On Iraq: Create Contrast By Standing Up To Bush

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 04:38:28 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Matt Yglesias writes:

Dana Goldstein remarks after watching the Republicans debate that they "are terrified of the words 'George W. Bush.' A smart Democrat would force her or his Republican opponent to face up, as often as possible, to the legacy of his party's leader." . . . I think Democrats need to worry about a possible Republican blurring strategy on Iraq especially if the Democratic nominee voted for the war. . .

Just so. What always is missing from Yglesias' analysis on this is what the current Congress can do - stand up to Bush on funding the Iraq Debacle:

President Bush sternly pressed Democrats to approve money to fund the Iraq war "without strings and without delay" before leaving town for the Christmas holidays, something congressional leaders have already indicated they will not do.

I liked Harry Reid's response:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., responded that Democrats will get troops the money they need as part of a "war strategy worthy of their sacrifices." "Bush Republicans have indefinitely committed our military to a civil war that has taken a tremendous toll on our troops and our ability to respond to other very real threats around the world," Reid said.

Now the hard part, just saying no. That is what Democrats need to do. It is good policy. It is good politics.

< More on Government Funded Trysts: It's A Crime | Rudy: Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire >

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.

On Iraq: Create Contrast By Standing Up To Bush | 24 comments (24 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I like Reid's response too (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Maryb2004 on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:03:38 PM EST

especially the "war strategy worthy of their sacrifices" part.

The question as always with Reid is whether he can get every other Democrat to join in for the "no". He's good at singing the verse but doesn't always keep the chorus together.

: From where I sit no finer words (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:08:42 AM EST

could have been spoken by a Senate leader.

yes indeed (5.00 / 0) (#8)
by po on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:31:06 PM EST

Success in Iraq is what those nasty Dems fear the most?!? Please, put this tired spin out to pasture. No, what Dems likely fear the most is that the supposedly liberal MSM will continue to bite on GOP talking point / mantra that the "surge" is working and jam it down our throats.

The facts appear to be that the surge is happening at a time when Sadr's Army decided to take 6 months off and the Iraqis are realizing that the Dems will pull the troops out when they get the WH / Senate / House. See, the Dems real "fear" is that the dipsticks that got us into this mess (politicians, press, pundits and the uninformed masses) will confuse success in spite of the pathetic US administration of the occupation as success because of the US administration of the occupation. Insane, I know.

Success in Iraq will be had through the political process (that whole Democracy with a capital D), not militarily (which is why OSB got ticked at US in the first place re US troops in Saudi Arabia).

Actually, no. (1.00 / 0) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 07:29:05 AM EST

(which is why OSB got ticked at US in the first place re US troops in Saudi Arabia).

Now I am sure that didn't make his day, but when asked what would happen if the troops left, this was his response to CNN's Peter Arnett.

REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?
BIN LADIN:... So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

The whole quote (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by po on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 09:18:42 AM EST

and other parts of the interview, suggest that US in Saudi Arabia was the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak -- it's what caused him to look at the cause as well as the effect.

"The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that has triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the US aggressive policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will come to an end. So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world."

Not to quibble, but a good first move would be to get US forces out of the deserts of Arabia and the surrounding regions. A good first move certainly isn't setting up camp there indefinitely.


A little research will bring you (1.00 / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 02:11:59 PM EST

to where he claims it was the support for Israel in Lebanon that was the cause....

But no matter. What is done is done. He clearly states that the only acceptable solution is to let the radical Moslems do as they please throughout the "whole world."

Check your dictionary as to the meaning of "whole."


: BTW (1.00 / 0) (#19)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 02:14:16 PM EST

The US is part of the "whole world."
I wanted to make sure you understand exactly what is on the whole table.

Is that supposed to be unsightful? (1.00 / 0) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 08:42:37 PM EST

Educational?? Accurate??

Or, just having been shown again for your what your tricks are, you try and divert attention.

I choose the latter.

tehe

: unsightful (none / 0) (#30)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 09:27:08 AM EST

Humor is wasted on many people...
Think about it.

Will you be addressing this? (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:32:20 PM EST

NYT re longterm agreement

: Without knowing in advance (none / 0) (#12)
by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:19:15 AM EST

what this agreement is and knowing how little Maliki cares for our troops I think this could be a good thing. Anything that defines what our role in Iraq is a good things because once parameters have been set and limits applied those parameters can be adjusted and limits more limited. Cowboy King George will be lost because the only way that yahoo knows how to function is without limits but I could give a $h*t less about him. I'm not someone who worries about U.S. bases in Iraq if they serve a humanitarian aiding interest to the people of Iraq. Sometimes people worry about abuses being able to be delivered from a military base and all I can say to that is that if we had a base in Darfur Darfur wouldn't be happening. Some people get upset talking about our bases in South Korea but the North Koreans were starving to death not so very long ago and don't worry about the South Koreans not keeping US forces in their place....they're very good at it these days. If the violence is really coming to a close, terrific! Then combat troops will be pulling back and pulling out soon! We don't need to fund for combat missions then.

The Democratic candidates (none / 0) (#3)
by RalphB on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:33:38 PM EST

for president really should be standing up on this and doing a bit of leading. Reid's problem with the senate is the "herding cats" problem that's always there. It would be nice to see the candidates trying to actively help him out.

Of course... (none / 0) (#4)
by diogenes on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:54:55 PM EST

Many a smart Republican will try to create contrast with Red state Democratic congressmen by pointing out the escapades of Reid, Pelosi, and Hillary (if she leads the ticket).

Nancy's Big Plane! Checkmate! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by scarshapedstar on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:14:59 PM EST

Honestly, if that's the best you've got..


Oh, wait (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by scarshapedstar on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:21:17 PM EST

I forgot that she attended a meeting with Syria, an act of treason worse than Benedict Arnold times Julius and Ethel Rosenberg squared:

Syria announced Sunday that it would attend the Middle East peace meeting beginning here Monday night, joining Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab League participants in a turnabout that represented a victory for the Bush administration.

Wait, sorry... wrong story. How'd I get those mixed up?


heh (1.00 / 0) (#7)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 08:59:09 PM EST

I think Democrats need to worry about a possible Republican blurring strategy on Iraq especially if the Democratic nominee voted for the war. . .

Right now what the Demos are terrified of is success in Iraq.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., responded that Democrats will get troops the money they need as part of a "war strategy worthy of their sacrifices."

Oh, really? If the learned Majority Leader decides that the war that is currently going on...with the strategy that is working.... is not worthy, then no money? No support?

Well, Reid did tell us that the war is lost, so we sure know his position, eh??? Surrender then. Surrender now. Surrender forever!!!

Kinda catchy, eh????


Actually some people thought it was (none / 0) (#10)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 07:34:41 AM EST

a crime.

Logan Act.


The truth (none / 0) (#15)
by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 01:01:13 PM EST

It burns......it buuuuuurns!


: Tracy welcome back (none / 0) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 09:09:44 AM EST

I see your sojourn has not improved your logic abilities, but your ability to stand around and cheer has not been impacted. What's a matter? Surge working got your blood stirred up? Called Murtha's office yet??
As I just noted to the Bard of Nonsense, aka Dark Avenger, my reply was to a specific comment by scarshapedstar, but then I don't expect you to really read and understand.
BTW - Here are my comments to Ding7777 almost 8 months ago.

Yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by ding7777 on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 05:57:24 PM EST
the right wing noise machine was maintaining that the reason Pelosi was singled out from all the other Republicans currently meeting with Asad was because she is the Speaker and not just an ordinary Congresscritter.
Today, they single her out via the Logan Act, which applies to private citizens.
Which spin will tomorrow bring?
[ Parent ]
I cut none of them any slack. (none / 0) (#49)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 06:53:08 PM EST
Demos or Repubs
No difference to me.

Have a wonderful day

: Hi MilitaryTracy (none / 0) (#27)
by flyer01 on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 10:17:39 PM EST

Hi militarytracy, sorry to stuff you around - would you mind trying to email again to this address (the first address I gave you omitted the .au):
pfbowes@live.com.au
Thank you once again,
Paul

And your point is???? (none / 0) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 02:08:01 PM EST

A crime is a crime. Did I say what the Repubs had also done was not a crime?? No. i did not.

Really DA, you should pay more attention. And your apparently continuing belief that I am a Repub is..are you ready for this>...... risible.

;-)

BTW - Do you think the time wasted by these galloping galoots of foreign policy might have been better spent on NHC?

tehe


Siller DA (none / 0) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 08:37:18 AM EST

What I did was respond to a comment by scarshapedstar.

Again, you should pay attention.

BTW - This subject was previously on the blog where I took the same position. You should also remember that Big Plane Nancy is the Speaker of the House, and third in line to be President. That makes her comments to foreign dictators who are trying to build nukes a wee bit more important than Demo and Repub congress types.

Now. Get your dentures off my ankle. I have a busy day planned and don't want to be hitting the ball and dragging DA.


: Once again you have been exposed (1.00 / 0) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 08:39:54 PM EST

as someone who doesn't read a string within a thread, and merely joins in to bite on my ankle, unknowing and uncaring what had been previously written.
Congratulations. You have again proven that you know nothing.

Shorter Bushy (none / 0) (#16)
by TomStewart on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 02:01:47 PM EST

"Give me what I want...or I'll hold my breath!"

George, turn blue.