Edited on 11/4/06 to include my own “position statement.”

I am losing patience with liberals and conservatives. It seems as though both have forgotten that ideology is supposed to be about ideas and principles, not about two teams circling the wagons around “their guys” and trying to get “the other guys.”

So I’m issuing a challenge. I hope at least a few of you will take me up on it.

I challenge you to take a liberal or a conservative position on an issue of current national or international importance and to defend that position on the basis of ideas rather than partisan politics.

You may debate with each other, but you may not reply to someone else’s post until you have contributed at least one “position statement” of your own. Everyone needs to have some skin in the game.

I really hope this thread won’t end up empty. I think the national dialog has deteriorated to the point where each “side” is doing nothing but name-calling, and this is my small attempt to try to change that situation.

The rules apply to me as well. Here is my contribution:

I firmly believe that individuals should be called to account for their actions, and that results generally matter more than intentions. Our current administration in Washington has produced spectacularly awful results in Iraq through a combination of:

1. A reliance on foolish assumptions, such as the belief that our troops would be welcomed as liberators in an area of the world where we are largely hated.

2. An unwillingness to consider information that contradicted their thesis about Iraq, such as intelligence that cast doubt on the assertion that Iraq had been able to revive its WMD program back to a state of viability.

3. A refusal to benefit from the experience of battle-tested military commanders, resulting in appallingly bad tactics such as the decision to leave arms depots unguarded, which in essence helped arm the insurgency.

4. An inability to plan for the insurgency, which was a foreseeable consequence of toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime.

I believe we need fresh ideas and a better, more realistic perspective grounded in experience and an understanding of military history. As much as I loathe President Bush, I believe his resignation would be ill-timed. And I realize that the political reality is that Dick Cheney will not resign, even though I believe he should. Nevertheless, the President could go a long way towards remediating the situation in Iraq by cleaning house, starting with the firing of Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld should be replaced by Colin Powell.

Oh, yeah, I’m serious. Bush should get down on his knees and beg if need be. Powell has something that Rumsfeld lacks: credibility. Yes, Powell gave a speech in front of the U.N. making the case that Iraq had WMDs, even though he had his doubts. But at least Powell was able to admit afterwards that it was a mistake (he called it a “blot” on his record). Whereas Rumsfeld tells the press corps they need to “back off and relax” while our troops are dying in the desert sands of Iraq.

The only way this would work, however, would be if Powell were granted the level of respect and authority that Bush has so clearly given to Rumsfeld, a man who is clearly undeserving.

Powell is a strong yet unabrasive leader. He is unafraid to fight but believes we should be guided by our moral principles. His warnings to the administration demonstrate that his assessment of the situation in Iraq was far more clear-eyed and accurate than Rumsfeld’s. I believe if there is anyone who could help turn around the situation in Iraq, Powell is the man.

I doubt Mr. Stubborn-Pants Bush will even consider it. But I nevertheless believe it would be the right thing to do.