Hey, at least a member of the House Democrat leadership finally admits that what is good for our troops and our national security is bad for his party.
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party’s efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.
Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.
“I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us,” Clyburn said.
Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be “a real big problem for us.”
So good news and positive momentum in the War on Terror, Iraqi Theatre is…. “a real big problem” for Democrats.
Wow, what patriots they are. *sarcasm off*
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
In fairness… Clyburn is really only saying: If General Petraeus can report good progress in September, it’s going to present a tactical problem for those House leaders who would like to set fixed, rapid withdrawal timelines.
In double fairness… THAT really means: If General Petraeus can report good progress in September, it’s going to present a tactical problem for those House leaders who would like to give Iraq to al Qaeda.
You’d think a simple, “That would be good news for America”, wouldn’t be too hard to say.
You’d think.
Oh, I’m sure Petraeus will have lots of positive news come September. Hey, for starters, the Iraqi Parliament will be back from its summer vacation. Look, any general that would suck up to Hewitt will toe the Bushco line on Iraq. Good grief, he’s not even following his own book on what’s required in terms of manpower.
So if America wins in Iraq it is a major problem for the Democrats. How did the party of FDR and Truman get in this position?
Does anyone in America seriously still think that Democrats, like Ian, want us to lose for their political gain? Theres certainly more than enough proof otherwise.
DONT want us to lose for their polical gain that is
Beyond a shadow of any doubt…this is conclusive proof the dems see this as a potential political setback and shows they want our soldiers to lose. Iraq to them is not a war to win but rather a political gain to lose. They did that once before…they won’t get away with it this time.
I still haven’t heard a single Democrat respond to the fact that a loss or quick withdrawl in Iraq would mean chaos in the region and the deaths of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions. Or is the answer going to be Jane Fonda’s glib “We shouldn’t have been there in the first place” when she was asked about the two million Cambodians who were slaughtered as a consequence of our absence in the region after leaving Viet Nam? Where is the compassion, empathy, caring and strength of the modern Democrat? Is it in Obama who just said he would attack our ally Pakistan? Good God, these Dems are aimless and all over the map!
A positive report from General Petraeus will show that we are making progress in the war on terror. The Sunni bloq just quit the government.
The fragile democracy is unraveling. Hope that the Iraqis would begin to shoulder the burden seems dim. It looks like we will have to go it alone. Our justification for staying is to prevent a safe haven for terrorists.
Good grief, he’s not even following his own book on what’s required in terms of manpower.
Oh, this is too easy. Of coarse he doesn’t have the manpower. Congress hasn’t allocated the resources to supply the needed number, and all the negative press on the Iraq effort has hindered recruitment, so they don’t have the desired number of troops available. Maybe Charlie Rangle IS right, maybe we should bring back the draft….
Oh, sorry. I forgot. The reason many Dems want to bring back the draft is to further cement public opinion against the war. The rabid left demands defeat at all costs.
This is not about Iraq. It never has been. What happens in Iraq is of no interest to Democrats and most Americans. What happens to our armed forces (here the difference must be emphasized — deaths, success, failure) in combat is of no interest to those who loathe them (to use Clinton terminology).
What is of interest to Democrats is the Supreme Court. Since a socialist agenda rapid enough to pass legislative muster within the lifetimes of those who wish to reap its rewards is not possible, legislation from the bench is the only (circuitous) route possible to avoid the years of messy political battles, legal precedent, and that pesky Constitution.
All the Democrats need is the White House. They have majorities in Congress (though not quite working majorities) and once a Democrat wins the Presidency, a fait accompli. Two liberal justices will immediately retire in a deal worked out long ago (if they don’t die beforehand) and the confirmation process will be handled by the President’s party.
To win the Presidency, Democratic candidates must make Iraq a centerpiece of their campaigns. They must appeal to the ‘pull out now’ constituency — and it’s a big one. But Iraq presents some big problems for this kind of short-term thinking. What if the Democrats win the White House, what then? The new President will be forced to satisfy the mostly leftist base that elected him/her primarily on the strength of the anti-war platform plank. These voters don’t want a lengthy, messy draw-down; they want immediate and unequivocal pull-out. So another problem for Democrats is the long-term struggle in Iraq. Will the speed of withdrawal be a catalyst for true civil war? Although Democrats don’t care a whit about Iraq (unless a sea change helps them amongst the domestic voting public), do they risk the outbreak of complete chaos on their watch, giving Republicans and other naysayers traction? Do they change their strategy once the White House is won, using their media mouthpieces to ‘interpret’ for the public that a gradual draw-down is really an immediate withdrawal (just logistical semantics), essentially trading onions for minions? Is it wise for Democratic candidates to harangue their opposition re. Iraq when success in Iraq is the only good option, an option that requires the kind of persistence (staying in Iraq until the new government is reasonably secure and peace has mostly been achieved) only Republicans are discussing?
This war has put Republicans in a very bad spot, particularly its indefensible (no pun) management. But the Democrats face big, big problems both tactical and with principle. They’ve chosen the cynical path, not paved with good intentions but with ulterior motives. Reminds me of the Chinese proverb He who rides the tiger is afraid to dismount.
And that, HardHobbit, is why the Democrats are doubly dangerous; not only are they actively agitating for us to lose, the consequences of our losing will be horrific.
What the hell does it take anymore to commit treason in this country?? Democrats/libs do it regularly, but defend it as “freedom of speech”, with the anti-American agenda-driven media cheering them on. There is a real problem in this country, and that cult of a party is at the core. Wake-up, true Americans.
What you have to remember, LNC, is that the Democrats and their assorted leftist allies are working from an incredibly-twisted worldview.
For instance, you see leftist Ian, rightiswrong, and Chase whining and crying about the 30,000 to 100,000 “innocent deaths” they claim we’ve caused in Iraq — but never once do they acknowledge that their leftist solution of “sanctions” and “UN oversight” killed half a million Iraqi children alone (NOT including adults) when it was in place.
The only place this didn’t happen was in the north of Iraq — where the US military, over the loud protests of Boxer, Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry, and others, kept Saddam Hussein out. Oddly enough, the north of Iraq, where Saddam Hussein was NOT given free reign to destroy his entire population and infrastructure to prop up his horrific regime, is also the portion of Iraq that is the most stable and prosperous now without him.
Great post, NDT. Too bad liberals refuse delivery of facts. Too bad they don’t “get” that their words serve only as fodder and propaganda for the enemy, who, ironically, will be coming after them 1st. Useful idiots today, useless dead ones tomorrow (hey, I can dream, right?).
I don’t think it’s appropriate to dream about other peoples’ deaths in the least. The last thing we want is to end up like the Democrats, whose attitudes towards the deaths of people they don’t like is summed up best in Kos’s words: “Screw them”.
Remember that when you are watching Hillary, Barack, and John beg for his approval this week; they and their puppets see nothing wrong with a person who not only doesn’t care, but gloats over the deaths of people he doesn’t like.
Barack Hussein Obama today proposed invading Pakistan. So, basically the Obama foreign policy would be to reward our enemies (Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinnerjacket) with personal meetings and then invade our allies.
Brilliant!
Ahh…NDT, its nice to see you back to your mendacious self….
Anyway…
There is no doubt that Gen. Pet. will come back with an optimistic report.
If he doesn’t he looses his job. Its equivalent to Ken Lay talking about the health of Enron
However moving the insurgents to other areas isn’t enough. Giving Sunni tribal militias money and arms to buy peace isn’t enough.
If there is no real and substantial political progress in Iraq, the US military must stop policing the streets of Iraq which will put real and substantial pressure on the Iraqi gov.
To truly “win”, we must force the Iraqi gov act to like a gov. Right now they are acting like a bunch of protected elites.
V the K:
Are you calling what’s going on in Pakistan the actions of an “ally”? You do know what Musharraf is allowing in that country, right? Al-Q and Taliban are massing inside Pakistan’s borders, and you think we shouldn’t go there. But we should def. stay in Iraq, where AQI makes up about 5% of the fighters there. Seriously?
#20 –
Why should Pakistan be any different than Saudi Arabia?
Saudis –
Home of most of the 9-11 bombers
Home of the majority of the small amount of foreign fighters in Iraq
And a Trusted US ally deserving of US arms
Pakistan –
Home of OBL, Al Qudia, and the Taliban who are still killing US soliders in Afganistan.
Home of the man who sold nuke secretes
A more real threat to the world than Iran.
And a Trusted US ally deserving of US arms
One speech by Obama has shown he is more serious about WINNING the WOT than Bush.
So, in World War II, FDR should have sat down with Hitler and Mussolini and invaded Stalin’s USSR.
Thank you for demonstrating my point, gil.
You and yours claim to be appalled by the carnage and thinking only of the poor innocent Iraqis being killed…….but, as our troops are drastically reducing both, you want them yanked away, ostensibly to punish the Iraqi politicians.
Which will increase the carnage and number of poor innocent Iraqis being killed.
The new spin of the racist Democrats like gil is to insist that progress cleaning out insurgents and turning the Iraqi people against them is worthless because there’s no “political progress”.
The irony is made only more palpable by their support of the do-nothing Democrat Congress, which is castigating the Iraqi Parliament for taking a recess just as they themselves are walking out the door for theirs.
There, fixed it for ya.
But we should def. stay in Iraq, where AQI makes up about 5% of the fighters there. Seriously?
Interestingly enough, I seem to remember you posting something previously about al-Qa’ida in Iraq, torrentprime.
Namely, that it was AQ’s “most visible and capable affiliate” AND, most importantly, the one that had the most willingness to attack AND presented the largest danger to the United States.
Therefore, according to Democrat strategic logic, we should deploy our troops AWAY from it so that it is not impeded in the least, and put them in nice places like Okinawa, where al-Qaeda hasn’t shown any interest in attacking.
Or we should use them to invade a country that is already fighting al-Qaeda, despite the insistence by leftists like Obama previously that invading other countries only made the populace mad and helped al-Qaeda.
So, to summarize:
— Democrats claimed that al-Qaeda in Iraq was the largest threat — but want to completely remove all troops from Iraq.
— Democrats insist that invading Muslim countries only results in hard feelings and increases al-Qaeda’s power — but then wants to invade Pakistan.
— Democrats demand punishment for Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two countries that are actively fighting Islamist terrorism and have been for years — but completely oppose anything of the sort for Syria and Iran, who have been encouraging and supporting Islamist terrorism for years.
Fact – Al Qeada makes up a small part of the insurgency in Iraq.
Which raises this question – If our troops leave, how will this small population of foreigners rise up and kill those millions?
I don’t think they will. Once our troops leave, the small amount of Al Qeada in Iraq will lose its influence over the Sunni militias.
Our military/treasury will be free from occupying/policing a nation and be able to actually attack Al Qeada where they are.
Thus we could actually win the “WOT”
Which raises this question – If our troops leave, how will this small population of foreigners rise up and kill those millions?
The same way that they do now, but with far less interruption.
Again, gil, why should we believe that you “will” fight al-Qaeda, when you and your Democrat Party are actively trying to withdraw our troops from the area where they are most active, most numerous, and most dangerous NOW?
Furthermore, gil, you and your leftist allies argue that we should withdraw our troops because invading other countries and fighting on their territory only strengthens al-Qaeda — but then you argue that you want to invade other countries and fight on their territories with these withdrawn troops?
Fact – al Qaeda is the major portion of the insurgency in Iraq in terms of intensity / “commitment” / trouble-making actions to stoke sectarian violence.
Fact – Another major factor is Iran, both in supporting al Qaeda somewhat, and (more) in supporting Shiite militias such as Mookie’s.
Fact – al Qaeda dominates the native so-called “insurgents” by assassinating tribal / Sunni leaders who object to al Qaeda and torturing their children. (I mean real torture here, keogh/gil. Not your fake kind.)
Fact – as the Sunnis themselves increasingly turn on al Qaeda and join America and specfically the ISF (that’s Iraqi Security Forces, keogh/gil), the native Sunni part of the so-called “insurgency” (which actually represents Baathist forces of reaction) is shrinking.
Fact – all that al Qaeda has to do to dominate events in Iraq, or any country for that matter, is continue committing their heinous acts of terrorism there.
Fact – al Qaeda has declared their own State inside Iraq.
Fact – al Qaeda has declared their intention to rule Iraq as the core of a new, militant and expanding Islamic Caliphate, as the U.S. leaves.
Firmly-based conjecture – if the U.S. pulls out too soon, before ISF are firmly established and al Qaeda in Iraq defeated, then
(1) al Qaeda gets to dominate the Sunni-majority parts of Iraq; again by widespread torture, murder and terrorism;
(2) the Shia-majority parts will turn to militias for protection, aided and abetted by Iran;
(3) War then breaks out along sectarian lines. (Possibly made worse by Turkey invading the north, to prevent Kurdish independence.)
(4) With the total breakdown of all order and services, an unimaginable humanitarian disaster then results. Most civilians will die from plain disease, starvation, etc. – though many will certainly also die from terrorism or direct war.
Does that answer your question?
Our military is already doing that, keogh/gil. It’s this certain country called, um… you know… Iraq.
From past encounters, I have reason to believe you don’t really want that.
Re: likely bloodbath that would accompany a pre-mature withdrawal from Iraq, Jonah Goldberg wrote the other day:
Liberals used to be the ones who argued that sending U.S. troops abroad was a small price to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that genocide is a small price to pay to bring U.S. troops home.
He caught hell for that… the truth can sting.
#20: if we can’t pacify Iraq (population under 30 million) then attacking Pakistan (an ally, more or less, population greater than 160 million and armed with nuclear weapons) could be problematic.
A President Obama wouldn’t attack Pakistan under any circumstances. No way. No how. It’s an empty throw-away. Completely unserious.
Obama was much more intersting before he decided to run for prez.
Re: Osama Obama, ever notice how the leftists always want to fight the war over there? No, no, not here over there. Not over here, over there. Oh ok. You just can’t take these people seriously.Especially with the lives of your mother, sisters and daughters at stake.
As the surge takes its toll on Al Qaida they will respond with counter insurgency. The Nazis did not throw in the towel when we invaded Normandy. In that one day over six thousand allied troops were killed. yet the MSM makes a big deal over the three thousand in a five year period in Iraq. Our troops had to fight for every inch of ground. The Nazis regained some lost territory in the Battle of The Bulge. It was our resolve and persistence that wore the enemy down. and from what I´ve been able to determine the nation was essentially united behind the effort. Conventional or unconventional warfare the key factors to winning is to wear the enemy down with a resolve to win and persistency. The question is how to unite the nation. Since Charlie Rangel came up with reinstating the draft, maybe another Dem might suggest reinstitute the sale of war bonds. Since they have so many friends in Hollywood. maybe they can convince some of them to make a one reel promo for theatres and the youtube.
ILC
All of your “facts” are superseded by the reality on the ground:
Al Qaeda makes up a small part of the insurgency.
How would a small number of foreign fighters, whose only strategy is to set bombs for US soldiers and soft targets, take all Sunni areas?
Frankly that is just not logical.
Don’t be afraid of their propaganda, they will claim “victory” no matter what happens. Our military did its job, its not their job to make each side play nice.
Further
There already is a humanitarian crisis, no power, few to any services, thousands upon thousands upon thousands (no matter what study you follow) of civilians dead, rampant corruption, and compete incompetence in the government. Our troops can’t stop this,
because there is no military solution, only political, and the government uses our troops as a wheelchair to avoid learning how to walk.
“From past encounters, I have reason to believe you don’t really want that.”
Save that type of childish attack for people like NDT, V&K and the rest of the children.
It does not suit you.
The Democrats are talking about retreating from Iraq to go get one guy, Osama, in Afganistan/Pakistan. Why in Gods name would we leave even one Al Qeada in Iraq, when that is where we have 120,000 troops. That’s the illogical part.
How would a small number of foreign fighters, whose only strategy is to set bombs for US soldiers and soft targets, take all Sunni areas?
Replace “Sunni areas” with south Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and there you have it. A tired liberal rerun.
Besides, they’re only poor and misunderstood bumperstickers, right keogh? The kind that are so peace loving that they’d shove a grenade up their ass rather than go back to Club Gitmo.
As silly as Osama Obama’s foreign policy is, what about John “Silky Pony” Edwards foreign policy? I’m imagining slumber parties at the White House where Silky Pony and his girlfriends give make-overs to Ahmadinnerjacket and gorge themselves on ice cream and then bulimia it up in the white house can. They also call up Ban-Ki Moon at midnight to ask him which head of state is the cutest. Also, when Chavez is around they’re all really nice to him, but as soon as he leaves they call him a “fat skank.”
Obama still digging deeper:
What a joke.
Not ready for prime time. Hilldog will inevitably burst his bubble (as Kerry did Dean’s).
So where does that leave the Dems? Shrillary vs. Silky Pony? But he doesn’t seem ready for primetime either. His “Two Americas” class warfare theme is increasingly detached from the reality. So… it’s Shrillary?
On the Republican side, Rudy still loses my respect for buying into Manbearpig… but gains my respect for openly challenging Dem healthcare “socialism” (his term). I’m waiting to see if Rudy or Fred is better.
This week, the Breck Girl referred to Rudy Giuliani as “George Bush on steroids.” Tough talk from a guy who comes across as Hillary Clinton on estrogen.
Anyone seen this yet? From the Pew Center: Sharp Decline in Support for Suicide Bombing in Muslim Countries.
Several findings are interesting.
– Seems the Iraq war, or Bush Administration policy in general for the last 5 years, is not creating support for terrorism. If anything, the reverse.
– In other findings: Seems that people’s satisfaction with their lives and their own country is linked to their country’s economic growth.
This war has put Republicans in a very bad spot, particularly its indefensible (no pun) management
I’m not buying into the “bad managment of the war” line being drummed into us by the media. If Al Gore had won the election in 2000 (God help us), he would have probably followed the same path. But the media would be rallying the masses behind the war, not droning out a daily casualty rate. They would be showing daily footage of 9-11, and reporting only the successes of the troops, and the deaths of our enemies.
The polls would show a majority still support the war, the presidential approval ratings would be high, and those who attacked us, would now fear us. In other words……IT’S THE MEDIA, STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!