Check out some similar questions!

tomder55 · Dec 6, 2007, 04:58 AM

Michael O'Hanlon at USA Today thinks they should .

A new course on Iraq (for Democrats, that is) - Opinion - USATODAY.com

Rarely in U.S. history has a political party diagnosed a major failure in the country's approach to a crucial issue of the day, led a national referendum on the failing policy, forced a change in that policy that led to major substantive benefits for the nation — and then categorically refused to take any credit whatsoever for doing so.

This is, of course, the story of the Democrats and the Iraq war over the past 13 months. Without a Democratic takeover of the Congress in 2006, there is little chance that President Bush would have acknowledged his Iraq policy to be failing, and that Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker would have been accorded the resources and the policy latitude needed to radically improve the situation on the ground.

Democrats were not the authors of the surge and in fact generally opposed it. But without their pressure, it probably never would have happened.

Brazen enough to work. What does Barak Obama call it ? Audacity !

excon · Dec 6, 2007, 06:10 AM

Hello tom:

Why not? Karl Rove is saying the Democrats started the war in Iraq. What?? He's the only one allowed to spin??

excon

tomder55 · Dec 6, 2007, 07:27 AM

Ex

Did you know that Karl Rove was the 20th hijacker?. or that Karl Rove is the father of Anna Nicole's Baby?? For the record ;Rove is no longer employed at the White House.

Did you know that Former President Bill Clintoon opposed the war from the git-go even though all his public statements of record dispute that ?

Many congressional Democrats were demanding they be given a chance to vote on the war . They got their chance to vote, and they did.And many of them voted FOR THE WAR. It's only after things got tough that they suddenly said they were misled.

Yes there is plenty of spin going on . In the case of my posting I guess it could be said that victory has many fathers...

But Rove I think is wrong in his assertion that the administration did not want an early vote. President Bush indeed wanted Congressional commitment before the general election in 2002. Ari Fleischer and Andrew Card have both challenged Rove's memory of the time-line.

ETWolverine · Dec 6, 2007, 10:03 AM

Oh... right. The Dems were in favor of the surge before they were against it... or something like that.

Would these be the same Dems who steadfastly called for a "redeployment" out of Iraq for nearly 4 years? The same ones who called for Bush to be "impeached" or "sanctioned" or whatever? The same ones who fought with all their might to keep the surge from happening in the first place? The same ones who have been trying to keep any form of good news from Iraq out of the media? Those Dems?

Elliot

Dark_crow · Dec 6, 2007, 10:27 AM

Aghhh…the beauty of a two party system.

inthebox · Dec 6, 2007, 10:45 AM

Reid: Iraq War lost, U.S. can't win - Politics - MSNBC.com

Those Democrats?

Ha ha ha

tomder55 · Dec 6, 2007, 10:46 AM

the beauty of a two party system

Many of the founders abhored the idea of party politics ;including the titular foundars of the Republican-Democrat Party(Jefferson) and the Federalists Party (Hamilton). The country didn't make it through Washington's presidency before it was plagued by party politics.

ETWolverine · Dec 6, 2007, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Many of the founders abhored the idea of party politics ;including the titular foundars of the Republican-Democrat Party(Jefferson) and the Federalists Party (Hamilton). The country didn't make it through Washington's presidency before it was plagued by party politics.

Well, it makes sense that people of a similar ideology or similar set of goals would flock together and pool their resources to accomplish their goals. Why should it be any different in politics than in any other pursuit?

Elliot

Dark_crow · Dec 6, 2007, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Well, it makes sense that people of a similar ideology or similar set of goals would flock together and pool their resources to accomplish their goals. Why should it be any different in politics than in any other pursuit?

Elliot

Given that that (people of a similar ideology or similar set of goals would flock together and pool their resources) is the very reason for having a government in the first place…no, it is only natural in politics

speechlesstx · Dec 6, 2007, 03:21 PM

Of course they should take credit for the surge's success while remaining "poised to call another vote linking emergency war funds to a plan for a U.S. pullout from Iraq." They do have to cover all the bases don't they?

Meanwhile Don Surber suggests as I did that Iran decided to stop their nuke program because of the Iraq invasion.

And, Walter Cronkite and David Krieger opined just two days ago Our Troops Must Leave Iraq.

The Bush administration has attempted to forestall ending the war by putting in more troops, but more troops will not solve the problem. We have lost the hearts and minds of most of the Iraqi people, and victory no longer seems to be even a remote possibility. It is time to end our occupation of Iraq, and bring our troops home...

Moving forward is not complicated, but it will require courage. Step one is to proceed with the rapid withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and hand over the responsibility for the security of Iraq to Iraqi forces. Step two is to remove our military bases from Iraq and to turn Iraqi oil over to Iraqis. Step three is to provide resources to the Iraqis to rebuild the infrastructure that has been destroyed in the war.

I guess Cronkite doesn't keep up with the news any more.

speechlesstx · Dec 6, 2007, 03:53 PM

By the way, did everyone notice they added several topic areas to the member discussions page?

tomder55 · Dec 7, 2007, 03:22 AM

Looks like administration here is responsive to good ideas . I still say that this board should be exempt from the strict Q&A format but the Current Events Board is a good solution .