0
   

What bothers me about the Dems right now....

 
 
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 07:43 pm
I know politics is a brutal contact sport, but this is bothering me. Note, I'm not directing this at those who have been pure in their anti-war rhetoric; I might disagree, but your thoughts have been heartfelt and genuine.

This is aimed more at the dems who have the failure of the US military as a big part of their future game plan. The dems who NEED the military to slink out of Iraq, defeated and unsuccessful. The ones who are planning campaigns on the failure of the US in Iraq.

You might deny it, and say you 'support the troops.' But in your heart, you know that is a lie.

Right now, a new plan is being implemented by a new commander. The new commander, David H. Petraeus, has a track record of success. In fact, there is some preliminary info out of Bahgdad that the militias are beginning to stand down.

And that scares the hell out of the dems.

You have worked your stategy to reflect the dissatisfaction of the public with the war. But you know the public is fickle; if good news comes out of Iraq, public opinion might turn to the point that Bush and the repubs once again gains support.

You hope with all your heart that this does not happen before 2008.

I know loyal dems will come on and denounce me, saying that I am:

-Making this up

-Evil

-Writing about what the repubs would do

-"How dare you" will be a favorite opening

Tell me where I'm wrong. Tell me what happens, if Petraeus begins to find success, and it looks like our military is starting to turn a corner.

The dems have an anti-war platform, with virtually nothing else in the playbook.

Which is why they are scared to hell...
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 6,939 • Replies: 188
No top replies

 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 07:58 pm
yeah right.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 08:01 pm
Quote:
Right now, a new plan is being implemented by a new commander. The new commander, David H. Petraeus, has a track record of success. In fact, there is some preliminary info out of Bahgdad that the militias are beginning to stand down.


Same old song and dance.

(But you do have your talking points down)
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 08:02 pm
Thanks for the viewpoint from the pro-war and pro-killing crowd.




Now back to reality....
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 08:07 pm
Quote:
Tell me where I'm wrong. Tell me what happens, if Petraeus begins to find success, and it looks like our military is starting to turn a corner.


This would be which number corner that we are starting to turn? 12? 48?

This boondoogle has been nothing but "turning the corner" which keeps taking us right back to nowhere.

We have heard the "starting to turn the corner" nonsense far too many times to accept it on face value. The violence calmed for a week before picking up again this weekend. Did we turn another corner?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 08:16 pm
I am not sure that Democrats in general would ever see that they wanted the USA to lose in Iraq, that they want the troops to fail there, that they want the chaos that is selected for our viewing on the evening news.

I have to agree that I have seen little to nothing in their rhetoric to dispel that notion, however. I think maybe their unveiled hatred of our President overrides all other considerations and they would rather ANYTHING happen than for him to be applauded or credited with anything positive.

As for the Democrat politicians and talking heads in Washington, I think there is no doubt they want failure in Iraq so they have something concrete to run on in 2008.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 08:20 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I think maybe their unveiled hatred of our President overrides all other considerations and they would rather ANYTHING happen than for him to be applauded or credited with anything positive.


He is not capable of doing anything positive so we can dismiss that scenario.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 08:29 pm
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I think maybe their unveiled hatred of our President overrides all other considerations and they would rather ANYTHING happen than for him to be applauded or credited with anything positive.


He is not capable of doing anything positive so we can dismiss that scenario.


Putting the absurdity of your statement aside, Gus, thanks for making my point.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 08:33 pm
The Dems want to save the military as a live soldier is better than a dead hero. Also, many in Iraq never volunteered for Iraq but as National Guards. Needs a coward to send innocents into harm's way into an unjust war while staying back himself.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 10:18 pm
There is no branch of the service that is not 100% voluntary including the National Guard. And nobody signs up for the National Guard who doesn't know that he or she is subject to being called to active duty at any time, any place, or for any reason.

Maybe there are some Democrats out there who actually do want us to win and achieve the stated goals in Iraq. So far I have seen none of that from the anti-Bush people on the record however. Cutting and running to save lives is the same thing as saying that we prefer defeat to victory rather than risk anybody's life.

If we just dismantled the military and assume everybody else who wants to destroy us will then do the same, we won't risk any soldiers ever. Why don't we just do that?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Feb, 2007 11:06 pm
One need look no further than the Murtha crowd declaring it a quagmire and demanding an immediate withdrawal even as the brave Iraqis dodged bullets and bombs in defiance of tyranny to exercise their newly earned right to vote (in per capita numbers that should make us ashamed). While I'm certain it isn't their intention; the doomsayers inevitably have the effect of encouraging our enemies. Failure in Iraq is in many ways a self-fulfilling prophecy. Our enemies are prepared for a marathon and the Murtha crowd is essentially yelling "you're almost there".

Obviously, the current strategy hasn't succeeded, but instead of telling our enemies they're on the verge of victory; wouldn't it be better if the opponents were shouting about a better way to defeat them? Is it really enough to say "not this way" without providing an alternate path? Is it really conscionable to abandon 20,000,000 people, again? How will a Murtha react to reading about mass genocide in Iraq if his goal is achieved? Will it be enough to say "I told you so" for him to sleep at night? Or, it the prudent, conscionable thing to accept the facts as they are today and try to come up with a solution that doesn't include turning the blind eye to new killing fields? Does a man like Murtha even consider the likely consequence of being Sunni in a post-pullout of Iraq? What happens when surrounding Sunnis and Shia decide to flow in for the noble purpose of defending their fellow man? Does anybody really think it's currently as bad as could and would get?

Rather than constantly sending the message to our enemies that their ongoing struggle will soon be rewarded; why not a unified voice stating unequivocally that one way or another Iraq will NEVER again be abandoned to tyranny? I'd love to see a better strategy… really I would. Abandoning 20,000,000 people to hell (again) does not constitute a better strategy… and moreover; will certainly not increase our stature in the hearts and minds of those who oppose us. Quite the contrary, I'd wager.
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 01:51 am
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
Quote:
Right now, a new plan is being implemented by a new commander. The new commander, David H. Petraeus, has a track record of success. In fact, there is some preliminary info out of Bahgdad that the militias are beginning to stand down.


Same old song and dance.

(But you do have your talking points down)


parados wrote:
Thanks for the viewpoint from the pro-war and pro-killing crowd.




Now back to reality....


I take it that is your responses?

Most impressive.

And typical. In your arrogance, have you forgot how to reason?

Tell me, when the car bombs went off in Baghdag yesterday, did you breathe a sigh of relief?

Did the rest of you?

The reality is, IF the situation improved, and it looked like the Iraqi government/US military began to make strides, you people would panic.

Tell me, just for sh** and grins, what your reaction would be if this began to occur?

Don't say it's impossible; war, after all, is nothing if improbable.

C'mon, peoples. Don't fall back on name calling and hyperbole; tell me what your reaction would be.

Then look in the mirror and repeat it...
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 06:03 am
Obill wrote:

One need look no further than the Murtha crowd declaring it a quagmire and demanding an immediate withdrawal even as the brave Iraqis dodged bullets and bombs in defiance of tyranny to exercise their newly earned right to vote


... and just who is firing the bullets and planting the bombs these brave Iraqis are dodging?

This is the only issue where I have seen you engage in such blatant spin.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 07:04 am
I don't follow you, Ebrown. What do you see as spin?
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 07:19 am
Quote:
I don't follow you, Ebrown. What do you see as spin?


Uh, that it's brave Iraqi's shooting bullets and setting off bombs killing brave Iraqi's attempting to exercise their newly earned right to vote.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 07:41 am
ebrown_p wrote:
Obill wrote:

One need look no further than the Murtha crowd declaring it a quagmire and demanding an immediate withdrawal even as the brave Iraqis dodged bullets and bombs in defiance of tyranny to exercise their newly earned right to vote


... and just who is firing the bullets and planting the bombs these brave Iraqis are dodging?

This is the only issue where I have seen you engage in such blatant spin.

The fact that there are bad, anti-democratic forces in Iraq doesn't detract from the fact that there are brave Iraqis who are willing to put themselves at risk to try to defeat the former group and achieve a stable, democratic society. How does the fact that there are bad Iraqis imply that the good ones don't deserve support?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 07:42 am
squinney wrote:
Quote:
I don't follow you, Ebrown. What do you see as spin?


Uh, that it's brave Iraqi's shooting bullets and setting off bombs killing brave Iraqi's attempting to exercise their newly earned right to vote.
Huh? You view blowing up innocents with a road side bomb as an act of bravery?

I can ill imagine a braver act than a woman in a Muslim community walking past her fallen countrymen to get to the polls. I can ill imagine a more cowardly act than he who would shoot her dead or explode a bomb to stop her. Your explanation is more perplexing than anything Ebrown said.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 08:23 am
Iraq belongs to the Iraqis. What is perplexing is Brandon's use of the term "anti-democratic forces', since most Iraqis (in the most non-partisan polls we have including Gallup) want the US out which begs the question of what democratic forces would look like.

But this is not brave Iraqi's standing up to an outside force (unless that outside force is us).

This is Iraqis fighting Iraqis over the future of THEIR country. The idea that we can, or should, impose our idea of "democracy" on them, when so many of them are willing to give up their lives (bravely or not) to oppose us is more and more ludicrous.

My only point is that Iraq belongs to the Iraqis. The sooner we accept that, the sooner this inane war will end.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 08:34 am
ebrown_p wrote:
Iraq belongs to the Iraqis. What is perplexing is Brandon's use of the term "anti-democratic forces', since most Iraqis (in the most non-partisan polls we have including Gallup) want the US out which begs the question of what democratic forces would look like.

But this is not brave Iraqi's standing up to an outside force (unless that outside force is us).

This is Iraqis fighting Iraqis over the future of THEIR country. The idea that we can, or should, impose our idea of "democracy" on them, when so many of them are willing to give up their lives (bravely or not) to oppose us is more and more ludicrous.

My only point is that Iraq belongs to the Iraqis. The sooner we accept that, the sooner this inane war will end.
That's too simple Ebrown, and I would think you'd know it. Iraqis are human and humans belong to humanity. I'll believe for not one second that you care not a wit for what happens to Iraqis. Disagree with methods till your heart's content, but don't sell yourself short pretending the plight of your fellow man is none of your business. You don't really believe that.

Further, I think it foolhardy to believe this war will end if we pull out. More likely; it will begin in earnest.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Feb, 2007 09:30 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
That's too simple


Yes. And so is the notion that Democratic leaders wish for failure in Iraq for political gain. Though I don't put it past any politician to wish for something against our national interest in order to further their political career, I think this explanation is just too simple and fits conveniently into already held beliefs of some people. Is unwavering opposition to any plan of the president's to the detriment of our country any different to unquestioning support for the plans (or lack thereof) that got us into this mess to begin with? If the Republican led Congress had pushed back just a little, maybe refused to authorize the war without an actual plan, it's possible that this war could have been a success. But at this point, ALV, it seems that what you are asking is that, out of patriotism, the Democratic leadership should continue to support plan after plan of a leader who has shown that he's not very good at planning. It's the old fable about the boy who cried wolf, isn't it? So you really can't put the blame on the Democrats for playing their role of the disbelieving townspeople, can you? Or if you like another analogy, the gambler is at the table saying "just one more hand", and we're supposed to credulously hand him another stack of chips -- yes, he'll surely win this time, won't he?

For the record, I don't necessarily support what the dems are doing right now, but I think this simplistic idea that everything is going wrong because the Democrats are cheering on our enemies is assinine. Accept some responsibility for what your party did to **** up this situation.

[URL=http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/23/sotu.webb.transcript/index.html]Jim Webb in his SOTU response[/URL] wrote:
The president took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable ­and predicted ­disarray that has followed.

The war's costs to our nation have been staggering. Financially. The damage to our reputation around the world. The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism. And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.

The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.

On both of these vital issues, our economy and our national security, it falls upon those of us in elected office to take action.

Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.

Roosevelt spoke strongly against these divisions. He told his fellow Republicans that they must set themselves as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other. And he did something about it.

As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. "When comes the end?" asked the general who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War II. And as soon as he became president, he brought the Korean War to an end.

These presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this president to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What bothers me about the Dems right now....
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 01/29/2022 at 01:05:02