomes suddenly retreat.

Then we come to to the victory or win. You win a game, a war or a bat. Our debacle in Iraq is none of these. It clearly isn't a war, because for a war we need two sides. Who is against us? Iraq, the Shiites, the Sunni, Syria or Iran? We are in a middle war where the Sunni fights the Shia we are just bystanders. Did you ever hear or see a baseball game where the bleachers won?

Then is the time argument. In 2005 a surge might reasonably require time. Now why should you get another year after you have lost all credit and are totally bankrupt? It seems as if Pollack is saying: it took us five years to think about this genius idea of adding soldiers, when we finally understood the problem please give us one more year.

Well geniuses, you can get exactly one finger.

: ADD Foreign Policy (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by manys on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 01:41:11 PM EST

Hey, Barry Bonds just broke the home run record, this means the Giants are the best team in the universe. Until they aren't.

Newt (none / 0) (#2)
by squeaky on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:34:44 AM EST

The Republican strategist singled out what he called President Bush's inability to communicate with the public about Iraq.
"We cannot get him to master the art that Reagan had and that Lincoln had, of talking to the American people in a form in which they are comfortable," Gingrich said.
"So my first advice to the President was, `Don't say anything anymore. Keep quiet.' Let General [David] Petraeus and [Iraq] Ambassador [Ryan] Crocker to speak for the country.'
"And then the Democrats in Congress have to decide are General Clinton and General Reid and General Pelosi really more knowledgeable than General Petraeus. It's very hard to go to the country and say I'm going to abandon the Americans in Iraq. It's very easy to go to the country and say George W. Bush is wrong."
Gingrich said the proper thing to do is to share the burden of Iraq with Democrats. "First thing I'd do is make it their problem," he said, by risking the leaks and offering full, weekly briefings to Congress.

heh (none / 0) (#8)
by manys on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 01:29:40 PM EST

Gingrich said the proper thing to do is to share the burden of Iraq with Democrats.

Brilliant, the man's a genius.


My Guess (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by squeaky on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:18:21 PM EST

Is that he is going to be the GOP candidate. He is a genius of sorts, unfortunately a genius along the lines of Rove.

As dishonest as they come.


Too many skeletons in the closet (none / 0) (#12)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:30:43 PM EST

then there is the arrogance and ego. I predict he won't be nominated, if he runs and if he were nominated it would be as a sacrifical lamb.

Hope You are Right (none / 0) (#13)
by squeaky on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 03:04:38 PM EST

But, it is not like the others are any better, either because of skeletons or slime.


Yeah I know, but Newt is special (none / 0) (#14)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 03:29:19 PM EST

I am not supersitious but I avoid thinking about who I'd rather run against, but this time, it would really be hard to figure out!

He's Nixonesque. Who would have (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by oculus on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 03:31:55 PM EST

guessed anyone would ever listen to him again?


It Seems (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by squeaky on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 03:46:47 PM EST

That Newt is waiting for the others to destroy themselves, which they seem to be doing a pretty good job of and then move in with a 'different' vison than Bush and the current contenders.

He is latest is that we have to become energy independent, implying that we invest more money in alternative energy sources. I do not believe him for a second, but many seem to.


: Everyone looks better until they announce (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 04:56:22 PM EST

Then the dirt begins to fly. And with Newtie...
Off our Off topic discussion, but does Mitt come off lookin as slick and sleazy as I think he does? He's a caricuture of the archtype used car salesmen crossed with Elmer Gantry and with a dose of Willie Gingrich

No they don't (none / 0) (#3)
by TexDem on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 12:26:07 PM EST

And they seem to have no memory about things they've said in the past either.

LOL (none / 0) (#10)
by Alien Abductee on Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 02:10:04 PM EST

(the "how about Ken Pollack keeps quiet for about 6 months and then we can reassess" part, not the shameless ongoing Debacle tragedy enabling to salve his own ego part)