Will Pols Be Punished For Not Ending The Iraq Debacle?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon May 28, 2007 at 07:27:41 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Paul Krugman makes an interesting point, while missing a main one:

Democrats, still fearing that they will end up accused of being weak on terror and not supporting the troops, gave Mr. Bush another year’s war funding. Democratic Party activists were furious, because polls show a public utterly disillusioned with Mr. Bush and anxious to see the war ended. But it’s not clear that the leadership was wrong to be cautious. The truth is that the nightmare of the Bush years won’t really be over until politicians are convinced that voters will punish, not reward, Bush-style fear-mongering. And that hasn’t happened yet.

It seems true that politicians are not convinced that voters will punish Bush-style fearmongering. But that is not the Democrats' problem. The Dems' problems is precisely that they need to be convinced of that before they will act with political courage. And everyone knows this. The last few days I have been harping on the Democrats' central political weakness - that are believed to have no convictions they will fight for.

Krugman, perhaps slyly, perhaps inadvertently, provides the same indictment - in deciding how to act on the Iraq Debacle, Democrats have their finger to the wind - they are for it before they are against it. Whatever "it" is.

The fundamental misconception one sees in almost all the analysis of the Politics of Iraq and comparing 2006 and 2008 is that in 2006 the Throw The Bums Out dynamic worked, for the Dems were out of power. It is now a Democratic Congress and voters who expected some action from the Congress on Iraq will not be blaming Bush-style fearmongering, they will be blaming Dem craveness. Instead of seizing a political opportunity and a chance to do the right thing, the Democrats in Congress have not acted in shrewd or courageous ways.

But what can they do some will ask? First, do no harm. The Iraq Supplemental saga was a fiasco and did great harm imo. No more of that please.

Second, propose a strategy that might work, the Reid/Feingold/ McGovern framework I have discussed many times here.

Third, seize the initiative in the political debate. Today the NYTimes provides a story that tells you everything that is wrong about the continued US presence in Iraq:

Staff Sgt. David Safstrom does not regret his previous tours in Iraq, not even a difficult second stint when two comrades were killed while trying to capture insurgents.
. . . But now on his third deployment in Iraq, he is no longer a believer in the mission. The pivotal moment came, he says, this past February when soldiers killed a man setting a roadside bomb. When they searched the bomber’s body, they found identification showing him to be a sergeant in the Iraqi Army.
“I thought, ‘What are we doing here? Why are we still here?’ ” said Sergeant Safstrom, a member of Delta Company of the First Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division. “We’re helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us.”

And do not cower at every single insult that the GOP might hurl. It really is embarrassing.

< Late Night: Ray Charles and Georgia On My Mind | Memorial Day: Remembering Those Who Served >

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.

Will Pols Be Punished For Not Ending The Iraq Debacle? | 71 comments (71 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Bush plays chicken with the troops, (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by fairleft on Mon May 28, 2007 at 09:58:35 AM EST

and as long as the Democrats are not willing to do likewise they should stay off the funding battlefield.

Reid-Feingold shmeingold, if you're not willing to throw Bush's tactics back at him, you'll lose. If the 'no more money' deadline is March 31, 2008, and Bush has troops in Iraq and shows no signs of pulling them out in mid-March 2008, what will Congress do? It'll give in to Bush, unless antiwar Democrats have properly prepared their fellow Congresspeople and the public for that kind of confrontation with Bush.

A fuller explanation of my point of view is here.

It's becoming quite striking (5.00 / 3) (#26)
by Alien Abductee on Mon May 28, 2007 at 02:40:53 PM EST

Everywhere I'm reading lately a revolutionary, apocalyptic note is creeping in. Not the usual wild-eyed folks - the solid sober sensible citizens. It's as if a dike was breached with the Dems' failure to act with any kind of courage or honesty on the Supplemental vote, and people are realizing they have no way to make the system respond to what they want and what they say. Not that I take what they're saying seriously on a practical level, but it does signal something significant I think in terms of people's willingness to step back and look seriously at the mechanisms of their government and society and consider the ways they're working and the effects they produce, and how they might need to be changed. That seems new.

The penny has dropped, they've realized they're never going to win in the game because the game is rigged, an idea the fringe has been spouting forever but it could always be dismissed out of hand as self-evidently absurd, because I'm doing OK. Now people are starting to glimpse it in their own lives and they're mulling it, as they work two jobs to pay for the mortgage and the health insurance and the tuition... The Dems' failure to do what they were elected for, in fact to seriously even try, seems to be making people look the same way at the two-party system. There aren't two parties really, just one, with fig leaf and without, and it belongs only to the wealthy and connected...

Where this might go, I don't know. Beyond punishing individual pols, I think. How can you even punish them anyway without punishing yourself, when the choices are bad and worse? What happens when large numbers of people lose faith in their system of government? The Greens or some new Unity party aren't the answer. If they become players they'll become corrupted and co-opted too, if they haven't already been. Because the problem of course is much closer to home. Pogo said it - We have met the enemy and he is us.

i'm with you, alien abductee, (4.66 / 3) (#30)
by conchita on Mon May 28, 2007 at 03:18:41 PM EST

but i have to admit that i haven't quite figured out how to make soup of it yet. at the risk of incurring btd's ire, i lean towards impeachment, thinking that we need to take a strong stand and force our congressional representatives to do more than bluster. we need them to show that being democrats actually means something, that they are not just part of the system. with impeachment you don't run up against 'desert the troops meme". i don't want to support the cowardly dems in office. nor do i don't want to kick the can down the road while bushcheneyco continue to game the system and rob us blind. i know this sounds tinfoil-hattish but i don't want to wake up and find that a natural or "unnatural" disaster has provided the perfect excuse to declare martial law. we all know bush and cheney have committed impeachable offenses. i think the country needs the strong medicine of impeachment investigations and proceedings. we need to reverse the course and in holding this administration accountable also put the current elected "leaders" on notice that they too are accountable.


: How to make soup (5.00 / 2) (#39)
by Alien Abductee on Mon May 28, 2007 at 03:53:15 PM EST

That's the problem, isn't it. There's only the original recipe, and no one's really ready to go anywhere near there at this point no matter what their rhetoric says.
I can see the 110th impeaching Gonzales, but that's it. Maybe if something happens that truly shakes up and outrages 80% of the country - unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran, say - maybe. But otherwise, just not gonna happen. No point even thinking about it with this crew in place.
As far as incurring btd's ire goes, well, at least it's great practice for manning the barricades.

: Tune in, turn on and drop out.. (none / 0) (#49)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 28, 2007 at 07:50:53 PM EST

The only honorable thing for a Lefty to do.
;-)

It's a nightmare (none / 0) (#1)
by JanL on Mon May 28, 2007 at 08:51:20 AM EST

You know I agree with the Mar. '08 defunding date, but I can't think Joe Sestak & Jim Webb are fearful of Repub. talking points or the endless hateful screeds on r-w talk/tv. (Read Sestak's congressional webpage.) I think the situation in Iraq is dire and likely to get much worse and we know that Bu$hCo will not back down; Steve Clemons thinks Cheney has the hots for going after Iran, for cripe's sakes. It's important for the Democrats to unite and show how they will govern and I was unimpressed (ok, heartbroken)they seemed to cave last week. If there is an "upside" to any of this, Durbin, Dorgan & others now have the drought help they sought and they all have the minimum wage hike so perhaps the rest of the Blue Dogs will now get with the Out of Iraq group next time around. Meantime, I have a sinking feeling about the "surge" and sadly, it may be the kick in the pants the rest of Americans need to see we can't win an occupation and we must prepare to withdraw if we want to save our soldiers. I'm old enough to have been a protesting dirty hippie during the last days of Vietnam, and losing is not something Americans like, so whatever the Democrats do, they had better loudly and often point their fingers at Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the cabal in addition to standing together.

JanL (none / 0) (#2)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 28, 2007 at 09:36:51 AM EST

The problem you, and the Demos, have is that the tactics that worked so well during Vietnam are out of date, even with the overt help of the MSM. Technology has brought everyone a much faster means of communications and the Demos recognize that there is no longer a "delay" in which making false claims can be effective.

So while they were happy to use the Left to help win a majority, they are going to let the Left force them into loosing what they have just gained.


NO ONE (none / 0) (#5)
by JanL on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:43:35 AM EST

...is advocating the tactics used during the pull-out from Vietnam. You mis-read my post, but that is natural coming from you. This is the very last time I engage you here or anywhere else that I can recognize you. Go in peace, but please go.


JanL - Really? (none / 0) (#6)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:50:46 AM EST

We went to North Vietnam and gave them a deal. Give us enough time to get out and we won't provide support for South Vietnam when (not if) you invade.

That is exactly what the Demos will have to do with Iran, except the deal will include letting them have nuclear weapons. Because a defined date withdrawal based on defunding without that deal would be so bloody that the Demos would be out for another 12 years or so.

Losing wars have consquences. A nuclear Iran is just one of them.


: delusional (none / 0) (#16)
by Molly Bloom on Mon May 28, 2007 at 01:27:05 PM EST

I agree, right now it's not a Democratic Congress, (none / 0) (#3)
by fairleft on Mon May 28, 2007 at 09:48:32 AM EST

it's a Blue Dogs + Republicans Congress. Pelosi et al should've been doing all they could to let the American people see that fact. Instead they temporarily stood up to the President knowing (?, or should've knowing) they would soon have to cave.


But The Point Is (1.00 / 1) (#7)
by talex on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:51:12 AM EST

that they did stand up to Bush. And have vowed to continue to do so. So they DO HAVE convictions unlike what some say. Not only on the war but in other areas like the ones that were passed by the House in the first 100 Hours.

So to broadly say that the Dems do not have convictions is crazy. If one just looks at the polls on who the public thinks can do a better job on any number of specific issues it is easy to see that they know exactly what the Dems stand for. To ignore those polls and say the Dems stand for nothing is willful and spiteful disallegiance.

It is all to easy to stand on the sidelines and throw rocks. All to easy. And with the internet anyone with a keyboard can do it.

Krugman says that Pols have to be convinced that the public will not punish the people doing the right thing. And he is right. The public is fickle. They will turn on you in the blink of an eye. Look at the Left. Just a few months ago the Dems were highly rated. In a matter of one day they were turned upon by most of the Left. Like I said the public is fickle and will turn on you in the blink of an eye. One reading this only has to look at their own ranks to see how true that is.

Fairleft does have it right when it comes to the Blue Dogs and the Repubs. They have always been the problem all along. It is they that hold up ending this war. They and the fickle public.

As I have said before if and when the public reaches critical mass in support of defunding then and only then can that option be seriously considered.

In the meantime it looks like in the fall there is a real chance that Bush may withdraw some troops to try to save his party in '08 if for no other reason. If that happens you can thank the Dems for putting up a good fight for the last four months and forcing him into doing that. And if it does not happen the Dems still have other means that they have told us they will use to keep fighting for withdrawal. And then of course if Bush does not try to save the Repubs then it is very possible that the Repubs will try to save themselves by joining us and withdrawing troops.

If people quit on the Dems they quit on themselves - because they are all we have.


They're all we have. (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by Lora on Mon May 28, 2007 at 01:38:39 PM EST

If people quit on the Dems they quit on themselves - because they are all we have.

I agree. We have to go forward with the party we have. I think most progressives realize this.

Don't forget the brainwash factor in the political chess game. The public is fickle...because of the slant of the MSM (or MPM -- Mouth Piece Media)...because of the Rove factor.

Bashing Dems makes the repubs jump for joy. It is their tactic that now they have gotten the dems to do for them! Double Jeopardy!

But should the dems actually unite, be sure that the repubs are waiting in the wings with their brainwashing smear campaign. It IS something to fear. But instead of caving they should do their damage control before the repubs' first strike, head off the repub talking points before they even hit the media, and have their own talking points loudly and repetitively broadcast. Sorta like BTD with his no-funding mantra, but with the buy-in factor.


There is a seed here. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Edger on Mon May 28, 2007 at 01:52:35 PM EST

Lora - you just pointed out something that no one else here has, I think, and that I haven't seen anywhere else for that matter.

The repubs are always playing two or three moves ahead. The democrats are left always reacting.

In selling (anything), identifying and pre-empting objections are traits and skills used by the most successful people and oragnizations.

The democrats need to turn the paridigm around. First stop reacting. Start acting. And force the repubs to react.

Reactors never control the message.


A Problem (none / 0) (#22)
by squeaky on Mon May 28, 2007 at 02:11:54 PM EST

The GOP has been working it since the 70's. It all started with the Powell Manifesto or Memo.

We have seen the effects recently in the DOJ with Godling or Goodthing, whatever her real name is and here is another story about a tireless GOP operative.

The problem we have is that liberal is by defination open minded. Big Tent means lots of ideas. Those are not so easily reduced into soundbites and manipulative rhetoric.


not so easily reduced (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Edger on Mon May 28, 2007 at 02:30:05 PM EST

That's true. But similar to the way we do so here, there is no reason to cower and be forced into a 'reacting' mode. Pre-empt, set them up, refute, ridicule, and take the initiative. Demand substantiation, then take it apart and turn it around on them. That is where they are weakest. Force them into reacting.

It might sound difficult, but these are basic sales techniques practiced and used by the best salespeople in the world. And what is politicking but selling ideas?

Use rhetorical judo and turn their soundbites against them.


And used (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Edger on Mon May 28, 2007 at 02:45:56 PM EST

by the best trial lawyers in the world to convince judges and juries.


Also (5.00 / 3) (#28)
by squeaky on Mon May 28, 2007 at 02:48:14 PM EST

Our message is that people need to conserve, sacrifice, think of those less fortunate, spend money on social services (for all the losers), reign in corporate greed, etc.

Their message is: spend, borrow, live life to its fullest because you are the new chosen people. Heaven on earth and then heaven for eternity. The most important, most powerful and richest people in the world. America will continue to rule the world by force if necessary to guarantee you your luxury lifestyle and TV.

And for those who are poor, the luxurious lifestyle is just around the corner. God will not leave you out.

Is it OK for the Democratic message to be as equally tempting con job? Americans are addicted to 'sugar'.


Equally tempting con job? (none / 0) (#29)
by Edger on Mon May 28, 2007 at 03:06:25 PM EST

People selling con jobs end up either in jail, or broke because people see through it and don't buy.

So, no. It wouldn't work very long for one thing, it's morally wrong for another, and in my experience if you're selling quality your customers become your best salespeople and you get more and more customers faster and faster.


Really? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by squeaky on Mon May 28, 2007 at 03:21:34 PM EST

People selling con jobs end up either in jail, or broke because people see through it and don't buy

Isn't that only if they get caught, and then not always.

Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and the Big Chimp, to name a few, seem like they will make out fine.

OK Father Ritter fell but he was never prosecuted. Ollie North, Elliot Abram, John Poindexter et al are doing quite well. They are back in government I hear.


Well for a while. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Edger on Mon May 28, 2007 at 03:23:52 PM EST

There are always exceptions. But you see through them, right?


Yes (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by squeaky on Mon May 28, 2007 at 03:28:31 PM EST

But I have the super secret triple bonus x-ray glasses. I lucked out when I was 10 years old and spent a month's allowance on them from the back of a ZAP comix. They are no longer being made and very hard to find used as most of them wore out during Watergate and Iran Contra.


: Nukular powered (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Edger on Mon May 28, 2007 at 03:38:57 PM EST

bullsh*t detector, hunh??
I knew that. ;-)

Another trait (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by Edger on Mon May 28, 2007 at 03:22:24 PM EST

of very successful, and honest, salespeople is that they don't waste their, or their prospects, time trying to convince the unconvinceable, persist with prospects who are too resistant. They move on to the next prospect quickly when they identify too much resistance. This is the sense in which selling is a numbers game. Not because they don't care about people, but because they do. If they have a quality product they want to deliver it to as many as possible, which results in them being successful. It's more about what they give than what they take, and the more they give the more they get.

People selling conjobs forget this, and all they try to do is take.


IOW, The Democrats (none / 0) (#35)
by Edger on Mon May 28, 2007 at 03:37:13 PM EST

need, imo, to avoid going on the defensive at all. That's the mistake they've been making, from my perspective. They need an offensive selling strategy for one thing.

But, and this is the big one, imo, they need a good product to sell.

Right now they are trying to sell "we're not republicans". It will never work, except that they might be able to con people for awhile - maybe even long enough to win the presidency next year, which for them and the customers would be the worst thing that could happen if they win it with a conjob. Look at where the GOP is now for an example of that.

But it will ruin them in the end. It's selling a negative, not a positive.


It ain't the meat. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Edger on Mon May 28, 2007 at 03:40:21 PM EST

It's the motion.


: IOW (none / 0) (#38)
by Edger on Mon May 28, 2007 at 03:46:36 PM EST

It's not how big your weapon is.
It's the moves you make that determine whether you score or not.

edger (none / 0) (#46)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 28, 2007 at 07:43:15 PM EST

Uh, did the Repubs lose the midterms or did I have a dream??

I mean them being so smart and all.


Good for you!!! (none / 0) (#25)
by talex on Mon May 28, 2007 at 02:36:11 PM EST

They do. It is just the majority of the progressive blogs that don't. The polls show that most Dems do not call for what the blogs do and for good reason. Common sense.

But should the dems actually unite, be sure that the repubs are waiting in the wings with their brainwashing smear campaign. It IS something to fear. But instead of caving they should do their damage control before the repubs' first strike, head off the repub talking points before they even hit the media, and have their own talking points loudly and repetitively broadcast. Sorta like BTD with his no-funding mantra, but with the buy-in factor.

Well when the Dems first brought up the vetoed bill they did do a first strike. They seized the initiative and had the Repubs on defense. And we still do. It was us who who forced 11 to go talk to Bush. It is us who have rope-a-doped the Repubs into agreeing to a September Come To Jesus Crossroads. It was us who gave the Generals cover to say that Iraq could not be won militarily. It is us who will set the agenda in July and again in September and keep this battle up. It is us who have the public on their side regardless of the power of the veto. All of that and more has the Repubs on defense.

Most people here cannot see what the Dems have achieved or can achieve because they are single-mined and unable to process more that one or two things at a time. And the things they do process are not even possible at this time. They are capable of only seeing one solution instead of adopting a multiple solution fight to force a withdrawal. A multiple solution fight forces the Repubs to defend against all the options not just one. And to force them to do that not only makes tactical sense it makes strategic sense also.


talex (none / 0) (#47)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 28, 2007 at 07:45:28 PM EST

It is us who have rope-a-doped the Repubs into agreeing to a September Come To Jesus Crossroads.

Your problem is you can't write the script. All Bush has to do is say: Great Improvement and the Demos are trapped again.


Trapped??? (none / 0) (#52)
by talex on Mon May 28, 2007 at 08:10:39 PM EST

Trapped into what? There will be no political solution by September. The Iraqis don't want one by then. If they did they would not have planned on going on vacation for the entire summer. And they still may do so. Pay attention.

And then let's say they stay and miraculously get something accomplished and the violence is temporarily halted. Then what? Bush will withdrawal troops???

That is what we have been trying to get him to do!!!

Victory!


: talex (none / 0) (#60)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:45:35 PM EST

Pay attention yourself.
My comment was obvious.
The Demos will be trapped into funding the war.

BTW (none / 0) (#53)
by talex on Mon May 28, 2007 at 08:12:18 PM EST

are you going to respond to this?

http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2007/5/28/82741/1718/23#23


: I did .... (none / 0) (#56)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 28, 2007 at 09:29:52 PM EST

sometimes life gets in the way og blogging...

The point is they raised antiwar hopes & (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by fairleft on Mon May 28, 2007 at 05:11:41 PM EST

then backed down. And they apparently knew all along that they didn't have the votes to stand up to Bush.

Anyway, that's very bad electoral politics, and it's bad antiwar politics. As for the second, maybe it was impossible anyway, but why then lead us on, and why manage the Blue Dogs' bill, the Dem leadership trying their hardest to get the maximum number of votes for it?


Unbelievable (1.00 / 1) (#44)
by talex on Mon May 28, 2007 at 06:05:54 PM EST

The point is they raised antiwar hopes & then backed down.

Backed down? They worked their butts off to craft a decent bill with the Rubik's Cube of a caucus they have and then presented it to Bush in the face of a veto. That is not backing down in any way. You reason through an impenetrable filter.

And they apparently knew all along that they didn't have the votes to stand up to Bush.

Apparently? Apparently?!!!

I think everyone except "Apparently" you knew they did not have a veto proof majority.

So what would you have suggested? To not do anything in the face of that?

As for the second, maybe it was impossible anyway, but why then lead us on

The only people who were lead on were the people who did not bother to think this thing through. And that would be self-inflicted and not the Dems fault for God's sake. If people do not know what a veto is and that Bush would be willing to use it then that is their own fault not anyone else's. Same goes for not considering we did not have a veto proof majority.

and why manage the Blue Dogs' bill, the Dem leadership trying their hardest to get the maximum number of votes for it?

It's called strategy - that is why they did it. It is the internal politics within the party that drive many things in order to bring people together. Just as the Left of the party had the Reid-Feingold vote to appease them so did the Right have theirs. In that way you give each a little something in hopes that in the end they will meet in the middle.

It is also called strategy because winning this fight is a battle of a thousand cuts in a sense. This never was about one bill getting the job done, it always has been about the possibility of having to have a series of bills and maneuvers that put legislative pressure and public pressure on Bush. It had to be that way because Bush was most likely not going to budge on the first bill regardless of what it was.

That is why inside I laugh at times when people say I am wrong. Of course I am wrong to them because they are thinking with either no real knowledge of how things have to work or they have some knowledge but can't or wont put the pieces together. If they had or used the same knowledge as I use they wouldn't think I was so wrong.

The leadership has been saying they have a plan and no one listens. Reid went on the Charlie Rose show months ago and revealed that this process could take a while and they had a plan. If people would tune in when our leaders have in depth interviews they would know more. Pelosi said similar things a few weeks ago on ABC's This Week. Reid and Pelosi are old hands at this. They know how the process works that is why the membership elected them. I know how the process works because I have been paying attention to it for decades now.

And when it come to war the process gets hard. Very hard. People need to understand that.


: Raised hopes: House bill (none / 0) (#63)
by fairleft on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:47:20 PM EST

and Reid managing the bill put together in the Senate. I mean, Reid was a co-author of Reid-Feingold, you might think he wouldn't give Bush a bill without meaningful benchmarks and/or deadlines.
Let hopes down: the bill Bush signed.
And I disagree with one of your basic premises, that Reid has a goal of getting us out of Iraq during the Bush presidency. That's not the case, from what I can see, either because he wants our troops to stay there or because he just can't get the job done since the votes are not there.

: 'Standing up to Bush' takes a majority, (none / 0) (#64)
by fairleft on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:50:03 PM EST

not enough votes to override a veto, to clear up some confusion in your understanding of what I wrote.
The Democrats had enough votes to send a supplemental funding bill with a deadline to Bush once, so it is not wild-eyed fantasy to think they'd have enough votes to do so again.

talex (none / 0) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:58:32 AM EST

There is another possibility...

We could win.


asdf (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by talex on Mon May 28, 2007 at 12:04:41 PM EST

What do you mean by "We could win"?

I'm not familiar with where you stand on the issues so I don't want to assume what you mean by that. It can mean any number of things. so if you want to clarify what you mean I would be happy to respond.


talex (none / 0) (#14)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 28, 2007 at 01:05:07 PM EST

Perhaps Warren's snark answers your question??

All of BTD's post have one basic foundation. We must leave because we can not win.

At this point, given the political and morale support some on the Left and some Demos have given the terrorists in Iraq and around the world, that may be true.

But my point is that given the extra troops, and the good things happening outside of the "Baghdad area" it is still possible that we can win.

In that case many Democrats, such as Reid, will find an early retirement given them. They understand that, which is why they gave in to the Pres while saying that the war is lost.

Another reason.

If the Demos are successful and get a defined date for withdrawal the results will be god awful for our troops as they try to retreat during a defined time frame from a defined small area that will get smaller as the number of troops becomes smaller. as noted before by me, our advantage is mostly in our mobility. Lose that and we are in a set piece fight. The losses would be terrible and destroy the Demos.

You have also brought the above up in a thread.

To get around this the Demos must cut a deal with Iran, just as we did in Vietnam, to allow us to retreat. For that deal to be credible with Iran they must show that they are willing to fight on...

The deal, BTW, will be to allow Iran to have nukes.


He asked you (5.00 / 5) (#15)
by Edger on Mon May 28, 2007 at 01:25:34 PM EST

in effect, to define winning, jim.

There are people out there just waiting to hear your wisdom, so that talex can respond with his.

Heh. ;-)


What Good Things ppj? (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by squeaky on Mon May 28, 2007 at 01:41:37 PM EST

the good things happening outside of the "Baghdad area" it is still possible that we can win.

Got a list?


I See! (none / 0) (#23)
by talex on Mon May 28, 2007 at 02:12:05 PM EST

How ridiculous. Do you think for moment that if the ENTIRE world were united about Iraq (and they aren't) that it would make the civil war any different in Iraq? That the warring factions would just say everyone is right about OUR country and the power we are fighting each other for therefore we are wrong and will kiss and makeup? What a false argument that is Jim. The Dems have no more sway over the attitude of Iraqis than the Repubs do - except for the fact that a majority of the Iraqi Parliament has voted to have us leave.

Ah! Military victory. You mean the kind that every General including Petraeus has said is not possible? Where he said the only victory is a political solution. The surge is supposed to quell the violence so the government can reach deals. That is a flawed strategy because it is not the violence that is keeping them from reaching deals. It is their different ideologies and lust for power and control. They are safe and secure in the Green Zone yet are they really trying to accomplish anything? NO! Instead they are literally slapping one another, blaming the other for what is going wrong, and walking out on one another. How are you going to WIN that? It's their country and if they chose not to get along then that is how it is going to be.

Another reason the strategy is flawed is because to Bush's own admission you can't fully stop it. So if you minimize it what happens when you leave? It flares back up and Iraq is back to square one.

And the al queda like fighters that Bush has provided a temporary haven for don't want a political settlement either. so you really have four factions working against each other.

If the Demos are successful and get a defined date for withdrawal the results will be god awful for our troops as they try to retreat during a defined time frame from a defined small area that will get smaller as the number of troops becomes smaller.

There is some truth in the 'withdrawal' part of what you said. But it has nothing to do with the Dems. The reason I say that is whether we leave on a defined timeline due to legislation or if we leave at a time of our choosing the dangers of withdrawal will be the same. Either way it will be dangerous and there is only one person to blame for that and he sits in the WH.

That statement makes no sense and does in fact contradict itself.


talex (none / 0) (#54)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 28, 2007 at 08:18:15 PM EST

How ridiculous. Do you think for moment that if the ENTIRE world were united about Iraq (and they aren't) that it would make the civil war any different in Iraq?

That is a "if we had some ham we'd have some ham and egs if we had some eggs" statement. The entire world hasn't been, isn't and won't be united. What we are trying to do is get a government established in the face of a lot terrorist attacks.

And if you want to deny that the protests/Demo statements/etc have not improved the terrorists morale if merely means that you are disconnected from reality on that point.

Ah! Military victory.

Nope, didn't say that. A political victory based on our military providing enough support/stability to the Iraq government that it can survive and prosper after we leave.

There is some truth in the 'withdrawal' part of what you said. But it has nothing to do with the Dems.

Really? Reid isn't a Demo??? It was the Repubs who started the defunding chant???? Hmmm. Somehow I missed that.

And no, if we withdraw with a central government that is in control, we can expect that government to, by and large, protect our flanks as we leave.

If we withdraw as part of a Left wing/Demo forced withdrawal you can bet your Memorial Day Flag that the central government will not be in control, and the results will a 10000 times worse for our troops.

And that is why the Demos have, and will, fund the war. They have figured that out, and know that the American people will be quick to place the blame where it lies.

Will the Demos cut a deal with Iran??

That's complex, but the basic answer is yes. If they can. That would let them satisfy the Left wing base and avoid the stigma of US troops being killed because the Left and Demos have forced a withdrawal..

As for Vietnam, it seems you don't understand it, so we can just leave it alone...

BTW - How would you like to be a Demo big time defunding withdrawal sponsor and, as we start, Iran pours 200,000 or so troops across the border??

Here's your options.

Watch them slaughter our troops.
Nuke'em.

That's right jim (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Warren Terrer on Mon May 28, 2007 at 12:45:34 PM EST

Stay the course!


Definition please (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Repack Rider on Mon May 28, 2007 at 12:58:16 PM EST

No there isn't.

We could win.

I have been asking for five years for someone to defne "winning so we can go home" in Iraq.

Apparently you have that elusive definition that the president does not. Let's hear it.


Mission Accomplished (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Lora on Mon May 28, 2007 at 01:27:54 PM EST

Jim, have you forgotten the photo op for the prez just a couple of months after the invasion? We already won, bro! Break out the champaigne.


Lora (1.00 / 1) (#45)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 28, 2007 at 07:41:24 PM EST

Uh Lora, since you obviously don't even know the definition of mission as it applies to the military, there is nothing I can tell you. Your learning curve is just too large.


Then neither does Bush (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by Warren Terrer on Mon May 28, 2007 at 07:53:24 PM EST

And yet you trust him to wage your Holy War On Terror for you?

Really jim, taking a shot at Lora like that when your Dear Leader proclaimed "Mission Accomplished" via the imfamous May 1, 2003 banner is one of the dumbest things you've ever done here. And you've done plenty.


WT (none / 0) (#55)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 28, 2007 at 09:26:47 PM EST

Well, I did hate to point out that Lora obviously doesn't know what "mission" means in the military, but sometimes a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

But let me help you. We know the following to be indisputable facts as seen on TV and around the world. Bush flew on board the USS Abraham Lincoln.

Bush was addressing the sailors and marines aboard that ship when he said, "Mission Accomplished."

Is it your and Lora's claim that this single ship defeated Iraq and allowed the war to be over?

Actually, we know this:

Cmdr. Conrad Chun, a Navy spokesman, defended the president's assertion.
"The banner was a Navy idea, the ship's idea," Chun said.
"The banner signified the successful completion of the ship's deployment," he said, noting the Abraham Lincoln was deployed 290 days, longer than any other nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in history.

What did Gump say??????


When Words Lose Their Meaning (none / 0) (#58)
by squeaky on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:10:28 PM EST

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

Alice...

You and George what a pair.


Let's just address that flight suit, shall we? (none / 0) (#61)
by oculus on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:54:39 PM EST

Actually a safety thing. (none / 0) (#66)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 29, 2007 at 09:09:05 AM EST

That's what you wear in military combat type aircraft.. Keeps everything in place, doesn't snag on things..


: Really? Why are the secret service (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by oculus on Tue May 29, 2007 at 04:56:57 PM EST

wearing dark suits, white shirts, and ties?

squeaky (none / 0) (#67)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 29, 2007 at 09:12:31 AM EST

Well, you are the one claiming "Mission Accomplished" meant the war was over...

Now you want to change your mind.

;-)


This is all false (none / 0) (#69)
by Warren Terrer on Tue May 29, 2007 at 09:52:29 AM EST

jim. The banner was the Whitehouse's idea. It was positioned perfectly to be inside the shot above Bush's head as he delivered his key speech. The navy didn't decide that jim, Bush's people did. The story you site was made up after the fact as cover for the embarrassment that banner caused in light of the realities in Iraq. The WH bought and paid for the banner, jim.

E.g., Elizabeth Bumiller's report on White House image-making in the New York Times May 16, 2003:

The most elaborate -- and criticized -- White House event so far was Mr. Bush's speech aboard the Abraham Lincoln announcing the end of major combat in Iraq. White House officials say that a variety of people, including the president, came up with the idea, and that [White House communications deputy Scott] Sforza embedded himself on the carrier to make preparations days before Mr. Bush's landing in a flight suit and his early evening speech. Media strategists noted afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of the Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right shoulder and the "Mission Accomplished" banner placed to perfectly capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot."

So many lies have been told by the WH about that day, that it's foolish to believe anything they or a 'navy spokesman' says about it. Like the idea that Bush had to fly to the carrier like he did because it was so far from shore. A lie. San Diego was visible from the carrier, but it was turned away so San Diego wouldn't be visible in the background during Bush's speech. The landing was pure theater, jim.

In his speech Bush said that Iraq was a 'victory in a war on terror'. But that's not the same as 'mission accomplished'. Lol, ok jim.

And don't forget "major combat operations have ended". But more Americans (by far) have died in Iraq since that speech was given than before it. Bush has been wrong about everything. But he wasn't wrong about that banner because it was the navy's idea? Sure jim. Have some more kool-aid.

Jim, your Dear Leader was awfully stupid to pay for a banner like that, prominently displayed behind him during the speech, if he thought it really just meant that the ship's mission was accomplished. Sorry jim. No one who watched the speech that day thought it meant anything other than the obvious, i.e. that THE mission in Iraq had been accomplished.

But that's how the Bush admin works: Put up a banner like that, that has an obvious meaning that Bush wants to convey. Then lie and say it really means something else, when the obvious meaning becomes embarrassing. No one really remembers whose idea it was now, just like no one remembers whose idea it was to fire those attorneys. In the Bush admin, these things just happen ;).


Obama speaks (none / 0) (#10)
by dutchfox on Mon May 28, 2007 at 12:19:25 PM EST

I just heard the news on New York's WQXR, with the news announcer, describing Obama as being against the Iraq war, but here's an additional quote: "I support the troops, not just their mission."

The quote (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by LarryE on Mon May 28, 2007 at 12:36:39 PM EST

Was that "not just their mission" or "just not their mission?"

They mean rather dramatically different things.


: if I heard correctly (none / 0) (#59)
by dutchfox on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:14:56 PM EST

"not just their mission"

Huh?? (none / 0) (#48)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 28, 2007 at 07:47:44 PM EST

That's like saying, "I'm for the carpenter, but not his craft."


Of course it's not (none / 0) (#65)
by LarryE on Tue May 29, 2007 at 02:37:10 AM EST

Don't be silly.

I asked what I did because "I support the troops, not just their mission" says you support both - so you support the mission, i.e., the war.

On the other hand, "I support the troops, just not their mission" says you support the troops but not the war.

But neither is anything like "I'm for the carpenter, but not his craft." It would be more akin to saying "I support the carpenter, but that is one lousy cabinet."

Even at that, it's flawed because unlike the carpenter, the troops are not the decision-makers about the mission.

So imagine someone has employed a carpenter to make a cabinet according to the employer's own design. And then say "I support the carpenter, but that's a lousy cabinet." Now you've got a fair likeness.


I'll let a soldier answer you (none / 0) (#68)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 29, 2007 at 09:19:28 AM EST

Ohhhh, they all say they support us, but how can you support me (the soldier) if you don't support my mission or my objectives. We watch the news over here. Every time we turn it on we see the American public and Hollywood conducting protests and rallies against our 'illegal occupation' of Iraq."
"Hello media, do you know you indirectly kill American soldiers every day? You inspire and report the enemy's objective every day. You are the enemy's greatest weapon. The enemy cannot beat us on the battlefield so all he does is try to wreak enough havoc and have you report it every day. With you and the enemy using each other, you continually break the will of the American public and American government.

Pretty plain, eh?? Go argue with the guy who is there with his behind on the line.

Have a nice day.


That's not an answer... (none / 0) (#71)
by LarryE on Wed May 30, 2007 at 07:49:32 PM EST

...since I was addressing the meaning of the phrase used.

But since you've brought up your new favorite quote, which you apparently intend to pound on until it is mush, I'll consider it briefly.

So the issue is no longer supporting "the mission" but supporting his mission? Supporting troops means supporting his objectives? I didn't realize he was so important and that the rest of us, as citizens in a democracy, have no right to make our own judgments about "the mission."
Charges that essentially equate dissent with treason and claim that truth aids the enemy are likely as old as war itself - and equally to be disavowed by civilized peoples.

As for you: Gandhi notably advised "hate the sin and not the sinner," that is, be able to distinguish between the person and the behavior. In this case, which involves merely distinguishing between the person and the political policies they have been sent to war to kill and die for, making that separation should be even easier.

Unfortunately, it still seems to lie beyond your intellectual grasp.


DC Dem winning stratergery of 2000, '02 (none / 0) (#20)
by seabos84 on Mon May 28, 2007 at 01:48:38 PM EST

'04

(NOT '06, btw)

is to snivel and whine about meany liar thugs, and

'look what we can't do cuz we don't have 87 votes in the senate or 3/4 in the house, and

IF you don't break your butts for us, fascists will get elected and that is YOUR fault.

oh, and bye the way, we'll be in charge of the hundreds of millions of dollars getting pumped into NBC, ABC and CBS for crappy t.v. ads (and we'll need a cut of the action) ...

and in '06 it was a mandate for change, well, except, we aren't really gonna change too much, so ... '

'06 was just a vote AGAINST the fascists, and since we can't / won't / don't vote for tweedle-dee, we're stuck with tweedle-dum.

the public isn't going to reward they're-NOT-fascists.

I really see little point in helping federal candidates. leave that work to the desparately optimistic or the deluded-by-lies-again.

federal office holders have betrayed my trust over and over and over, and

I'm going to invest my little bit of money and my little bit of time into down ticket - build the bench.

what if 10,000 Dems in Washington State pledged to NOT support any Federal office seeker, AND, pledged money and hours to down ticket investments?

we should NOT be spending our time to get Democratic Senators and Congresscritters to behave like Democrats - it is their freaking job to be Democrats, not sell outs.

invest your time and money in the future, not into proven sell outs and chickens.

Forget The Feds, Build The Bench.

Forget The Feds, Lift the Locals.

rmm.

the funny thing (none / 0) (#41)
by Stewieeeee on Mon May 28, 2007 at 04:56:59 PM EST

about the "in '00, '02, and '04 they were wimps, and in '06 they were studs," refrain.

now the funny thing about that is none of the '06 studs voted for reid/feingold and then a week later they voted to fund the war for another year.


I was mistaken about '06 (none / 0) (#57)
by seabos84 on Mon May 28, 2007 at 09:46:50 PM EST

if the netroots and howard's 50 state hadn't lit a fire under the butts of Rahm and Chuckie,

all the campaigns would have been the SOS - their mythical district targeting, with heavy doses of 'don't stand for anything or we'll be called dirty hippies and we'll lose'.

however, at the end of day, the real driver in '06 was complete disgust with the fascists, so people ended voting Dem ...

too few are voting FOR Dems cuz our Dems are doing such a great job advancing we the peeee-ons interests.

rmm.


: the netroots (none / 0) (#62)
by Stewieeeee on Mon May 28, 2007 at 11:45:49 PM EST

recruited two candidates who voted against reid/feingold.
one might conclude that the netroots is able minded enough to get some people elected.
but as far as getting people elected who will vote the way the netroots wants.... it appears the netroots is just as capable of doing that as those corporo fascist neo nazi beltway insider run from the base snatch defeat from the jaws of victory vichy democrats.

i think when you have one party (none / 0) (#40)
by Stewieeeee on Mon May 28, 2007 at 04:52:37 PM EST

incapable of self-criticism and another party that turns self-criticism into a fetish, then it only makes sense that, throughout history, one party will be punished more than the other.

Well (none / 0) (#43)
by speedemon on Mon May 28, 2007 at 05:59:46 PM EST

I feel, people focus on symbols. After examining the election results of '06, it doesn't appear people really voted for things to change, the bulk of the new dems did not run/win against incumbents. When it was an open contest, people picked "the guy that didn't start the war" or the guy that "didn't let New Orleans get ruined" or whatever the media lambasted or praised the President for. It seems likely that most of this funding business will go unnoticed, and people will wait for '08 to cast their opinion on the hi profile ballot; where the guy with the Elephant badge will get it for the last guys blunders. Meanwhile, the rest will depend on how people feel when they get up in the morning ("I" am a Republican or "I" am a Democrat or "I still have my big TV and SUV on that guy's watch so I guess he is alright.")

In conclusion, I think, no they won't.

et al (none / 0) (#50)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 28, 2007 at 07:53:23 PM EST

Has any of you ever considered the possibility that the Demos didn't "win," but that the Repubs "lost" because their base stayed home??

And having figured that out the Demos aren't going to count on that happening again??