Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Politics (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=260)
-   -   Still snatching defeat from the jaws of victory? (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=121620)

  • Aug 21, 2007, 02:08 PM
    speechlesstx
    Still snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
    By many accounts now the surge is working. Carl Levin just returned from Iraq and added his name to those who acknowledge this fact - to a point anyway. And yet, as I predicted a few days ago (I get it right once in a while) come September there's going to be one helluva fight over Iraq. John Kerry and friends intend to see to it there is a fight no matter what. From his latest email:

    Quote:

    Here's the reality this week: Karl Rove is gone but a broken Iraq policy remains.

    I'm not sure if I've ever seen a party cling so disastrously to a policy that is as wrong as it is unsuccessful.

    The pressure for change has been building day by day since I offered legislation last year to set a deadline to redeploy American troops, and still they insist on more of the same.

    So, we need to push even harder.

    This September we'll be attempting again to break the Republican roadblock on Iraq policy to get a new course.

    All summer, our friends at Americans Against Escalation in Iraq have been organizing in swing districts and states across the country to put even more pressure on Republicans to do what is right and break with the President.

    Now, next Tuesday August 28th, they and MoveOn.org will be holding events all around the United States to try to set the stage for the fights in September. These "End it in September" town halls and vigils will put even more pressure on Republicans, giving them lots to think about as they end their August recess in their home districts.

    You can go here to sign up to host an event, or find out about events in your area.

    It will be a big month ahead, and the chances of us getting a new direction are better than ever. A large event with lots of participation next week can set up our efforts for next month. We're getting closer; I can feel the mounting desperation in my Republican colleagues. But we have to make sure that any talk from them is backed up by real action. We won't stand for anything less than a firm deadline that will force this President to change policy.

    Do what you can to turn August 28th into the largest series of events yet in the fight for a new Iraq policy.


    I'll try to keep you updated when the legislation starts to move in September. It will be a busy month for the effort to get a new course in Iraq, so let's keep the pressure up on Republicans and get some movement on that.


    Sincerely,

    John Kerry
    Do we need any more evidence that the Democrats have no intention of even giving Petraeus' report a fair hearing?
  • Aug 21, 2007, 03:19 PM
    BABRAM
    "This September we'll be attempting again to break the Republican roadblock on Iraq policy to get a new course."

    Interesting subject. Some Republicans want a change in policy, as well. It's not just a majority of Democrats.


    Bobby
  • Aug 21, 2007, 03:41 PM
    Choux
    The White House is writing Gen. Petraeus' report. That means the report will be POLITICAL aka PROPAGANDA.

    In addition, try to remember that REPUBLICAN INCUMBENTS are scared to death of losing their seats in Congress because American citizens are AGAINST BUSH'S WAR OF ADVENTURISM AGAINST IRAQ and want the soldiers to STOP DYING IN THE LOSING CAUSE OF A *CIVIL WAR*. Republicans will be positioning themselves against the war for the 2008 election.
  • Aug 22, 2007, 04:23 AM
    tomder55
    Steve , Even Hillary said the surge was working and Joe Biden now says that it is important not to cut and run.

    Still I think the emphasis in Sept will not be the military course of the war but from the politics in Iraq. Besides the usual cookie cutter talking points that Choux gives us every time the subject comes up; the truth is that the Maliki government has until now dropped the ball .

    The whole point of the surge was to give him cover so he could initiate a change in policy which would begin to end the factionalism . I am not convinced yet that he is up to the task although there has been some hopeful signs . He has seemed until recently hopelessly beholden to al-Sadr and Iran .

    Former PM Ayad Allawi wrote a scathing op-ed about the Maliki government this week.

    washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

    He calls Iraq a "failing state" . He claims that Maliki is incapable of moving Iraq towards reconciliation .He may have a point given the number of high level resignations ,although he definitely overstates the problem . Also his solutions are based in fantasy ,;especially his call for greater international cooperation . He forgets that when the going got tough the UN bailed out. His call for Arab states to intervene is the worst idea from someone who claims to want an independent Iraqi state .It would weaken any attempt at factional unity .

    Anyway he should be making his case to the Iraqi people and not to the Americans . It sounds too much like a campaign op-ed to me.

    Maliki has as I mentioned above begun to show flexibility .He recently met with Sunni tribes in Tikrit appealing for unity .

    Quote:

    "There is more uniting us than dividing us," he told sheiks in Tikrit, 80 miles north of Baghdad. "We do not want to allow al-Qaeda and the militias to exist for our coming generations. Fighting terrorism gives us a way to unite."
    Iraqi PM tells Sunni tribes: 'We must unite' - USATODAY.com

    He also signed an accord with the Kurds and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council that commands the Badr Brigade, which has fought Sadr's forces in the south for control.So hopefully it is possible that al-Sadr has overplayed his influence.

    globeandmail.com: Kurds and Shiites ally to support al-Maliki

    None of this happens without the surge . NONE OF IT ! Maliki would continue to be a stooge for Iran and Iraq would eventually become a satellite state . General Petraeus ' influence goes much further than American boots on the ground. He and Ambassador Crocker have steered Maliki in this direction.

    This is where I think the next phase of the surge should concentrate. It appears the Sunnis are coming on board. But they have complained that security efforts too often concentrate on Sunnis while Shia militias continue to terrorize Sunni populations .That equation has to change .
  • Aug 22, 2007, 06:11 AM
    ETWolverine
    Chou,

    You, like John Kerry and the moveon.org/Michael Moore types, have already made up your mind about what the report will say before it has even been written.

    You have already decided, based on a Huffandstuff bloger's statements, that the Administration is going to be writing the report, not Patreus and his staff. Do you know that for a fact?

    You have already decided that, no matter what the report actually says, it will be propaganda and lies. Are you a mind-reader? Do you know the future? And if so, why are you wasting time here when you could be making a killing in the stock market?

    You have assumed that every Republican and Democrat who has acknowledged that there has been significant progress in Iraq, and all those who were in favor of a pullout before but are now in favor of waiting until we have more data are all wrong. Do you have better sources of information of what is going on in Iraq than they do? What's your security clearance level?

    It seems to me that YOU and John Kerry are the ones guilty of propaganda. You are already pushing an opinion on the report without even knowing what the report is going to say. You scream "Bush is a liar, Patreus is a puppet, the report is propaganda" from the highest mountains and we're supposed to believe that you aren't a propagandist?

    Why not wait and see what the report says before slamming it. At least then you will know what you are slamming.

    Better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open your mouth and confirm it.

    Elliot
  • Aug 22, 2007, 07:35 AM
    excon
    Hello:

    The war IS/WAS lost. You can't win a war that you've already lost I don't care how many "surges" you do. It's a civil war. The government is on vacation while our boys DIE.

    I want OUT - NOW!!

    excon
  • Aug 22, 2007, 08:13 AM
    ETWolverine
    Excon,

    So... even if we win every battle, get rid of every terrorist in Iraq, and stop the factional infighting, we will still have lost the war? Because it is "already lost"?

    Boy, I'm glad that General George Washington didn't have you on his staff. Washington lost more battles than he won, and gained most of his command experience in the field by losing battles. Prior to winning at Saratoga, Washington lost in Long Island, Germantown, Brandywine and practically every other major battle in which he was engaged. After losing a quarter of his forces during the winter in Valley Forge, the entire future of the Continental Army was in doubt. Nobody thought, at that point, that we could possibly win the war. If we had taken YOUR advice that "we can't win a war that is already lost" we'd still be eating crumpets, drinking over-taxed tea, and singing "G-d Save the Queen".

    A war isn't lost until one side or the other can't fight anymore and either surrenders or dies. The USA hasn't lost in Iraq. The Iraqis haven't lost in Iraq. The fighting continues, the enemy is dying or being captured, and fewer attacks against ou allies, civilian and military, are taking place. The enemy hasn't lost yet, but they certainly aren't winning either.

    "I find your lack of faith disturbing." --- Darth Vader
  • Aug 22, 2007, 08:31 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine
    So... even if we win every battle, get rid of every terrorist in Iraq, and stop the factional infighting, we will still have lost the war?

    Hello El:

    The key word you used is "if". Come on, El. IF the fantasy future you believe is possible NOW, it WAS possible from the beginning. It DIDN'T happen then when it COULD have and SHOULD have, plus Bush has been given more than ONE chance at it already. The country is done playing "let's hope".

    The defeat, at this juncture, is a political one for sure. But, Bush DID have his opportunities to win militarily, though - lots of them. He's his own worst enemy.

    Probably, if the people knew how badly George Washington was doing when HE was fighting the revolution, we'd still have a king. Communication then wasn't what it IS in our day. If you want to blame the defeat on modernization, that's cool. Certainly, you're going to blame the defeat on the Democrats.

    The plain truth of the matter is that George Bush lost this war. You can spin it anyway you please, and I'm certain you will.

    excon
  • Aug 22, 2007, 08:31 AM
    CaptainRich
    Let's not forget the potential consequence of our abandoning the region, when the option is to let radical militants gain possession of vital resources: did I say OIL?

    I'm not too sure everybody is on board with the idea that if the regional control fell into the wrong hands, and I'm sure it would, we would not be the only nation that would suffer. Heck, as we moved into Iraq because their leadership had invaded Kuwait, Sadam had his own country set ablaze!

    Current conditions at the UN haven't been fruitful. They have tied our hands and kept the effort subdued. I don't know why.

    We are the only peoples on the face of this planet that has the means and the where-with-all to control events in a manner that would allow any similation of regional stability.

    And I, for one, don't want them following us home, tail between our legs.
  • Aug 22, 2007, 08:31 AM
    tomder55
    I'm sorry.. I can't resist

    "Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! "
  • Aug 22, 2007, 08:33 AM
    CaptainRich
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon
    Hello El:

    The key word you used is "if". Come on, El. IF the fantasy future you believe is possible NOW, it WAS possible from the beginning. It DIDN'T happen then when it COULD have and SHOULD have, and he’s been given more than ONE chance at it already. The country is done playing "let's hope".

    The defeat, at this juncture, is a political one for sure. But, Bush DID have his opportunities to win militarily, though - lots of them. He's his own worst enemy.

    Probably, if the people knew how badly George Washington was doing when HE was fighting the revolution, we'd still have a king. Communication then wasn't what it IS in our day. If you wanna blame the defeat on modernization, that's cool. Certainly, you're gonna blame the defeat on the Democrats.

    The plain truth of the matter is that George Bush lost this war. You can spin it anyway you please, and I'm certain you will.

    excon

    Bush didn't lose this war any more than Clinton did when he let the US down after "they" attempted to assault the Twins the first time.
  • Aug 22, 2007, 08:45 AM
    excon
    Hello Captain:

    I don't care if you blame Clinton. He sucks the big one too. That does NOT make me feel better about Bush's defeat.

    And, I'm well aware of the terrible, terrible future this defeat is going to bring to the region, and to US. As your fellow wingers will tell you, I'm not dovish on the region...

    excon

    PS> Yes tom, we lost when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.
  • Aug 22, 2007, 08:49 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BABRAM
    "This September we'll be attempting again to break the Republican roadblock on Iraq policy to get a new course."

    Interesting subject. Some Republicans want a change in policy, as well. It's not just a majority of Democrats.

    Fortunately, most Republicans don't want that change to be a policy of surrender.
  • Aug 22, 2007, 08:57 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Choux
    The White House is writing Gen. Petraeus' report. That means the report will be POLITICAL aka PROPAGANDA.

    A propagandist complaining of propaganda. Ain't that something?

    Quote:

    In addition, try to remember that REPUBLICAN INCUMBENTS are scared to death of losing their seats in Congress
    As Kerry's message shows and the Democrats admit, they are no more concerned about losing their seats than the left is about Bush having success in Iraq.
  • Aug 22, 2007, 09:00 AM
    excon
    Hello again:

    Here's the worst part of this whole thing. We've got the best military in the world. We've got fighting men who DON'T give up. They follow their orders. They WIN their battles.

    But, the battles they've been ordered to fight haven't been the right ones, or they gave back the territory after they won it. I've been in the military. You don't win a war by doing that.

    Now, if we lost because our boy's just weren't good enough, that's one thing. But losing because your commanders are stupid is unforgivable.

    You are all right. There will be a heavy price to pay for it.

    excon
  • Aug 22, 2007, 09:15 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55
    None of this happens without the surge . NONE OF IT ! Maliki would continue to be a stooge for Iran and Iraq would eventually become a satellite state . General Petraeus ' influence goes much further than American boots on the ground. He and Ambassador Crocker have steered Maliki in this direction.

    This is where I think the next phase of the surge should concentrate. It appears the Sunnis are coming on board. But they have complained that security efforts too often concentrate on Sunnis while Shia militias continue to terrorize Sunni populations .That equation has to change .

    As always a thorough analysis. Good job, tom. Speaking of the UN and other developments (has the left been clamoring for the UN to solve this like everything else?)...

    After the Bush administration pressed for weeks, Security Council Approves Resolution Widening UN Role in Iraq. Isn't that part of the "political solution" the Dems have been demanding?

    Mookie welcomed this news - conditionally:

    Quote:

    'I would support the U.N. here in Iraq if it comes and replaces the American and British occupiers,' he said. 'If the U.N. comes here to truly help the Iraqi people, they will receive our help in their work.'
    Since the UN's announcement, France 'more involved' in Iraq

    Quote:

    Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, arrived in Baghdad last night to deliver an unprecedented show of support for Iraq's beleaguered government.

    It is the first visit by a French cabinet minister since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was vigorously opposed by Jacques Chirac, the former president.

    An Iraqi official said that Mr Kouchner was the "most important VIP" to arrive in the Iraqi capital this year, outranking earlier trips by Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, as well as Cheney, the US vice-president.
    I'll leave the analysis of that one to you.
  • Aug 22, 2007, 09:19 AM
    BABRAM
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx
    Fortunately, most Republicans don't want that change to be a policy of surrender.

    Of course. But that has already proven to change with time and as reality sinks in.


    Bobby
  • Aug 22, 2007, 09:26 AM
    CaptainRich
    excon, I'm not either, you seemed to have missed my point.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by CaptainRich
    Let's not forget the potential consequence of our abandoning the region, when the option is to let radical militants gain possession of vital resources: did I say OIL?

    I'm not too sure everybody is on board with the idea that if the regional control fell into the wrong hands, and I'm sure it would, we would not be the only nation that would suffer. Heck, as we moved into Iraq because their leadership had invaded Kuwait, Sadam had his own country set ablaze!

    Current conditions at the UN haven't been fruitful. They have tied our hands and kept the effort subdued. I don't know why.

    We are the only peoples on the face of this planet that has the means and the where-with-all to control events in a manner that would allow any similation of regional stability.

    And I, for one, don't want them following us home, tail between our legs.

    ... so long as there are no bombs dropping on my street..
  • Aug 22, 2007, 09:32 AM
    BABRAM
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon
    Hello again:

    Here’s the worst part of this whole thing. We’ve got the best military in the world. We’ve got fighting men who DON’T give up. They follow their orders. They WIN their battles.

    But, the battles they’ve been ordered to fight haven’t been the right ones, or they gave back the territory after they won it. I’ve been in the military. You don’t win a war by doing that.

    Now, if we lost because our boy’s just weren’t good enough, that’s one thing. But losing because your commanders are stupid is unforgivable.

    You are all right. There will be a heavy price to pay for it.

    excon



    And I'll vouch that Excon speaks from experience. This has nothing to do with General George Washington and some two hundred and thirty years ago. Not even close. This has to do with Commander-in-Chief George Bush that may mean well (and I believe he does), but he has placed us in a poor predicament a long ways from home.



    Bobby
  • Aug 22, 2007, 09:33 AM
    ordinaryguy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55
    It appears the Sunnis are coming on board. But they have complained that security efforts too often concentrate on Sunnis while Shia militias continue to terrorize Sunni populations .That equation has to change .

    The Sunnis are coming on board because they've realized that they can get arms from the US if they help get rid of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, who they never liked that much to begin with because they are foreigners. After AQM is gone, those arms will be used in the struggle to regain the Sunnis' "rightful" place as rulers over the Shiites. The Shiia-Sunni civil war is going to continue whether the US is in the middle of it or not. Putting ourselves in the middle only guarantees that both sides will hate us.

    This Op Ed piece The War as We Saw It gives a grunt's view of what's going on, and I trust it far more than what the generals and polititians are saying. A couple of excerpts:
    Quote:

    The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.

    A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.
    Quote:

    Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.

    However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.
    Quote:

    In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

    Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.
  • Aug 22, 2007, 09:33 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BABRAM
    Of course. But it's already proven to change with time.

    Bobby, how so? Voinovich, Lugar, Alexander, Domenici, maybe a few others? And what exactly do they mean by "change," surrender? I don't think so.
  • Aug 22, 2007, 09:48 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55
    I'm sorry ..I can't resist

    "Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! "


    Otter: Germans?
    Boon: Forget it, he's on a roll.

    I love that film.
  • Aug 22, 2007, 09:50 AM
    BABRAM
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx
    Bobby, how so? Voinovich, Lugar, Alexander, Domenici, maybe a few others? And what exactly do they mean by "change," surrender? I don't think so.



    George Bush needs to surrender his ideology. Let's say for discussion that Bush's elected replacement is a Republican and carries on this war campaign on the current course for another ten years. Tell me Steve, what do you think Iraq will be like five years after we eventually leave?



    Bobby
  • Aug 22, 2007, 10:01 AM
    speechlesstx
    The Washington Compost printed an interesting article on the Democrat shifts today, Democrats Refocus Message on Iraq After Military Gains.

    Quote:

    Democratic leaders in Congress had planned to use August recess to raise the heat on Republicans to break with President Bush on the Iraq war. Instead, Democrats have been forced to recalibrate their own message in the face of recent positive signs on the security front, increasingly focusing their criticisms on what those military gains have not achieved: reconciliation among Iraq's diverse political factions.

    And now the Democrats, along with wavering Republicans, will face an advertising blitz from Bush supporters determined to remain on offense. A new pressure group, Freedom's Watch, will unveil a month-long, $15 million television, radio and grass-roots campaign today designed to shore up support for Bush's policies before the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, lays out a White House assessment of the war's progress. The first installment of Petraeus's testimony is scheduled to be delivered before the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees on the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a fact both the administration and congressional Democrats say is simply a scheduling coincidence.

    The leading Democratic candidates for the White House have fallen into line with the campaign to praise military progress while excoriating Iraqi leaders for their unwillingness to reach political accommodations that could end the sectarian warfare.

    "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Anbar province, it's working," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Monday.

    "My assessment is that if we put an additional 30,000 of our troops into Baghdad, that's going to quell some of the violence in the short term," Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) echoed in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. "I don't think there's any doubt that as long as U.S. troops are present that they are going to be doing outstanding work."...

    For Democratic congressional leaders, the dog days of August are looking anything but quiet. Having failed twice to crack GOP opposition and force a major change in war policy, Democrats risk further alienating their restive supporters if the September showdown again ends in stalemate. House Democratic leaders held an early morning conference call yesterday with House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), honing a new message: Of course an influx of U.S. troops has improved security in Iraq, but without any progress on political reconciliation, the sweat and blood of American forces has been for naught.

    Advisers to both said theirs were political as well as substantive statements, part of a broader Democratic effort to frame Petraeus's report before it is released next month by preemptively acknowledging some military success in the region. Aides to several Senate Democrats said they expect that to be a recurring theme in the coming weeks, as lawmakers return to hear Petraeus's testimony and to possibly take up a defense authorization bill and related amendments on the war.

    For Democratic congressional leaders, the dog days of August are looking anything but quiet. Having failed twice to crack GOP opposition and force a major change in war policy, Democrats risk further alienating their restive supporters if the September showdown again ends in stalemate. House Democratic leaders held an early morning conference call yesterday with House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), honing a new message: Of course an influx of U.S. troops has improved security in Iraq, but without any progress on political reconciliation, the sweat and blood of American forces has been for naught.

    House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) made a round of calls yesterday to freshman Democrats, some of whom recently returned from trips to Iraq and made news with their positive comments on military progress. "I'm not finding any wobbliness on the war -- at all," Emanuel said.

    The burst of effort has been striking, if only because Democrats left for their August recess confident that Republicans would be on the defensive by now. Instead, the GOP has gone on the attack. The new privately funded ad campaign, to run in 20 states, features a gut-level appeal from Iraq war veterans and the families of fallen soldiers, pleading: "It's no time to quit. It's no time for politics."

    "For people who believe in peace through strength, the cavalry is coming," said Ari Fleischer, a former Bush White House press secretary who is helping to head Freedom's Watch.

    GOP leaders have latched on to positive comments from Democrats -- often out of context -- to portray the congressional majority as splintering. Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.), an Armed Services Committee member who is close to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said many of her colleagues learned a hard lesson from the Republican campaign.

    "I don't know of anybody who isn't desperately supportive of the military," she said. "People want to say positive things. But it's difficult to say positive things in this environment and not have some snarky apologist for the White House turn it into some clipped phraseology that looks like support for the president's policies."

    Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.), who made waves when he returned from Iraq by saying he was willing to be more flexible on troop withdrawal timelines, issued a statement to constituents "setting the record straight."

    "I am firmly in favor of withdrawing troops on a timeline that includes both a definite start date and a definite end date," he wrote on his Web site.

    But in an interview yesterday, McNerney made clear his views have shifted since returning from Iraq.
    He said Democrats should be willing to negotiate with the generals in Iraq over just how much more time they might need. And, he said, Democrats should move beyond their confrontational approach, away from tough-minded, partisan withdrawal resolutions, to be more conciliatory with Republicans who might also be looking for a way out of the war.

    "We should sit down with Republicans, see what would be acceptable to them to end the war and present it to the president, start negotiating from the beginning," he said, adding, "I don't know what the [Democratic] leadership is thinking. Sometimes they've done things that are beyond me."

    In the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination, former senator John Edwards issued a scathing attack on Clinton's remark. But he said there has been "progress in Al-Anbar province."

    "Senator Clinton's view that the President's Iraq policy is 'working' is another instance of a Washington politician trying to have it both ways," Edwards campaign manager David Bonior said in a statement. "You cannot be for the President's strategy in Iraq but against the war. The American people deserve straight talk and real answers on Iraq, not double-speak, triangulation, or political positioning."
    There's enough there to chew on for a while.
  • Aug 22, 2007, 10:08 AM
    Dark_crow
    In a July 30 New York Times Op-Ed article, “A War We Just Might Win.”

    As of late:
    Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Calif. “If anything, I’m more willing to find a way forward.”

    Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-Fla. [the surge] “has really made a difference and really has gotten al-Qaida on their heels.”

    Brian Baird, D-Wash. [he will no longer support measures to set a deadline for troop withdrawal, because] “We are making real and tangible progress on the ground.”

    There does seem to be a Democrat “Surge” too.
  • Aug 22, 2007, 10:08 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    This Op Ed piece The War as We Saw It gives a grunt's view of what's going on, and I trust it far more than what the generals and polititians are saying.
    First I'd like to thank them for their service and wish Staff Sergeant Murphy a speedy recovery .

    If I'm not mistaken the 82nd Airborne ;as fine a unit as our military has ;is stationed in and around Sadr City presently . This may give them a limited view of a subsection of the battlefield in their ancedotal account ,but hardly a birds-eye view of the theater .Nor do I believe they have the expertise to judge the effectiveness of the surge beyond the neighborhood they occupy.In my post I clearly say that the areas controlled by al-Sadr have not been addressed as of yet but that I believe a time of reckoning is at hand .

    They write about things that they would have no first hand experience or knowledge of, even to go as far as to criticize us for refugees still living outside the country's borders, which obviously they can't verify.

    Certainly if I'm to listen to the opinion of the troops then I should take into account the opinions of all of the troops and not just this select few . Here are some vets of the war with opposing views to the one presented in the op-ed.

    Print Article

    Vets For Freedom



    That being said they do make a couple of comments I agree with in the article and it was the main focus of my reply

    Quote:

    Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux...

    Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers.
    Like I said ,the purpose of the surge is to give cover to the politicians so that a political settlement can be obtained. It certainly doesn't foster a stable environment when the politicians in Washington keep threatening to pull the rug out.
  • Aug 22, 2007, 10:12 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BABRAM
    George Bush needs to surrender his ideology. Let's say for discussion that Bush's elected replacement is a Republican and carries on this war campaign on the current course for another ten years. Tell me Steve, what do you think Iraq will be like five years after we eventually leave?

    And what ideology is that Bobby, give no quarter to terrorists? Anyone who complains of that ideology is a fool. And tell me, do you seriously think the future Democratic nominee intends on leaving Iraq?
  • Aug 22, 2007, 10:19 AM
    BABRAM
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx
    And what ideology is that Bobby, give no quarter to terrorists? Anyone who complains of that ideology is a fool. And tell me, do you seriously think the future Democratic nominee intends on leaving Iraq?



    Steve, this marks the second post in consective days that you avoided answering my questions. I really prefer to have discussions.


    Bobby
  • Aug 22, 2007, 10:27 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon
    Hello again:

    Here’s the worst part of this whole thing. We’ve got the best military in the world. We’ve got fighting men who DON’T give up. They follow their orders. They WIN their battles.

    But, the battles they’ve been ordered to fight haven’t been the right ones, or they gave back the territory after they won it. I’ve been in the military. You don’t win a war by doing that.

    I quite agree. Then it's a good thing that Patreus isn't doing that anymore, isn't it.

    So... if we were only "losing" because we were giving back what we took, and now we aren't doing that anymore, doesn't that mean we aren't losing anymore, even according to your definition?

    Quote:

    You are all right. There will be a heavy price to pay for it.

    Excon
    Only if we cut and run.
  • Aug 22, 2007, 10:43 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    speechlesstx agrees: That seems to be all these people can come up with. If I had a dollar for every time I heard or read "Bush lied"... I just googled Bush lied and got "about 2,330,000" hits.
    That doesn't tell you anything? Nothing at all?
  • Aug 22, 2007, 10:50 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx
    And what ideology is that Bobby, give no quarter to terrorists? Anyone who complains of that ideology is a fool. And tell me, do you seriously think the future Democratic nominee intends on leaving Iraq?

    You are assuming our military will leave, Bobby. Please keep in mind that we are still in Germany and Japan, even though those conflicts ended 60 years ago. An assumption that we will completely leave is one that I would take with a grain of salt.

    That said, assuming we stay in Iraq until the security situation is stabilized and the government is taking control, in five years we SHOULD be seeing a country somewhat similar to Japan in 1955... a safe haven for the US military during operations in other parts of the Middle East, a growing economy, etc. We should also see a decrease (not an elimination) of anti-American feelings in Iraq. Look at post-WWII Japan, and that is roughly what I think we will see from Iraq five years after a military pullout/end of hostilities, if we are successful in our mission there.

    Please note that there is other precedent for this sort of development. After Rome conquered a nation, within a few years, the citizens of the conquered nation became Roman citizens and the Romans made their lives generally better than they had been. The hatred of their Roman oppressors generally wore off after a while as the economic advantages to being a Roman city/state became apparent.

    Ghenghis Khan decimated whole cities in his conquest of the world. Millions died from his brutal methods of making war. But after he conquered them, he re-established legal systems, trade routes and even health care facilities in his conquered city/states. And the hatred of the oppressors eventually fell by the wayside as the advantages of having Ghenghis Khan as a protector became evident.

    There is no reason to believe that, if we are successful in stabilizing Iraq, helping their government do their jobs, and helping grow the economy, the result would be any different than it was for Rome, Greece, ancient Persia, England, and even Post WWII USA over Germany and Japan, and every other successful conqueror in history. They'll hate us in the short term, but in the long term, they'll get over it and see the advantages of working with us.

    That is what I see happening in Iraq five years AFTER we leave, if we are successful at our mission BEFORE we leave.

    Elliot
  • Aug 22, 2007, 10:54 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma
    [url="https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/../members/speechlesstx.html"]That doesn't tell you anything? Nothing at all?

    It tells me that 2 million fools are parroting the "Bush Lied" line without knowing what they are talking about. They don't know what lies he's supposed to have told, much less whether they really were lies or not.

    Elliot
  • Aug 22, 2007, 10:57 AM
    NeedKarma
    Wow, talk about living in a vacuum. :D
  • Aug 22, 2007, 10:57 AM
    excon
    Hello again, El:

    I think we're talking about two different things... Not surprising, really.

    There are two wars going on. One is being fought over there. One is being fought over here. You're talking about the one over there. I don't disagree with you, that after having our a$$'s handed to us for YEARS, we're FINALLY getting the message. It's about time, doncha think?? It's YOUR guy who's responsible for ALL the losses. ALL of 'em. Shame on him...

    Remember when he said we won... I do. He was declaring a political victory. That was all. Certainly he didn't declare a military victory, or we wouldn't still be fighting. No, it was political... And it was wrong...

    Now comes the nation. This nation, if you've been listening, has declared that we lost, just like the nation did in 1968. What was happening on the ground "over there", didn't matter any more, just like it doesn't matter what Patraus is going to say. We've heard it before.. You know, the P word (progress). But it mattered to the thousands of soldiers who gave their lives in Vietnam AFTER the war was lost. And it's going to matter to all the soldiers who WILL give their lives in this war until political reality takes over.

    Is it a shame?? It is. Is it dangerous for us?? It is. Did Bush lose it? He did. You and O'Reilly can call it whatever you like, and you can blame everybody else, as you will.

    excon
  • Aug 22, 2007, 11:05 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BABRAM
    Steve, this marks the second post in consective days that you avoided answering my questions. I really prefer to have discussions.

    Really now? I asked "Do we need any more evidence that the Democrats have no intention of even giving Petraeus' report a fair hearing?" You answered:

    Quote:

    Interesting subject. Some Republicans want a change in policy, as well. It's not just a majority of Democrats.
    Seems like you avoided my question first. It would be difficult for Bush's successor to continue the current war campaign for another 10 years. Secondly, the more pertinent question is what will Iraq look like if we leave now, next month or next spring? That would most certainly have disastrous consequences for both the Iraqi people and the entire free world. We could just rename Iraq Jihadistan and get our burqas and falafel ready.
  • Aug 22, 2007, 11:09 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma
    [URL="https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/../members/speechlesstx.html"]That doesn't tell you anything? Nothing at all?

    From the ones I've read it tells me there are an awful lot of deluded people out there that want us to believe "Bush lied" but they don't want to tell us exactly what those lies were.
  • Aug 22, 2007, 11:13 AM
    NeedKarma
    Youtube? Crooksandliars? The internet is FULL of people exposing the lies. I agree that there are plenty of deluded people.
  • Aug 22, 2007, 11:14 AM
    Dark_crow
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon
    Hello again, El:


    There are two wars going on. One is being fought over there. One is being fought over here. excon

    Exactly: Which bears out my theory that foreign policy cannot persist against domestic policy in a free democracy. Viet nam clearly showed this, and Hitler noted this, and that is why he turned to fascism.
  • Aug 22, 2007, 11:19 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon
    Hello again, El:

    I think we're talking about two different things..... Not surprising, really.

    There are two wars going on. One is being fought over there. One is being fought over here. You're talking about the one over there. I don't disagree with you, that after having our a$$'s handed to us for YEARS, we're FINALLY getting the message. It's about time, doncha think??? It's YOUR guy who's responsible for ALL the losses. ALL of 'em. Shame on him......

    Remember when he said we won.... I do. He was declaring a political victory. That was all. Certainly he didn't declare a military victory, or we wouldn't still be fighting. No, it was political..... And it was wrong...

    Now comes the nation. This nation, if you've been listening, has declared that we lost, just like the nation did in 1968. What was happening on the ground "over there", didn't matter any more, just like it doesn’t matter what Patraus is gonna say. We’ve heard it before.. You know, the P word (progress). But it mattered to the thousands of soldiers who gave their lives in Vietnat AFTER the war was lost. And it's gonna matter to all the soldiers who WILL give their lives in this war until political reality takes over.

    Is it a shame??? It is. Is it dangerous for us??? It is. Did Bush lose it?? He did. You and O'Reilly can call it whatever you like, and you can blame everybody else, as you will.

    excon

    I wonder if you would have felt the same way as you do now if we had won the war in Vietnam? If we had done the job as we should have... that is, taken and kept the land, killed the enemy, gone full out, beaten North Vietnam and the VC both politically and militarily, and had the support of Congress and the people back home... would you still feel the same as you do now about the war in Iraq? Would you still be advocating for a pullout, or would you instead be telling both parties in Congress to get behind the troops and support the war?

    You are looking at Iraq through Vietnamese-colored lenses. I am looking at Iraq from the current strategic and tactical picture. And because of that, we naturally have different opinions.

    Vietnam was decades ago, Excon. Things are different today. We have a better army, better training, better equipment, lower casualty rates, better support from the indiginous people, and we finally have a general who is kicking a$$ and not bothering to take names.

    The only thing that is the same is the POLITICAL situation back home. Even you have stated that we are winning on the ground in Iraq. The only thing holding us back from victory, by your own admission, is the anti-war political faction back home. Your solution to that is to agree with the anti-war political faction and call for a pullout. My solution is either defeat or convert that faction to my way of thinking and support the war and the troops. Yours is a defeatist stance that says "we can't win even if we win". Mine is an offensive position that promotes victory.

    As Steve put it, your stance snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. He titled this question quite well.

    Elliot
  • Aug 22, 2007, 11:33 AM
    BABRAM
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine
    You are assuming our military will leave, Bobby. Please keep in mind that we are still in Germany and Japan, even though those conflicts ended 60 years ago. An assumption that we will completely leave is one that I would take with a grain of salt.

    That said, assuming we stay in Iraq until the security situation is stabilized and the government is taking control, in five years we SHOULD be seeing a country somewhat similar to Japan in 1955... a safe haven for the US military during operations in other parts of the Middle East, a growing economy, etc. We should also see a decrease (not an elimination) of anti-American feelings in Iraq. Look at post-WWII Japan, and that is roughly what I think we will see from Iraq five years after a military pullout/end of hostilities, if we are successful in our mission there.

    Please note that there is other precedent for this sort of development. After Rome conquered a nation, within a few years, the citizens of the conquered nation became Roman citizens and the Romans made their lives generally better than they had been. The hatred of their Roman oppressors generally wore off after a while as the economic advantages to being a Roman city/state became apparent.

    Ghenghis Khan decimated whole cities in his conquest of the world. Millions died from his brutal methods of making war. But after he conquered them, he re-established legal systems, trade routes and even health care facilities in his conquered city/states. And the hatred of the oppressors eventually fell by the wayside as the advantages of having Ghenghis Khan as a protector became evident.

    There is no reason to believe that, if we are sucessful in stabilizing Iraq, helping their government do their jobs, and helping grow the economy, the result would be any different than it was for Rome, Greece, ancient Persia, England, and even Post WWII USA over Germany and Japan, and every other successful conqueror in history. They'll hate us in the short term, but in the long term, they'll get over it and see the advantages of working with us.

    That is what I see happening in Iraq five years AFTER we leave, if we are successful at our mission BEFORE we leave.

    Elliot


    Elliot-


    Thanks. Perhaps with the bases closing in Germany Dubya's idea is to move us permanently into the Mid-East region. You know my stand from way back. So just as reminder to the others: I thought we should had blasted the Saddam controlled Iraqi govt buildings, military installations, and a few mountains until we made parking lots. But not with A-bombs like we did in Japan. BTW our govt certainly had no problem dropping those Atomic bombs then. Now as with the continuance of the Iraqi war campaign I was just as satisfied that we toppled the then Saddam's govt control and brought him to justice. It would had suited me better to start re-deployment phases then. Personally I think Iraq was going to have civil upheaval despite our involvement and will continue after whenever we leave. The other concern is the Iraqi's loyalty to us in the Western hemisphere. Besides the ulterior motives like when we sold them weapons to their govt (including to their ruthless dictator), or having to remove that dictator, their track record has never proved as long lasting favorable for us.



    Bobby

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:42 PM.