Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Logan13's Avatar
    Logan13 is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740

    As Democrats See Security Gains in Iraq, Tone Shifts

    Since the New York Times is saying this, it must be OK for you Libs to think it now......
    As Democrats See Security Gains in Iraq, Tone Shifts
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us.../EfHPOXHzQDwig

    As violence declines in Baghdad, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are undertaking a new and challenging balancing act on Iraq: acknowledging that success, trying to shift the focus to the lack of political progress there, and highlighting more domestic concerns like health care and the economy.

    Former Senator John Edwards regularly brings up Iraq, but focuses on his opponents’ judgment.
    Advisers to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains. At the same time, they are arguing that American casualties are still too high, that a quick withdrawal is the only way to end the war and that the so-called surge in additional troops has not paid off in political progress in Iraq.

    But the changing situation suggests for the first time that the politics of the war could shift in the general election next year, particularly if the gains continue. While the Democratic candidates are continuing to assail the war — a popular position with many of the party’s primary voters — they run the risk that Republicans will use those critiques to attack the party’s nominee in the election as defeatist and lacking faith in the American military.

    If security continues to improve, President Bush could become less of a drag on his party, too, and Republicans may have an easier time zeroing in on other issues, such as how the Democrats have proposed raising taxes in difficult economic times.

    “The politics of Iraq are going to change dramatically in the general election, assuming Iraq continues to show some hopefulness,” said Michael E. O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who is a supporter of Mrs. Clinton’s and a proponent of the military buildup. “If Iraq looks at least partly salvageable, it will be important to explain as a candidate how you would salvage it — how you would get our troops out and not lose the war. The Democrats need to be very careful with what they say and not hem themselves in.”

    At the same time, there is no assurance that the ebbing of violence is more than a respite or represents a real trend that could lead to lasting political stability or coax those who have fled the capital to return to their homes. Past military successes have faded with new rounds of car bombings and kidnappings, like the market bombing that killed at least eight on Friday in Baghdad.

    Neither Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama nor the other Democratic candidates have backed away from their original opposition to the troop escalation, and they all still favor a quick withdrawal from Iraq. But Mrs. Clinton, for one, has not said how quickly she would remove most combat forces from Iraq or how many she would leave there as president. Former Senator John Edwards, by contrast, has emphasized that he would remove all combat troops from the country, while Mr. Obama favors withdrawal at a rate of one to two brigades a month. Those plans stand in contrast to the latest American strategy of keeping most American combat brigades in Iraq but giving them an expanded role in training and supporting Iraqi forces.

    The Democratic candidates received a boost yesterday from a former American commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, who delivered the party’s response to Mr. Bush’s radio address. General Sanchez said that despite the security gains, there was “no evidence” that Iraq’s leaders were working toward a peace accord. He endorsed a Democratic measure in the House to withdraw all combat troops by December 2008.

    Lately, as the killing in Baghdad and other areas has declined, the Democratic candidates have been dwelling less on the results of the troop escalation than on the lack of new government accords in Iraq — a tonal shift from last summer and fall when American military commanders were preparing to testify before Congress asking for more time to allow the surge to show results.

    This is a delicate matter. By saying the effects of the troop escalation have not led to a healthier political environment, the candidates are tacitly acknowledging that the additional troops have, in fact, made a difference on the ground — a viewpoint many Democratic voters might not embrace.

    “Our troops are the best in the world; if you increase their numbers they are going to make a difference,” Mrs. Clinton said in a statement after her aides were asked about her views on the ebbing violence in Baghdad.

    “The fundamental point here is that the purpose of the surge was to create space for political reconciliation and that has not happened, and there is no indication that it is going to happen, or that the Iraqis will meet the political benchmarks,” she said. “We need to stop refereeing their civil war and start getting out of it.”

    While the war remains a top issue for many Democratic voters, the candidates are also turning to pocketbook concerns with new intensity as the nominating contests approach in January. Mrs. Clinton devoted a week to her energy plans recently, and spent Monday and Tuesday talking about the economy. Mr. Obama, meanwhile, still draws strong applause from audiences when he criticizes Congress for authorizing the war and Mr. Bush for waging it, but he is increasingly highlighting other concerns.

    “We’ve never seen gas above $3 in November,” Mr. Obama told a crowd on a recent evening in Allison, Iowa. “People are working harder for less. Folks are maxing out on their credit cards, trying to stay afloat. People are struggling. And it doesn’t seem like Washington is listening.”

    Mr. Obama’s spokesman, Bill Burton, said that the reduction of violence in Iraq was “welcome news,” but he also noted that a record number of troops had been killed this year and that political differences among the Iraqis had not been bridged.

    “The best leverage we have to get Iraq’s political leaders to do their job is to immediately begin to withdraw our troops,” Mr. Burton said.

    Mr. Edwards told reporters in Des Moines on Tuesday that there was not enough political movement to justify reassessing his Iraq policy at this stage.

    “I think the underlying question has not changed in Iraq, and that question is whether there has been any serious effort, serious movement on the political front,” Mr. Edwards said. “Until there is political reconciliation between the Sunni and the Shia, there cannot be stability, there will not be an end to the violence. So I think that’s the ultimate test, and I have seen very little progress if any on that front.”

    Mr. Edwards regularly brings up Iraq, but his focus is less on the troop escalation and more on his opponents’ judgment, especially Mrs. Clinton’s. He frequently lumps her in with Mr. Bush by noting her Senate votes supporting both the Iraq war and a recent resolution designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

    “We’ve seen this movie before; we know how it ends,” Mr. Edwards says about Iraq and Iran.

    Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., a Democratic candidate who has been praised by his rivals as a thoughtful voice on Iraq, agreed in a statement that there had been “real progress on security” in Iraq. On the campaign trail, though, he frames discussions of the troop escalation around his plan to create strong regional governments in Iraq, rather than talking about the declining violence as an end in itself.

    Two other Democratic contenders, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, have also insisted that there is no “military solution” for Iraq and that troops should be withdrawn swiftly.

    One candidate favors withdrawing all troops immediately and unconditionally: Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

    “Let’s be clear: 40 dead American troops is 40 too many,” said Tom Reynolds, a spokesman for Mr. Richardson. “Measuring progress through body counts is wrong. Sixty-five percent of Iraqis support killing American soldiers. There is no national political progress. None. It can only happen when we send a clear signal we are leaving.”

  2. #2
    RA's Avatar
    RA
    RA is offline Grade A Beef
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Getting madcow treatments
    Posts
    16,450
    The dems were saying how we didnt have enough troops so Bush sends more troops. Then they say we shouldnt be escalating the war...I wonder if they ever pull their head out of their ass or if its always up there.

  3. #3
    eliteforce is offline Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    380
    as long as americans get killed there everyday, and the president keeps asking for another 50bil here and another 200 there..and the economy is slowing and the dollar weakening at alarming levels..the democrats will be under increasing presure to quit iraq..

  4. #4
    Teabagger's Avatar
    Teabagger is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    west of the rockies
    Posts
    454
    Quote Originally Posted by eliteforce View Post
    as long as americans get killed there everyday, and the president keeps asking for another 50bil here and another 200 there..and the economy is slowing and the dollar weakening at alarming levels..the democrats will be under increasing presure to quit iraq..
    You'd like that wouldn't you?? If the dems wanted us out of Iraq they would have done it already. They control the House and in reality the Senate....they campaigned on bringing the troops home...now they have the power and don't do it...whats up with that.

    The only group with a lower approval rating than Bush is Congress....that's funny right there.

  5. #5
    thegodfather's Avatar
    thegodfather is offline Dulce bellum inexpertis
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Middle East
    Posts
    3,511
    I dont see a clear distinction between the two parties anymore. The Republicans were historically non-interventionist, and now they want to stay in obscure parts of the world fighting proxy wars to no end. All of these parties have gone back on what they said they would do.

    I would like to hear anyone rationally defend a position on why there should not be an immediate troop withdrawl from Iraq, and other parts of the middle east? Any takers? Please also do not sugar coat your reasons, and do not ignore vested interests.

  6. #6
    Logan13's Avatar
    Logan13 is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by thegodfather View Post
    I dont see a clear distinction between the two parties anymore. The Republicans were historically non-interventionist, and now they want to stay in obscure parts of the world fighting proxy wars to no end. All of these parties have gone back on what they said they would do.

    I would like to hear anyone rationally defend a position on why there should not be an immediate troop withdrawl from Iraq, and other parts of the middle east? Any takers? Please also do not sugar coat your reasons, and do not ignore vested interests.
    The difference is in the group that seems to have control over Dem. politicians these days. Why should there be an immediate troop withdrawl? And I do not want to hear any "its an illegal war" bullshit. That's pure propaganda and has no basis in truth.

  7. #7
    soulstealer's Avatar
    soulstealer is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    The difference is in the group that seems to have control over Dem. politicians these days. Why should there be an immediate troop withdrawl? And I do not want to hear any "its an illegal war" bullshit. That's pure propaganda and has no basis in truth.
    I was under the impression that in the United States of America for war to be a legal action we must declare it(congressional approval and all).....

  8. #8
    Logan13's Avatar
    Logan13 is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by soulstealer View Post
    I was under the impression that in the United States of America for war to be a legal action we must declare it(congressional approval and all).....
    Since most of us obviously slept through social studies.........

    http://bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/governm...president.html
    "Also, the President is the official head of the U.S. military. He can authorize the use of troops overseas without declaring war. To officially declare war, though, he must get the approval of the Congress."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declara..._United_States
    "Many times, the United States has engaged in extended military engagements that, while not formally declared wars, were explicitly authorized by Congress, short of a formal declaration of war."

    Also, the US has historically went into battle citing failed UN resolutions, as in the Korean war and our present war in Iraq. The failure to comply with resolutions has consequences, not limited to 19 more resolutions......

    Seriously though, too many in here let blogs and talking points do too much of their thinking for them.

  9. #9
    RA's Avatar
    RA
    RA is offline Grade A Beef
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Getting madcow treatments
    Posts
    16,450
    Bush did get congressional approval...



    Quote Originally Posted by soulstealer View Post
    I was under the impression that in the United States of America for war to be a legal action we must declare it(congressional approval and all).....

  10. #10
    thegodfather's Avatar
    thegodfather is offline Dulce bellum inexpertis
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Middle East
    Posts
    3,511
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    The difference is in the group that seems to have control over Dem. politicians these days. Why should there be an immediate troop withdrawl? And I do not want to hear any "its an illegal war" bullshit. That's pure propaganda and has no basis in truth.
    Because the basis for the war was founded on lies. Bush has presented no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which if memory serves correct, was the entire premise for our invasion of the country? Then, after no weapons were found, we declared that any country who makes a safe-haven for terrorists is one which we will invade. One perpetual lie and bullshit reason after another. The insurgents as we're lead to believe by the US media's propaganda(all media is propagaganda regardless of what form of government it reports under, this is taught in entry level history classes) are really terrorists who would be executing terrorist attacks within the United States border if they had the chance. We created the insurgents, they are people of the regime that was toppled who simply do not want us there. We also created the opportunity for neighboring countries who have wanted control of Iraq, but were held at bay by Saddam Hussein, to start funding guerilla warfare operations against the US.

    Had a foreign country invaded us, I'm sure that many of us on this forum would be taking up arms against the occupying nation. We would most likely do so with rudamentary weapons and improvised devices (does IED ring a bell?). And, I'm also sure that the occupying force would be spouting out propaganda about us being "terrorists." There have been plenty of polls and interviews which show that a lot more of the Iraqi people DO NOT want us or our "DEMOCRACY" as we think. Many of them have said they want a government ruled by Islamic law, it is their country and I respect their right to rule their country with thousand year old archaeic idealogies.

    We have created the FALLOUT that we will be having to face in the coming decades. Our very presence is fostering the hatred against our country, 500,000 dead Iraqi civilians. How many of them had sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, and how many of them now hate the United States and are willing to join terrorist organizations? Pre-Iraqi invasion, there were probably only a handful of people willing to join such organizations. We are still thinking conventionally, and we will never understand their culture. They do not think rationally, they are willing to die for a set of ideals that we will also never understand. I am willing to die for the set of ideals put forth in the Constitution of the United States, in the same way they are willing to die for the things said in the Koran.

    Why we should withdraw troops immediately from Iraq?

    *We should be handling our problems with the 350million United States citizens before sticking our noses elsewhere.

    *We are plunging the country deeper into debt daily. Who is going to pay, and when?

    *There is no winner in the Iraqi war. Name one country which has been able to succesfully occupy the lands of the other country for any prolonged period of time? (with the exception of the Roman empire).


    *The basis for the war was propagated by lies. No WMDs, No evidence that Iraq was harboring terrorist groups. (There is more evidence of Iran and Saudi Arabia(whoa, our allie?) doing so than Iraq).

    *It is ridiculous to think that any of these countries have a chance of waging a war on our homeland. The last war fought on our homeland was between ourselves. The Japanese tried it, and we f**ked them so hard their grandchildren felt it.

    *The evidence for 9/11 was present, the lack of communication between agencies was the reason it was not prevented, the government even admitted that. The resources being used for the war could be much better spent on securing our borders, and I believe the country would be much more 'secure' if this was done.

    *We are fostering future generations of terrorists against the United States.

    *Country was founded on non-interventionist policy. Not the US job to police the world. The polls of the American people prove this. What good are these elected officials if they dont represent what the American people want?

  11. #11
    Logan13's Avatar
    Logan13 is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by thegodfather View Post
    Because the basis for the war was founded on lies. Bush has presented no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which if memory serves correct, was the entire premise for our invasion of the country? Then, after no weapons were found, we declared that any country who makes a safe-haven for terrorists is one which we will invade. One perpetual lie and bullshit reason after another.
    [/B]
    Do you have proof that it was founded on lies, or just your assumptions? Regardless, the President has the authority to send troops into battle for long periods of time without getting a Declaration of War. You may not like this, but it is the law.........

  12. #12
    eliteforce is offline Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    380
    Ah..yea I would! If there was a withdrawel tomarrow then that $200 billion bill wouldn't have to be paid! Your right they should have forced a withdrawel even though they don't have 2/3 veto override..but what i'm saying is that when they have the presidency then they are out of excuses..so we'll see if they are genuine.

    also I think if you look at icasualties.org it is more or less clear that the lower US KIA in Iraq over the last 2 months (about 40 a month as opposed to 60-80) is mostly due to improved techniques and more expensive equipment for avoiding deaths (but not necessarily injury) when these attacks happen everyday..that doesn't get the US out of this mess it makes it more expensive..and the war is getting MORE expensive, not less.

    Quote Originally Posted by Teabagger View Post
    You'd like that wouldn't you?? If the dems wanted us out of Iraq they would have done it already. They control the House and in reality the Senate....they campaigned on bringing the troops home...now they have the power and don't do it...whats up with that.

    The only group with a lower approval rating than Bush is Congress....that's funny right there.

  13. #13
    thegodfather's Avatar
    thegodfather is offline Dulce bellum inexpertis
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Middle East
    Posts
    3,511
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    Do you have proof that it was founded on lies, or just your assumptions? Regardless, the President has the authority to send troops into battle for long periods of time without getting a Declaration of War. You may not like this, but it is the law.........
    The President is an elected official by the people. The people elected him because they hoped that he would do things in their interest, and as they wanted him to do. When over 60% or more of the Nation objects to his actions, dont you think that they should have some recourse?

    To be quite honest with you Logan. I dont give two flying ****s about anyone in the Middle East, not the people, nothing. If Bush announced 4 years ago that we were invading them for oil(thats bullshit but an example), or because we wanted to setup a new state, or to get closer to Iran for an eventual invasion, or because he just felt like killin some motherfu*kers, I probably wouldnt give a shit. But, dont start the war on the premise of some unsubstantiated bullshit which, if he does have proof of WMDs, he's kept it under wraps pretty well.

    I would just like him to be honest, I'm more than willing to support a war for natural resources, if we're running out of them, and they have them, and we have the bigger dick, oh well it looks like the Middle East is beat. I dont give a shit, but I just think the invasion of Iraq was a waste. I really think in the long run will cause more problems than not, and we're gonna be paying the debt for that war for a long time.

    I just really like the non-interventionist model a lot more than running around the world trying to play cop. Shit happens, injustices are everywhere, even here at home. If the people in the Middle East want freedom, let them fight for it like we did 200 years ago. You cant convince completely uncivilized people with no regard for human life(especially women) to wake up overnight and decide to join the modern world. **** them, if they want to live like a bunch of animals let them, when they start to realise that they're getting the short end of the stick, then I'm sure they'll have a civil war and fight for the same rights we fought for.

    I absolutely agree with bombing the living shit out of any country who supports or harbors an enemy of the United States. Afghanistan was a great move, we should have made the entire country a god damn parking lot. Iraq was really pointless, it destabilized the region terribly.

    Logan, dont get the idea im some tree hugging hippey that goes around writing peace signs on everything. I just prefer to see $200billion dollars spent on better things, like securing the borders, deporting illegal aliens, etc, etc. . .I dont want to be in the Middle East because I think its pointless, and I strongly believe if we just leave them alone we'll kind of take the fuel out of their fire.

  14. #14
    Logan13's Avatar
    Logan13 is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by thegodfather View Post
    The President is an elected official by the people. The people elected him because they hoped that he would do things in their interest, and as they wanted him to do. When over 60% or more of the Nation objects to his actions, dont you think that they should have some recourse?

    To be quite honest with you Logan. I dont give two flying ****s about anyone in the Middle East, not the people, nothing. If Bush announced 4 years ago that we were invading them for oil(thats bullshit but an example), or because we wanted to setup a new state, or to get closer to Iran for an eventual invasion, or because he just felt like killin some motherfu*kers, I probably wouldnt give a shit. But, dont start the war on the premise of some unsubstantiated bullshit which, if he does have proof of WMDs, he's kept it under wraps pretty well.

    I would just like him to be honest, I'm more than willing to support a war for natural resources, if we're running out of them, and they have them, and we have the bigger dick, oh well it looks like the Middle East is beat. I dont give a shit, but I just think the invasion of Iraq was a waste. I really think in the long run will cause more problems than not, and we're gonna be paying the debt for that war for a long time.

    I just really like the non-interventionist model a lot more than running around the world trying to play cop. Shit happens, injustices are everywhere, even here at home. If the people in the Middle East want freedom, let them fight for it like we did 200 years ago. You cant convince completely uncivilized people with no regard for human life(especially women) to wake up overnight and decide to join the modern world. **** them, if they want to live like a bunch of animals let them, when they start to realise that they're getting the short end of the stick, then I'm sure they'll have a civil war and fight for the same rights we fought for.

    I absolutely agree with bombing the living shit out of any country who supports or harbors an enemy of the United States. Afghanistan was a great move, we should have made the entire country a god damn parking lot. Iraq was really pointless, it destabilized the region terribly.

    Logan, dont get the idea im some tree hugging hippey that goes around writing peace signs on everything. I just prefer to see $200billion dollars spent on better things, like securing the borders, deporting illegal aliens, etc, etc. . .I dont want to be in the Middle East because I think its pointless, and I strongly believe if we just leave them alone we'll kind of take the fuel out of their fire.
    this I can agree with.

  15. #15
    Johny-too-small's Avatar
    Johny-too-small is offline Vive Memor Leti
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Sam's Club
    Posts
    4,034
    Damn, nice post.

    Quote Originally Posted by thegodfather View Post
    The President is an elected official by the people. The people elected him because they hoped that he would do things in their interest, and as they wanted him to do. When over 60% or more of the Nation objects to his actions, dont you think that they should have some recourse?

    To be quite honest with you Logan. I dont give two flying ****s about anyone in the Middle East, not the people, nothing. If Bush announced 4 years ago that we were invading them for oil(thats bullshit but an example), or because we wanted to setup a new state, or to get closer to Iran for an eventual invasion, or because he just felt like killin some motherfu*kers, I probably wouldnt give a shit. But, dont start the war on the premise of some unsubstantiated bullshit which, if he does have proof of WMDs, he's kept it under wraps pretty well.

    I would just like him to be honest, I'm more than willing to support a war for natural resources, if we're running out of them, and they have them, and we have the bigger dick, oh well it looks like the Middle East is beat. I dont give a shit, but I just think the invasion of Iraq was a waste. I really think in the long run will cause more problems than not, and we're gonna be paying the debt for that war for a long time.

    I just really like the non-interventionist model a lot more than running around the world trying to play cop. Shit happens, injustices are everywhere, even here at home. If the people in the Middle East want freedom, let them fight for it like we did 200 years ago. You cant convince completely uncivilized people with no regard for human life(especially women) to wake up overnight and decide to join the modern world. **** them, if they want to live like a bunch of animals let them, when they start to realise that they're getting the short end of the stick, then I'm sure they'll have a civil war and fight for the same rights we fought for.

    I absolutely agree with bombing the living shit out of any country who supports or harbors an enemy of the United States. Afghanistan was a great move, we should have made the entire country a god damn parking lot. Iraq was really pointless, it destabilized the region terribly.

    Logan, dont get the idea im some tree hugging hippey that goes around writing peace signs on everything. I just prefer to see $200billion dollars spent on better things, like securing the borders, deporting illegal aliens, etc, etc. . .I dont want to be in the Middle East because I think its pointless, and I strongly believe if we just leave them alone we'll kind of take the fuel out of their fire.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •