Top Democrats Reluctantly Conceding:Bush’s Surge Is Working
One senator said U.S. troops are routing out al-Qaida in parts of Iraq. Another insisted President Bush’s plan to increase troops has caused tactical momentum.
One even went so far on Wednesday as to say the argument could be made that U.S. troops are winning.
These are not Bush-backing GOP die-hards, but Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin, Bob Casey and Jack Reed. Even Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, said progress was being made by soldiers.
The suggestions by them and other Democrats in recent days that at least a portion of Bush’s strategy in Iraq is working is somewhat surprising, considering the bitter exchanges on Capitol Hill between the Democratic majority and Republicans and Bush. Democrats have long said Bush’s policies have been nothing more than a complete failure.
Those of us who don’t rely on the New York Times and CNN for our news have known for months that the surge was having a real positive impact on stability and safety in Iraq. We read bloggers and news sources who are actually there and don’t make up stories about their experiences. Better yet, maybe Durbin, Casey, Levin and Reed should have just talked with their colleague, Senator Joe Lieberman who knew the surge was working MONTHS ago.
In a conference call with reporters, Casey said one could make a good argument that U.S. troops have won the war, then accused Iraqi politicians and the Bush administration of not matching the intensity of the troops.
“The troops have met every assignment, they’ve beaten the odds time and again, they’ve done everything we’ve asked them to,” Casey said.
California Democratic Rep. Jerry McNerney had a different take. After visiting Iraq last month and visiting with Petraeus, McNerney said signs of progress led him to decide he’ll be a little more flexible about when troops should be brought home.
“I’m more willing to work with finding a way forward to accommodate what the generals are saying,” McNerney said.
First of all, the surge IS Bush’s new policy. Why can’t Democrats just be happy that we have turned a corner in Iraq because of the President’s orders?
Second, no one is happy about the lack of Iraqi Central Government progress… but there is local government progress, the security and stability have to come first before there even can be national unity, and our own Congress is out on vacation for the month of August. To ignore those truths is to ignore reality.
And finally, it certainly looksÂlike Empress Pelosi and Goofy Reid have lost a number of their”cut and run” votes…. and likely many more after General Petraeus’ reports in September.
I’m sure the Democrats will embrace the surge now and claim it was their idea….. but Americans know the truth.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
18 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
In the event that we lose in Iraq, it will be a defeat for all America. But the Democrats will celebrate V-B day (victory over Bush day).
When we win, I don’t want to have to mop up the exploding Democrat heads.
Comment by Attmay — August 9, 2007 @ 10:09 am - August 9, 2007
The surge *was* partly the Democrats’ idea… they were for it (in late 2006), just before they were against it. They’ve been all over the map; that’s part of their whole CYA, “we’re not responsible for anything except criticism” strategy with Iraq. Plus, you mentioned Lieberman.
Still, it is comforting to see America succeeding to the point where even anti-Americans such as the Democrats must acknowledge it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 9, 2007 @ 11:21 am - August 9, 2007
If there is anyone who hasn’t done so yet, you all must get a copy of “The Looming Tower” by Lawrence wright. I’m listening to the audio-book this week (my first a/b) and I have to tell you, it’s stunning – an eye opener. We have made so many mistakes and have prolonged our Iraq involvement as a result, but if we just thew our hands up and left we would be giving the Jihadist one of the greatest victories they could have ever dreamed of. I want the American involvement in the Iraqi theater to be over as much as anyone, but not at the cost of reinforcing a new wave of Jihadism, born not just out of hatred of the west (that can probably never be stopped), but out of the realization that they can win. That would create an enemy tenfold as dangerous as we now have to deal with.
Surge On!
Comment by sonicfrog — August 9, 2007 @ 12:17 pm - August 9, 2007
Time for Turban Durbin and Levin to start saying “we knew it all along!”.
BTW, Bush’s approval number has gone up to 40% while the Pelosi/gReid Congress of Corruption is still racking up record lows.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 9, 2007 @ 3:39 pm - August 9, 2007
TGC, just so. The Three Stages of Truth:
1) You’re silly for thinking we cna beat al Qaeda in Iraq. Cuckoo!
2) You’re HITLER!!! We must IMPEACH you!!!
3) Jeez, drama queen, you’re only saying what we all said first.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 9, 2007 @ 3:55 pm - August 9, 2007
Did you compare the political and military situation in America to that in Iraq by drawing parallels between our Congress and their Parliament? Really?
General Petraeus has said there is no pure military solution to Iraq, that a political situation is required. The surge is working on a purely military level, as everyone knew it would (throwing another ~100k of the world’s best troops into a country will tend to do that), but GP, I notice you haven’t posted any news, good or bad, about the political situation in Iraq and how it is making progress. I mean, is there any news to report (aside from the withdrawal of block after block of ministers from a tottering government?).
I realize that killing militants feels good, but it’s not the endgoal in Iraq, nor even necessarily even a stepping stone on the way to an endgoal. AQI is not the entire, or even the largest, source of the Sunni/Shia conflict, Kurd/Sunni/Shia conflict instability in Iraq. How does the news about US troops being successful in occupying a country in greater numbers lead us to an Iraq that is a partner in democracy, partner in the fight against terror, etc.? Especially when, as the NIE showed, the occupation increases recruiting and fundraising for anti-American efforts.
I know it’s tempting to bury your head in the Iraqi sand and focus on dead AQI, but it’s not the whole picture, and everyone knows it.
“First of all, the surge IS Bush’s new policy. Why can’t Democrats just be happy that we have turned a corner in Iraq because of the President’s orders?”* The surge is a military policy. It’s telling that you act as if it’s a complete solution all on its own, since that one-dimensional attitude has been the hallmark of both the war in Iraq and the statements of its defenders. There is more required. And since every failure of the Iraqi government has been met with no response from the Bush admin except to send more troops and more money, Casey’ statement simply acknowledges the distance between a military solution and an Iraq solution, something Bush (and his defenders) don’t even seem able to admit exists.
* How many corners have we turned now, anyway?
“The security and stability have to come first before there even can be national unity… To ignore those truths is to ignore reality.”
GP: The “national unity” didn’t exist before we got there; the country was held together by a repressive dictatorship run by sadistic thugs. Are we going to take their place? And if not, we do what? Militarily force “peace” on the country, at the cost of American lives and increased anti-American sentiment and AQ recruiting world-wide, in order to give the Iraqis… what exactly? A chance to settle centuries-old feuds? “Breathing room” to hash out the religious and sectarian differences that cause them to drill holes in each other’s heads every night? How long do you think that will take (consider the ME’s track record at resolving religious and cultural differences at the negotiating table)? Do you see anything in the Bush admin’s approach to Iraq that acknowledges these needs, let alone has made attempts to solve them and made progress on them?
Comment by torrentprime — August 9, 2007 @ 5:01 pm - August 9, 2007
# 6- “Did you compare the political and military situation in America to that in Iraq by drawing parallels between our Congress and their Parliament? Really?”
Of course!
When the right is struggling the more absurd they become. See any post by NDT for clarification.
Comment by gil — August 9, 2007 @ 5:06 pm - August 9, 2007
Ah yes, torrentprime…..the man who cited the NIE claiming that al-Qaeda in Iraq was the most dangerous branch in terms of attacking the United States….but who is now claiming that we need to deploy our troops far, far away from it and stop trying to kill it.
Gotcha.
Of course, what torrentprime never explains is why, despite his bashing Clinton for refusing to deploy troops to the Middle East or take military action to fight al-Qaeda, the absence of troops seemingly did nothing to stop al-Qaeda from raising prodigious amounts of money and recruiting literally thousands of zealots.
The difference is now that our troops are there catching and killing them.
The issue here is simple; al-Qaeda will recruit and raise money whether we are there or not.
The question is whether or not we run and hide, or whether we proactively attack them while doing it.
Like Clinton SHOULD have done in Afghanistan.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 9, 2007 @ 5:37 pm - August 9, 2007
Man, man oh man. First some good news: even the demented, liberal AP reports that polls are moving in a pro-victory direction on Iraq. They haven’t stopped calling it an “occupation”, but we must be grateful for the small things.
Now get this remark:
“Our side”, that the Democrats are on, that wants to deny we are fighting al Qaeda militants in Iraq, and that opposes the Administration (and America) in defeating them? What side would that be?
By basic logic, wouldn’t it have to be the side of… umm… al Qaeda?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 9, 2007 @ 6:16 pm - August 9, 2007
Did you notice audience member from movie, the 40 year old virgin? But I digress, Kucinich is speaking.
Comment by RJLigier — August 9, 2007 @ 9:53 pm - August 9, 2007
#9 Most folks would be embarrassed if they sounded just like the enemy. However, VaginalTorrent and his ilk are unfamiliar with embarassment.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 10, 2007 @ 4:35 am - August 10, 2007
Must be working. The UN is singing “Gilbert and Sullivan to the Rescue”.
Yup, Folks, there’s gold in them thar wars (if y’all don’t have to fight them). Action version of “Oil for Food” coming up.
Special soloist will give us a rendition of “Jubilation T. Cornpone (‘L’il Abner’)”. “Who was it that led the troops that brought us safe to the rear”?
Comment by Shawmut — August 11, 2007 @ 11:46 am - August 11, 2007
sonicfrog; That is a great book to get the ‘skinny’ on those these murderes are following.
Comment by Shawmut — August 11, 2007 @ 1:49 pm - August 11, 2007
The Surge is working? Wow, what planet are these people from?
Comment by Elais — August 11, 2007 @ 4:08 pm - August 11, 2007
Given that they’re in the Democrat Party…..yours.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 12, 2007 @ 12:46 pm - August 12, 2007
Related: Click on the highlighted text for a video from 1992, wherein Algoretoo excorciates Bush 41 in detail and at length, for not doing nearly enough about Saddam’s “blatant, brutal terrorism” and genocidal, megalomaniac ambitions on the world.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 12, 2007 @ 11:07 pm - August 12, 2007
Sometimes, you gotta love Jules Crittenden:
Kind of a fun read.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 13, 2007 @ 1:16 pm - August 13, 2007
“Anti-American” Democrats #2? I see. So anyone that does not subscribe to you and your buddies right wing idiology are anti-American……Hmmmm. Interesting. As a Veteran who served in the Armed Forces of this nation I think I can pretty well qualify as anything but “anti-American”. Many of us “anti-American” Democrats have done much good in service to this nation and certainly dont deserve to put up with crap from people like you because we subscribe to differing political opinion. If you cant have intelligent political discourse without having to resort to sophomoric generalizations perhaps you should sit in the corner and suck your thumb while the adults debate.
Comment by AJ — August 15, 2007 @ 1:51 pm - August 15, 2007