Redstate

they must get re-elected in 08 and if they vote to defund our troops just as the General says we are stabilizing the region they will lose their majority as quickly as they won it. I do believe them when they know their tails are on the line, they are nothing if not politically expedient.

Remember that when the dems run left, the lose big time. They know that, and that is why I am hopeful that they will cut their nose off, collectively, to spite their faces, over Iraq. I doubt that many will - I sense a bit of 'resignment' in many moderate dems comments these days (maybe many are finally realizing it is 2007 and not 2008).

The pandering to the far-left wing has left them in a quandary, keep pandering or finally start acting like legislative 'icons' they wish to portray themselves as, at least to their home constituency. Some, in safe districts such as Jack Murtha, will continue doing his thing - but as the election of '08 comes within a year (gosh, it is still over a year away) you will probably see more and more on the left get a little more middle ground.

I wish they would not do that, as I would rather see us conservatives take the majority again. But, I would settle for a Republican president, if we can get the right guy to run (hint, hint, Fred).

and will continue to vote their absurd priority. I wish it were not so...

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

There are 40 Blue Dogs at least. Kill off 1/2 the Blue Dogs and the Democratic congressional majority in the HOR goes the way of Bad Newz Kennels.

"Scott Thomas" - The New Republic's Winter Soldier

They're running the most ethical Congress in history.

A problem! if Petraeus reports solid progress in Iraq.

Nope, there's no lack of patriotism in the Democratic Caucus.

"My heart was here...I feel like I have unfinished business here." - Roy Hibbert

SteveLA,

The US Military has been in Korea for 57 years. Not only was there no "political solution" between the Koreas, there was never any peace treaty signed. As long as US troops can establish security there and US and Iraqi casualties can be drastically reduced, support for the war will rise enough to put far more pressure on the Democrats than on the Republicans.

_______________________________________________________________
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself"

-John Stuart Mill

dark

You are comparing apples and oranges here.

The Korean war was fought against an aggressor nation state backed by another and ready to start fighting again at the drop of a hat. The South Korean government and their forces were and are first class and committed to Democracy. You try to equate a people who were willing to fight for freedom in Korea to a people who are stuck in the 14th Century and willing to fight over a goat stolen 5 generations ago. I ask you in turn, where is the nation state we are fighting against, and if we are fighting Iran and Syria, why are we not sealing the border to those countries and bombing the cr** out of their ability to interfere in Iraq?

In Iraq we are not fighting against a nation state, we are fighting an insurgent force, backed on the sly by nation states who we refuse to go after. We are not being supported in this effort by an effective Iraqi army or an Iraqi government that is worth a warm bucket of spit. We are not being supported as we were in Korea by a United Nations force made up of other nations armies.

Let's not even talk about South Koreans fighting fellow South Koreans because one is a Buddhist and another is a Roman Catholic or other tribal and sectarian violence such as is going on in Iraq.

I'm not buying your argument because it fails the logic test, the reality test and the horse manure smell test.

_______________________________
None of the Above !

SteveLA,

Remember, if Bush can regain the full support of the conservative base his support will probably break 40%. As far as he and I am concerned thats all he needs. And remember, the disadvantage that the Dems have going into '08 is that they have to defend CONSERVATIVE districts that voted for Bush twice. If there is any hint that progress is being made moderate Democrats will be more afraid than RINO republicans.
Lets not forget it took six months for the Democratic causus to vote nearly unanimous on an antiwar bill. Despite all the faux-machismo from Murtha et al, the Democratic base is far shakier.

It is for this reason that I say Bush has the advantage. He doesnt have to convince Dems or Independents. He only needs to win back the 25% of the Republican Base that has only begun to go wobby on the war. If our soldiers succeed, and the war settles down its game, set, and match.

Dont take my word for it! READ THE ARTICLE.Remember this thread is centered around a WashingtonPost article which quotes a High Ranking Democratic leader saying that a positive Report would be "a very big problem for us" (By the way can we call the Dems Traitors Now?)

I know its hard to hear SteveLA, but as the great Lawrence Fishburn said: "I DIDNT SAY IT WOULD BE EASY NEO, I JUST SAID IT WOULD BE THE TRUTH" :)

_______________________________________________________________
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

-John Stuart Mill

As a moderator, I get very cranky when I see pejorative statements that can be extended to include my mother.

Moe

PS: When it comes to words like "traitor" - yes, actually, you want to be as precise and specific as you possibly can. Treason can get people shot.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

No offense meant. But apparently it can get you on the democratic presidential ticket or extend a movie career.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

SteveLA,

The fact that we are fighting an insurgency and that we fought a nation in 1950 has nothing to do with the American people's tolerance for an extended deployment of troops. As long as casualties are being kept to a minimum, then the Anti-War movement will run out of rhetorical ammunition, and will become irrelevant (as it should be).

The nature of our opponent will have no effect on the American peoples perception that the US Military is finally taking these jihadists out to the woodshed.

_____________________________________________________________
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself"

-John Stuart MIll

It comes down to why do we as a nation fight?

Is it because the President says so? Keep the "evil doers" there not here?

Because of our vital interests?

To help support fledgling Democracies ?

In Iraq we are winning the war in military terms, but the political side as far as the Iraqi government go is a failure. You ether believe that the Iraqis are getting better at Democracy, they aren't and won't any time soon, or we need to change the relationship.

I don't believe the Iraqi government is destined to succeed in it s current configuration.

_______________________________
None of the Above !

the political side as far as the Iraqi government go is a failure. You ether believe that the Iraqis are getting better at Democracy, they aren't and won't any time soon, or we need to change the relationship.

I don't believe the Iraqi government is destined to succeed in it s current configuration.

The Articles of Confederation wasn't a particularly good constitution either. It's a good think Marquis Lafayette's troops weren't pulled from Yorktown over concerns that the original 13 colonies couldn't manage a good, Democratic government 5 Years! after they started their rebellion.

"Scott Thomas" - The New Republic's Winter Soldier

were not here to create a democracy. They were serving their own interests by opposing England AFTER we proved our mettle in battle.

In contrast, our own further interests in Iraq are less than clear, and we're throwing gifts at an Iraqi government with no great track record, to say the least.

The public won't support either the current level of casualties or the current spending of 12 Billion Dollars a Month.
It's repeatedly stated that this is a cheap war, historically speaking. But the same champions of this bargain war still are able to recognize that TWELVE BILLION DOLLARS/MONTHLY would be a lot of money if it were spent at home. We'd call it 'PORK' and launch a real war on whomever was proposing such expenditures.

Sooner or later the bill will come due if we surrender in the middle east. We can pay it now or pay it in dollars and lives later. If we pay later the bill collector will be a jihadist. I can't believe you prefer that option.

It will be tough, but if the US Military turns this thing around just as the democrats are showing their true traitor colors, then it will be 16 years before another democrat is elected President. You'd better hope you are not on the wrong side of history. Democrat will pay a heavier price for their treasonous activity if the war goes well than Republicans will if the war goes badly.

The Left is guilty of Treason and Bush of Incompetence. Guess which one the American people will say is worse?

I guess we'll see how September goes. :)

_____________________________________________________________
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

-John Stuart Mill

What we're discussing here is that what was a republican disadvantage is now a Democrat disvantage -- namely the success/failure of the surge. The Dems placed all their eggs -- Presidential candidates, legislation, rhetoric -- in the failure basket. If the surge fails, they win.

But what if -- as we have been saying for months here and as the MSM is finally beginning to report -- the surge succeeds? Then it is the Dems who are in an untenable position, having surrendered all claim to victory and success in Iraq. They will be sidelined for many years to come as we continue to fight the war on terror.

the Democrat Political leaders and the anti Bush crowd in the Republican party. I've never seen so many posters that are worried about the Iraqis and American military winning.

question that the surge would accomplish something. Our military is good.

It just won't acomplish "winning" as we've defined the mission - because that mission includes the Iraqis jumping through the political hoops we've set up for them. They aren't much interested, and I can't really blame them for it, considering how bad their government is.

If we're there for our own interests, we should accomplish our goals regardless of what Iraqis do or want. Political benchmarks are either silly, or the equivalent of making a welfare recipient go to a job fair. The latter implies we're running the armed forces as a charity, which ought not be acceptable.

Compared to what?

Why is it so important to make sure the terrorists get the help and support they need in getting rid of the Iraqi government?

talk about our efforts to work with the Iraqi militias to keep peace. We can get them to co-operate with us, which I think is great in the sense that this gives a bsais for local government. But we can't get them to swear an oath to the Iraqi Constitution or government. Considering the government is playing favorites between Shiites and Sunnis, that's understandable.

I'm all for taking out Al Qaeda, who is our enemy. I'm much, much less interested in forcibly unifying Iraqis under the current government. And yes, there are militants who aren't Al Qaeda.

Please tell me that my choice isn't between "incompetence and treason." I doubt that a majority of the American voters will consider your polarized view of things to represent their reality. All Republicans are not incompetent. All Democrats are not traitors.

The Post reported that Clyburn fears the Dems will split if Petraeus gave a positve report; they didn't mention Crocker's part of the report. (I tossed that in, which was sloppy of me.)

The question seems to be about Petraeus's part of it, with the assumption that political progress will be possible in a cooler climate. On CNN's Late Edition a few weekends ago, an Iraqi VP promised something before the September deadline which would convince the Americans of the Iraqis' seriousness. He had a twinkle in his eye. I'm optimistic that these folks, on the cusp of breakthroughs, can return refreshed and ready to get some work done.

I'm reminded that it was hot in Philadelphia, summer of 1787, but General Washington and the boys didn't have to deal with violence raging on South Street.

You forgot AIPAC.

Hooray!

That has to be the most leftwing statement ever, neo conservatives do not want to stay anywhere indefinately they want to crush the opposition and define the war as a winner and come home because anything less is defeat and the jihadist's will be coming home with us....and my question to you is why shouldn't this conflict be compared to Korea or Germany or Japan? and this American gets the comparison perhaps you don't however do not paint the American public with one broad brush. The MSM has set this stage for failure right along with the Leftist Democrats and if the news is good in September and Democrats still vote for defeat they will once again be on the wrong side of military history as has been their m.o. for their party and this American will spend the entire election making sure everyone in her earshot knows it. I would also add a timetable for public consumption is not necessary, certainly timetables can be set however they should be for military and defense eyes and ears not for the jihadist's to know "loose lips sink ships"

We're going to be dealing with Islamist terrorism for at least the next twenty years*. A stable, democratic and free Iraq will make life nigh-infinitely easier for us. I expect that, as things stabilize there, we'll draw down our European presence even further, base the infrastructure that we'll need for sustained counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism operations in Iraq and bring the bulk of the troops back to the US. We'll probably keep some presence in the country (cycling Marine and Army units through there on a regular basis), plus of course the Air Force. Nothing encourages a good neighbor policy like having the US Air Force next door.

Moving ahead: Iran concerns me, but the various 'Stans worry me. We have some idea of what's going on in Iran, and we can see the limitations that the regime there is under, and we know that they are not quite powerful enough to fend us off. The old pieces of the Soviet Union are more problematic, particularly if the Russians decide that they're tired of their current maps, and want an excuse to issue bright new ones.

Then again, I am one of those dastardly neocons, and thus am clearly a delusional fool.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

*A significant portion of that will be under a Democratic administration.

Couldn't have said it better. Especially the part about drawing down forces in Europe.

before a stable government is in place offends, because it provides encouragement to the terrorists that they can win. Support America, not the terrorists.

because a debate means letting both sides talk.

BTW, what's a stable government? Israel arguably hasn't had one since at least the 1967 war. I think we've better things to do with our military for the next 40 years.

Maintaining a military base in the area is such a good idea, I agree we shouldn't leave entirely. But there are intermediate positions between leaving entirely, and staying in such force. It seems silly to choose our position based on what the Iraqi government does or does not do.

Americans support the terrorists that were killing American Soldiers in Vietnam. It's even worse now, seeing Americans support the goals of the terrorists for no reason whatsoever.
The time for debate is before American soldiers are committed to battle, not afterwards.

as a voter. You've an obligation to help govern our country well. That may include withdrawing soldiers from a cause no longer worth the battle. Not every war must end in unconditional surrender. (Of course, calling the occupation a war in the first place is a severe stretch.)

You're entitled to your own opinion on the merits of the occupation, and to express them. Trying to cut off debate is another matter.

Just because we are willing to acknowledge that they don't outright lie every single time doesn't mean we trust them. If we didn't have verifiable information from other sources, we'd doubt these articles as well.

It's one of the reasons I don't watch the main dogs, or read the AP articles. I only have so many hours in my day, and I'm not going to waste them on sources that I can't trust to at least try to get it right. They have an agenda, and they are willing to suppress any information that doesn't fit it. The fact that they didn't in this case doesn't mean that they won't the next time.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

Given the MSM's history of "fake but accurate" reporting targeting the right, the only time we know they are not lying is when they draft an article that doesn't help leftists.

Such as an article where the Democratic whip says that US success on the battle field would be a "very big problem" for them(That is the most disgusting statement I have ever heard).

_______________________________________________________________

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

-John Stuart Mill

"the only time we know they are not lying is when they draft an article that doesn't help leftists."

But how did this TRUTH slip past the MSM censors? Or is it some sort of setup? Will they follow this with some devastatingly contradictory 'truth'?

This is the problem with destroying the credibility of a source. It's hard to use that same source thereafter. Well, it just seems hypocritical.