Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Wonder what Harry Reid is thinking right now?
Political Topics And Discussion > All Things Political > Iraq, Afghanistan & War On Terror
SoloNav
What will the liberal Democrats do with the good news from Iraq other than disparage and minimize the results? Winning the war, but not the politics. Winning here, but losing there.

How far along in the U.S. independence were we 5-6 years into it all??

QUOTE
Monday, December 17, 2007
Handling the specter of victory in Iraq

Paul Greenberg:

A specter is haunting the Democratic Party. The long-awaited defeat of American forces in Iraq, on which so many critics of this administration have built their fondest hopes, seems to have been delayed again and - unsettling thought - may not even materialize. Even the dreaded word, Victory, is being whispered.

Who would have thought it? Besides, of course, that dwindling minority of Americans who never gave up on the valor of America's armed forces - and the flexibility of their commanders, including their much-despised commander-in-chief. (This president's ratings in the polls have dropped almost as low as Harry Truman's during the Korean War.)

The turnaround in Iraq, aka The Surge, is proving embarrassing for the kind of critics of the war who dare not admit being embarrassed. To do so would be to entertain the unthinkable thought that they might, just might, have been wrong.

This is no time for critics of the war to go wobbly. Their outward confidence in American defeat must be preserved, at least till next November. Even if all the indicators they used to cite as evidence that the war was lost have begun to go in the opposite direction:

The number of enemy attacks has fallen month after month since the Surge began to take effect.

Mortar and rocket assaults in Iraq, however highly publicized and bloody awful in themselves, are down to their lowest rate in almost two years.

The number of civilian deaths has fallen dramatically. Iraqi refugees are returning in growing numbers despite continuing risks. Once again they're voting with their feet, this time in favor of a better, not worse, Iraq.

This new strategy in Iraq is really an old one. It amounts to the systematic application of classic counter-insurgency tactics under a new commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, who wrote the Army manual on the subject. The results have been dramatic, and quicker than anyone might have hoped:

In once chaotic provinces like Anbar, an alliance with Sunni tribesmen is paying off as old enemies become new allies. American commanders and diplomats on the ground are no longer waiting for the ever-dithering "government" in Baghdad to pacify the country; they're making a separate peace, and it seems to be taking hold.

Even in Shi'ite Iraq, the new strategy emphasizes a patchwork of practical alliances with one militia or another rather than depending on the theoretical and only theoretical sway of a central government that hasn't governed in some time.

The result of all this is that al-Qaida is in undeniable retreat, even rout, all across Iraq as ad-hoc arrangements that work have replaced airy schemes that don't.
Every war will surprise you, as an American commander named Eisenhower once said, and doubtless this one will continue to surprise, too. But by now only the ideologically blinded can deny that the Surge is showing signs of success.

Those who urge an immediate withdrawal from Iraq have already written the sad history of that war, if a bit prematurely. Why should Democratic leaders trouble to revise it now, after having convinced so many Americans that defeat is unavoidable? It's so much easier to pretend that nothing has changed than to take new facts into account. It would be embarrassing. Better to stick with denial.
...

Here is what you can expect the Democrats to do if their candidate wins the presidency. They will follow the military commander's phased withdrawal plan and claim that it is what we should have done years ago. In other words they will ignore the steps needed to get to the point of phased withdrawals and claim that the withdrawals themselves have led to the victory. Being a Democrat means never having to admit you were wrong, unless you wished you had never voted for victory to begin with.

Actually, I can hear them already chiming in doing exactly what is written in the last paragraph.

Isn't that what Hildebeast is already doing on SO MANY of her talking points? She was FOR and then AGAINST licenses for illegals, but is now FOR it. She was all for the WOT, but then was against it, supported it after that........not sure what her stance is now. She and Bill are soooooo counting on people to NOT remember their various stances on various subjects..........
Grizzly
Yes, Solo. That was a real cute write up from a conservative blog. rolleyes.gif wink.gif
SoloNav
QUOTE (Grizzly @ Dec 26 2007, 04:08 PM) *
Yes, Solo. That was a real cute write up from a conservative blog. rolleyes.gif wink.gif

Which makes what is said untrue? And, the question posed as not really a realistic question? Your point? popcorn.gif

Cute attempt to change the subject from the message to the messenger, Grizz.

Would you like to supply an answer to the question (s) posed in the article?
Grizzly
QUOTE ("SoloNav")
Which makes what is said untrue?
Do you know what, Solo? I could go out and write a blog, but that doesn't mean that everything in it will be the absolute truth.

And I can only think that you're referring to this?


QUOTE
They will follow the military commander's phased withdrawal plan and claim that it is what we should have done years ago. In other words they will ignore the steps needed to get to the point of phased withdrawals and claim that the withdrawals themselves have led to the victory.



Has it ever occurred to you what would happen if a Republican wins and Iraq still experiences further delays? Do you go ahead and blame it on Democrats, that were in a minority at that time, I may add, that were following a leader that was incorrect in his assessment over a situation, but we (democrats) went ahead and played follow the leader just to pay for it later just because they found out--too late, I may add--the ineptness of our President? Or perhaps one could blame it on the poor writer of that blog, who has already admitted to defeat, and November 08 isn't even here yet. Sort of shows you the consternation in his writing, whether he knows it or not.

I dearly love you conservatives; I really do. Got to love your frame of thinking: "Hey you Democrats. We know that this war is a unpopular one, but you Democrats, that were in a minority position at the time, and you probably couldn't stop us anyhow, you went ahead and did something stupid just like we did by voting for it, so that gives us a right to expect the public to place another person just like George Bush in to the White House."

I would have to wish the writer of that blog a lot of luck.
rolleyes.gif
iswhatitis
Haaah!!! You have what pissed off this conservative all wrong. Had nothing to do with our president, our foreign intelligence, our congress or anything else before the Iraq war began. What pissed me off was a bunch of people rooting for our failure in this war, and hooting and hollering every whiff of bad news to create the air of overall failure in the hope of gaining political capital. Democrats have been doing it since its inception. 6 days into the Iraq war reports that the US military's march was stalled in a sandstorm resulted in declarations of doom and gloom about to meet our soldiers in the desert from the lips of our Democrat Senators (he actually mentioned Viet Nam 6 days into this war). Newspapers reporting that the Pentagon purchasing body bags purported doom for the soldiers entering Iraq. All news reports that the equipment given our soldiers were not effective against the impending chemical and biological warhead attacks. Compare the effects of bad intelligence to the never ending defeatism by most American liberals and Democrats declaring for all or most of 4 years the defeat of the U.S. military in Iraq.

What's worse is that American citizens hope for Harry Reids' political success over our own national success. Harry Reid has been unpatriotic and antiAmerican most of the way through an American war, all in the name of party over country.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.