The Feingold Paradox

From the Opinion Journal, Sen. Feingold introduces us to his latest argument for cutting and running:

Al-Zarqawi's death . . . will not end the insurgency that has pushed Iraq into a violent downward spiral. . . . As long as large numbers of U.S. troops remain indefinitely in Iraq, that tragic death toll will continue to rise, because Iraq will remain a crucible for the recruitment and development of a wide range of terrorist networks determined to fight so-called American "occupiers." (emphasis added)

. . . .

A comprehensive strategy to fight terrorism must also address countries like Somalia. Failed states like Somalia are the breeding grounds for terrorism and instability (emphasis added).

Opinion Journal points out the weakness of the Feingold doctrine, but there is a neat paradox in Sen. Feingold's argument: If the U.S. abandons Iraq to the terrorists and Saddam loyalists in accordance with the Feingold doctrine, is it more or less likely that Iraq would become a "failed state"? Or is Sen. Feingold arguing the inconceivable, namely that if the U.S. cuts and runs, Iraq would become a thriving democracy? So, according to the Feingold paradox, U.S. presence and cooperation are "a crucible for the recruitment and development of a wide range of terrorist networks" and "failed states" (which is what Iraq would be if the U.S. followed the Feingold's cut-and-run doctrine) "are the breeding grounds for terrorism and instability." Got it: stay and cause terrorists recruitment and development or leave and cause terrorists breeding and instability. Only from the mind of a Democrat . . . .

RAGGED THOTS: Mighty White Of You, Pat

RAGGED THOTS nails Patrick Kennedy for his hypocrisy.

What I found most interesting was this: when Patrick Kennedy, Democrat, thought of and wanted to share an example of a common criminal, he thought and shared "African American in Anacostia." Is this ethnic stereotyping, racism or both? Could Tom Delay have used that example when he was booked, without getting lectured by the MSM and eventually explaining what he really meant?

Thank you Patrick K, for once again showing how liberal condescension breeds contempt.

UPDATE: I don't think I would categorize Kennedy's comments as racism, but I do think it highlights for the gazillionth time that (1) lefties are held to a different standard on comments such as these (e.g., if he were a righty, the MSM and other lefties would not hesitate to look into his heart and ascribe his comments to patent or latent racism); and (2) lefties do not feel the need to think about the underlying meaning of these sorts of stupid comments because they consider their ethnic/racial bona fides to be well established by their membership in the lefty class (e.g., Hollywood engages in more racial stereotyping in movies and television on a regular basis than practically any current institution on the planet, but Hollywood stills feels it can lecture the rest of America about how "progressive" and "enlightened" it is.)