Conclusions from Democratic “think-tankers” Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack about progress in Iraq:
"We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with."
Their report comes after 80 days in Iraq. Let’s just say that Democrats are not taking this “off message” stance very well. For example, take a look at this snippet from today Boston Globe article:
“House majority whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina was asked by the Washington Post what Democrats would think if Petraeus reports next month that the war is going well. “That would be a real big problem for us,” Clyburn candidly replied.”
This guy has balls of steel and absolutely no shame. I mean, he didn’t sugar coat it at all! The bottom line is that the Dems want and need us to fail in this war–this guy just made his position crystal clear.
So I ask, how in the hell can any reasonable red blooded american stand behind this man and his party?
So I ask, how in the hell can any reasonable red blooded american stand behind this man and his party? \
Because everyone with a 1/10 of a brain knows the war is not going to be won on the ground, even the soldiers will admit that… So we are now making progress on the ground battle, but the real battle is horribly lost, the political one… SO how can anyone support the group that got us to this point??? We can hardly leave in mass right now, yet there is no win to stay. SO we sacrafice more lives with no workable agenda for an end game. The surge in case you didn’t realise, was to buy time, not to win the war. None of the generals ever believed that was possible…
It’s explained in your first post- we’re doing better militarily, but not politically yet. We hope that doing better militarily will lead to political success.
Somewhere in here used to say that hope is not a plan, but what are ya gonna do?
"how…can any reasonable red blooded american stand behind this man and his party? "
Cannot speak for all other Americans, but this one thinks that rather than getting one’s “news” from Jeff Jacoby’s Op/Ed piece in the Globe, it may be better to actually go to the transcript of what Clyburn ACTUALLY said:
From WashPost online:
BALZ: What do Democrats do if General Petraeus comes in in September and says, “This is working very, very well at this point; we would be foolish to back away from it”?
CLYBURN: Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that, simply because of those 47 Blue Dogs. I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to remain united, as they have been, then it would be a problem for us.
So I think we, by and large, would do wise – be wise to wait on the report. None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq. If we are going to get in position to yield a good result, I think Democrats want to see that. We love this country. We’re as patriotic as anybody else about this. And we have loved ones involved in this issue just like everybody else. I’ve got family and friends involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so I certainly want to see a good result. But I’m certainly not going to just roll over because the president said. It is only because we get good intelligence from those people like General Petraeus who can be trusted to give us good information.
“Because everyone with a 1/10 of a brain knows the war is not going to be won on the ground, even the soldiers will admit that… So we are now making progress on the ground battle, but the real battle is horribly lost, the political one…”
I agree political stability is critical. But again, here some headway seems to be made recently:
“More good news came just this week in a breakthrough announced by Iraq’s top Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish politicians. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, President Jalal Talabani, Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi, Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi, and the Kurdish regional president, Massoud Barzani, are joining forces on legislation to settle some of the thorniest issues bedeviling Iraqi politics, including a national oil policy, an easing of de-Baathification, and the release of certain detainees.”
So do you agree that the Dems are fucked IF–and I will reiterate, IF–Iraq looks to be getting better, politically and/or on the ground?
So do you agree that the Dems are fucked IF–and I will reiterate, IF–Iraq looks to be getting better, politically and/or on the ground? \
No I will not. As someone just pointed out to you, your original assumption was based on something taken out of context. Go reread what he actually said, and you will see that he states clearly, that they want a good outcome for Iraq. You twisted your words from the op ed piece to suit your agenda. All Americans want a good outcome for Iraq, most just don’t believe that it is possible anymore. The political situation is basically doomed the way it stands, and unless the stragedy changes(like seperating Iraq into seperate regions, or making Iraq a dictatorship again) our military will be whipping a dead horse. The leaders can do all they want to now, there are so many factions and militias, that a consensus is never going to happen. Everyone knows we will be leaving eventually, that’s what Bush said, so they are all planning their power grab for when that happens. Until then, it is all lip service to get more weapons from us, and it is working…
So I ask, how in the hell can any reasonable red blooded american stand behind this man and his party?
That sure is a loaded question.
Sounds like you’re truly interested in a reasoned and respectful discussion. Or are you just trying to score some brownie points?
Ok, ok, that question IS loaded I know, but I am looking for answers to the posts original quesiton. What will the Democrats do if things get better?
they want a good outcome for Iraq. You twisted your words from the op ed piece to suit your agenda.
They might want a good outcome for Iraq, but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be politically screwed if it happened. (Not that I expect that to happen, either.) I don’t think his words needed much twisting, they were badly put together.
What he should have said was, “Yes, if we achieve success in Iraq, it might damage us Democrats politically. But that’s a small price to pay for victory, and it is not something that concerns us. We hope for that victory even if it means we lose badly in the next election cycle.” In other words, he should be putting it exactly as McCain phrases his support for the war effort- the political implications need to be very clearly subordinated to the national interests, and he didn’t really do that.
Should any Democrats be interested in more good advice on how to communicate, you know where to reach me.
I gave you the answer - Iraq isn’t going to get better, so no democrat is even thinking about what they will do if it does.
Let me ask you another question - what will Republicans do if the report from Patreus states that the surge is not working or only partially working? Confuse the goal? extend the deadline?
Anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has ordered a suspension of his Mehdi Army militia for up to six months for restructuring, a senior aide said Wednesday.
"I gave you the answer - Iraq isn’t going to get better, so no democrat is even thinking about what they will do if it does. ’
Actually your answering a question I didn’t ask, while simultaneously avoiding the one I did ask, so again I will ask you the straight-up simple question:
What will Dems do if things improve in Iraq?
Its not a trick question for christ sake, if you don’t want to answer just simply say “I’ll pass”, or, “I don’t know”, but don’t blow smoke up my arse pretending you gave me a legit answer. Again, its ok if you don’t have an opinion.