Missing From The Iraq Coverage

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 11:59:30 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

is the reality that Democrats can end the Debacle by not funding it. The power of doing nothing is lost on them. Instead, we see the Republican Party responding to its base (h/t Josh Marshall):

Despite months of pressure, no more than eight Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate have backed any measure that mandates a troop withdrawal. And GOP strategists predict that is unlikely to change. "Republicans have to be cognizant of where their base is," said pollster Bob Wickers, whose company has worked with Republican candidates in a dozen states in recent years.

Here's my question, why don't Democrats have to be cognizant of where THE COUNTRY is? Josh's post is really missing this point - that Democrats won in 2006 on Iraq. That THEIR base and the country want out of Iraq. And that they have the power to stop the war. By doing nothing. It is the central insight and is missing from much of the Iraq coverage, Media and blogs alike.

< Obama and Donny McClurkin | The Most Trusted To Offend >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Missing From The Iraq Coverage | 25 comments (25 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Why don't Democrats have to be cognizant (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Edger on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 12:42:12 PM EST

of where THE COUNTRY is?

They are.

They don't want to end it. They only want to sound like they want to end it.

They don't want to end it... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by desertswine on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 01:06:20 PM EST

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush asked Congress on Monday for another $46 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and finance other national security needs. "We must provide our troops with the help and support they need to get the job done," Bush said.

Endless war...

But don't dare ask... (none / 0) (#3)
by desertswine on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 01:07:39 PM EST

for expanded children's health insurance... no, no, no.


: Don't dare ask for LESS... (none / 0) (#6)
by Dadler on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 01:33:45 PM EST

...that this latest multi-billion dollar drop in the war bucket.

well BTD, i'm hard pressed to believe (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by cpinva on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 01:18:52 PM EST

that you, and we, are the only ones who've figured this out. yes, yes, i know, you're a very bright boy, and we're all just very smart people here. however, there are also some really smart people in congress too (don't laugh, it's true!), who probably have also figured out that they control the purse strings of our government.

so, given the above, and the high likelyhood that the smart congresspersons have told the dumb congresspersons about this purse string thing, there must be something else going on, to account for this seeming lack of action on the obvious.

the bigger question is: why haven't they taken the obvious course of refusing to continue funding the war? they know how to do it, they just haven't taken the next step. why is that?

Could this be the reason?? (1.00 / 1) (#14)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 04:56:31 PM EST

Reid it an weep.

Harry Reid's favorability rating in Nevada is down to 32 percent, which is lower than President Bush's. 51 percent of Nevada voters rate Reid unfavorably, according to a poll by the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Sherman Frederick of the Review-Journal explains these numbers as follows:
"No one can win a statewide race in Nevada on a platform that appears anti-military, anti-family, anti-marriage, anti-religion, anti-free speech, pro-illegal immigration, pro-abortion, and pro-taxation. While Harry isn't all of that personally, he clearly projects elements of them all when he's doing the bidding of his party on the national stage"

And, as the war news continues to improve, the Demo Loser position will continue to weigh heavily on the Demos.

As Gabreil Heator said during WWII... There's good news tinight."


Heh (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 05:04:13 PM EST

You go with that Sherman Frederick's opinion.

Personally, I think any sane non-Powerline loving person would understand that Reid's problem is the one I outline, not that he is insufficiently pro-Iraq Debacle.

In a way, your type of thinking is wehat Rahm Emanuel and Hoyer are all about, they want to run against the "thinking" you and Powerlione and Frederick provide.

It is how they swept the field in 2006.


We'll see (1.00 / 1) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 06:43:26 PM EST

To paraphrase one of your comments.... I don't know Sherman Frederick.....and I'm not sure I want to..

As for 2006, we both know that the Senate turned on a very thin percentage, as did a lot of House seats.
Can the Demos repeat in 2008? Frankly, I don't know and neither do you.

I only say that Reid and the Left have taken a "gimme putt" for an eagle and turned it into a 9 footer for par.


No the percentage was large (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 08:19:13 PM EST

8 percent.


: Averages are funny things (1.00 / 1) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 08:31:16 AM EST

Montana Senate - 2% and a purality
Virginia Senate - <1% and a purality
If you average 1 + 1 + 10 you get 4....
And the congressional races aren't won/loss on a national average...Lose either one of those and you have a Repub Senate.
You should also feel sicky when thinking that LA, despite all of the blame dumped on the Repubs and Bush, just elected a Repub governor..
I repeat. The Demo Left has turned a gimme putt for an eagle into a 9 footer for par. And like Curly said,

"The day aint over yet." (City Slickers)

Keep us posted on (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by jondee on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 05:05:13 PM EST

your monkey king's numbers as "the war news continues to improve" (at Powerline), will you?


Breaks your heart, eh?? (1.00 / 1) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 06:47:12 PM EST

: Here tis (1.00 / 1) (#24)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 08:50:57 AM EST

Just for Jondee

You know why, cpinva. Don't you? (none / 0) (#5)
by Edger on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 01:26:07 PM EST

You're an accountant, yes?


it's what i do for a living, yes. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by cpinva on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 02:24:44 PM EST

however, i'm at a loss as to what that has to do with the issue at hand. surely you're not suggesting that our continued presence in iraq is beneficial for the democrats, are you? consider the fact that many people assumed, upon taking both houses in jan. of this year, they (the democratic majority) would immediately facilitate the relocation of our troops, to either the US, or maybe afghanistan, where our continued presence does enjoy some support.

this didn't happen, and those same people have expressed their unhappiness, going so far as to assert that the democrats betrayed them. surely, this can't be good for 2008, can it? so no, there has to be something else going on here.

i suppose they could be just trying to line the pockets of their corporate sponsors, but it seems poor planning to self-immolate, with only two years in the majority. that's hardly enough time to stuff the coffers.

so again, no, there has to be some deeper, hidden agenda going on here.


They are afraid. (none / 0) (#9)
by Edger on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 02:44:07 PM EST

The economy is based upon having to continue to grow. Imperialism. Pure and simple.

They are afraid that the economy and the "empire" will collapse unless the US can control the energy resources of the world.

Unfortunately, the occupation of Iraq is creating the very problem they hope to stave off with the occupation.

You Must Be Mad, Or You Wouldn't Have Come Here

The United States is Insolvent
© Dr. Chris Martenson
Prepare to be shocked.
The US is insolvent. There is simply no way for our national bills to be paid under current levels of taxation and promised benefits. Our combined federal deficits now total more than 400% of GDP.
That is the conclusion of a recent Treasury/OMB report entitled Financial Report of the United States Government [.pdf] that was quietly slipped out on a Friday (12/15/06), deep in the holiday season, with little fanfare. Sometimes I wonder why the Treasury Department doesn't just pay somebody to come in at 4:30 am Christmas morning to release the report. Additionally, I've yet to read a single account of this report in any of the major news media outlets but that is another matter.
But, hey, I understand. A report is this bad requires all the muffling it can get.

: Do you think growth is bad? (none / 0) (#23)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 08:49:08 AM EST

The Democratic Party (none / 0) (#10)
by Edger on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 02:49:41 PM EST

is now getting more corporate donations than the Republican Party.

What does that tell you?

Look at Jay Rockefeller's Telecom Money, for his backing of the cave on FISA for instance.


What It Tells You (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by squeaky on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 02:51:42 PM EST

Is that they are betting on the Democrats winning in '08. Nothing new there.


It also tells you (none / 0) (#12)
by Edger on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 02:57:53 PM EST

why they won't end the occupation....


: No Sh*t (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by squeaky on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 03:36:12 PM EST

War is a moneymaker, and all that oil....

Strangely enough, the more I think about it... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Dadler on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 08:42:39 PM EST

...IRAQ is missing from the Iraq coverage. Our filtered and propagandized MSM version sure isn't reality.

: Reality? (none / 0) (#21)
by Edger on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 08:48:46 PM EST

Iraq: All FUBAR and Refugees Have Nowhere to Go
American Exceptionalism In Iraq

Well, (none / 0) (#7)
by HeadScratcher on Mon Oct 22, 2007 at 01:52:07 PM EST

Keep supporting Hillary and this is what you'll get. There's Edwards, Obama (who was against this from the start), and others who will end the war. But Jeralyn and others here love Hillary so this is what you'll get for the next eight years.

Here's the rub? If the citizens want to get out of Iraq and Hillary voted for the war and now says that we're there until at least 2013, then why is she ahead in the polls? Why did she vote on Kyl-Lieberman? And again, why is she ahead on the polls?

Contract with America (none / 0) (#25)
by diogenes on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 07:34:21 PM EST

Why don't the Dems run a ticketwide contract to withdraw completely on January 21, 2009?