by Lee Stranahan
Sorta continuing the debate from the comments section about my Limbaugh piece, a few thought occurred to me. Some of this is a response to Bob's comment there but not all - I'm sure we'll get into this on the radio, too...especially the part about the 'chess game'. It's a good point but I draw the opposite conclusion.
I didn't want the Iraq war to be a big success. Now I do. The difference is simple and accurate - I opposed the Bush policy / ideology that was behind the war initially and I'm in favor of Obama's approach and strategy for ending the war...although the one issue that I haven't heard Obama address is the refugee crisis that we created in that region
I also think the desire to say "I opposed the war....but I REALLY hoped it would be a success!" is a lot more emblematic of the problems the Democratic party has faced for years. That's wimpy. Limbaugh may be a chickenhawk, but he's brave enough to plant a flag for a position be consistent with it.
The Iraq War was bad and wrong. Yeah, that can be twisted into 'you oppose the troops!' but there's NOTHING that can't be twisted. What's worse, I think, is to twist yourself.
I want to take motherhubbards like Limbaugh on squarely and cleanly, with no sideshow. There are two broad visions for America, roughly based on the Yin and Yang nature of our nation's founding. They are both 'patriotic' in that sense. I feel strongly that if we get past the patriotism pissing contest and just lay out the two visions without too much distortion, the good guys win. That's what happened in 2008, as I see it.
[BOB REPLIES: I very much disagree with Lee on this. My further remarks in the comments under this post.]