Skepticism is warranted, but a blind eye is not...I think that is New Yorker's point on the progress being reported by first-hand accounts...
Of course it is for him,...Progress is an immediate threat to the democrat/liberal political machine. Nevermind progress is good for America...
Real progress = good. Pretend or overhyped progress that prevents us from dealing with real problems = bad.
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/IBD-0001-18565289.htm Not saying he changed his position, but clearly he's saying he's willing to be open minded and believes success is possible.
I don't know where I have called anyone treasonous. I think that's crazy that you think that. I think Republicans do that all the time (put party interests ahead of the nation's interests). It's not necessarily a conscious choice, people think otherwise and convince themselves that's not what they are in fact doing. Treason is knowingly acting against your country - like helping the enemy. Not choosing the best option isn't treason, it's just being blind or making a poor decision. But nice try Sishir. By the way, why did you change your name? We need to take Bush out of the equation as he is now irrelevant save for veto power. For get about this being a Republican vs. Democrat thing. Yes, I did think the war was an absolute and utter failure. But before that, I supported trying to make it work. I am a skeptic. I'm skeptical that this surge may not work, but I still will hold judgement and give it a chance. But I'm also skeptical of what the liberals are doing - by dismissing any possible news it appears that they (and those here) have taken a dug in position the war is a failure and they don't want anything to contradict that - as it may boost republican hopes in 2008. I don't think liberals are some noble group - they are not. The liberal reaction has been a lot of political posturing, and it's been mimicked here on this board. It's the equivalent of Bush's portraying a rosy picture and everything is dandy, now you have the liberals painting the worst picture and that everything is wrong. This is why both sides are lacking in credibility.
Rimmy, Smarmy, and McDeaftist join 3% of americans: Survey shows just 3% of Americans approve of how Congress is handling the war in Iraq. Bush's numbers are considerable better, if not particularly impressive: [rquoter]24% say the same for the President[/rquoter] ...still it's "encouraging", the word that strikes fear in any democrat's heart.
for Carl Levin Defeat is within our grasp! [rquoter]Start the pullout, Levin urges What Iraq government does next is too late, senator says August 2, 2007 BY TODD SPANGLER FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF WASHINGTON -- Even if Iraqi leaders return from a recess this month and make political progress before a report to Congress in September, it won't be enough to change Sen. Carl Levin's feelings about withdrawing U.S. troops. Levin told reporters Wednesday that it is possible that President George W. Bush would use any political progress the Iraqis might make -- not to mention reports that violence was down in the month of July -- as cover for continuing a policy that saw him order tens of thousands more troops to Iraq. For Levin, the Detroit Democrat who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, it would be too little, too late, even if the Iraqis returned from their August recess with "a different attitude" and began working toward benchmarks including regional elections, disbanding militias and other actions. "That's not enough for me," he said. Since Democrats took control of Congress in January, Levin has been among Senate leaders calling for the gradual withdrawal of troops from Iraq, starting this year. So far that effort has failed, but Republican support -- necessary to allow a Senate vote and overcome an expected veto -- has been growing. Many Republican members of Congress have talked of a mid-September report to Congress from Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq as a potential turning point in their view of U.S. involvement. "Clearly," Levin said, "there is momentum here." He also defended Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's request for more information from the Defense Department on its contingency plans for withdrawal, saying she is asking for general information that is entirely proper. Vice President Dick Cheney has suggested that Clinton, a Democratic nominee for president, was playing politics by asking for information the Pentagon wouldn't publicly release. "She's asking for a general description," said Levin, who also released a letter written to him and Clinton last week by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in which Gates acknowledges that such planning is essential. Levin said he expects to have a closed committee meeting soon with Gates to discuss the contingency plans.[/rquoter]
what if the surge works but the Iraqi govt/army does nothing and everything reverts back to usual once it stops? Would anybody consider it to be a successful and a productive use of resources? I am sad to say that it looks like there are a few die hard bar lowerers left, still drilling, drilling away to find ways to erase the embarrassment.
They disapprove because they want congress to end the war, not because they believe congress is trying to prevent success from happening in Iraq. Now maybe you can respond to the questions that you have been avoiding since your Denial...Vietnam thread.
LOL, as if we needed any more confirmation that basso is a joke poster. He should change his name to harlequin.
Looks like according to you, the military doesn't support the troops. Dissatisfaction with how the war in Iraq is being handled is also considerable among past or current members of the military and their families – nearly three in four (71%) give the president negative ratings on his handling of the war and than half (54%) said they don’t trust the President’s judgment when it comes to the Iraq war. Nearly half (47%) say they lack confidence in Bush’s ability as Commander in Chief – 41% said they have no confidence in him at all. ... Bush also gets low ratings in dealing with veterans – two-thirds (67%) give Bush negative ratings for his performance in providing adequate health care for the veterans who have returned home from the ward in Afghanistan and Iraq. Among those who have or are currently serving in the military and their families, nearly as many agree (62%), while just 30% believe Bush has done a favorable job of providing health care for veterans.
Curiously enough, I'm not in the 3%. You however, are obliviously and obviously in the 24%. Again, you think that everyone thinks like you and your ilk... which means support your guy no matter what. That cohort among Dems is really quite small... we'd much rather see a decent outcome... which in this case is forcing the administration to change their actions on Iraq. While I recognize the Repubs have thrown up every roadblock possible, I do not think the Dems have done all they could and certainly not enough to warrant approval on this issue. And by the way, "Americans" is capitalized, as is "Democrats." Amazingly, you do deem to capitalize "Bush" and "President." Freudian slip that shows what you really value, I suppose.
He's said all along the war should be ended and troops brought home so him saying he believes success, in terms of military victory, is possible would be him changing his position.
As I said, "Saying you are putting party politics above the country interests is accusing someone of treason since its saying that they are willing to betray the country for what is good for the party." So yes you haven't called anyone treasonous but the equivalent. I will agree that Republicans are often accused of the same thing. I would hesitant to say that in most cases they are as I think the most Republicans, Democrats and their supporters believe that they are putting the country's interest first and believe that the platform of their party best reflects the interests of the country. I do agree with you and it is a good point that there is a question of knowingly putting the parties' interests ahead of the country's but since we can't see into each other's mind I would be hesitant to start accusing people of doing so especially in a case like this. Those opposing the surge have stated they don't believe it works, is making things and are highly skeptical of so called positive news. That doesn't necessarily mean they just don't want to see the Admin. get credit even if it helps the country. Nice try. That doesn't mean they are putting party interests ahead of country's though. I had a thread in Hangout about that. The problem with using my name was that Clutchfans threads were showing up in google searches for me and I would rather not have people doing background research on me see "Farting while standing at a urinal" and "Bus Stop Stalker" on a google search. I have no problem though that people on Clutchfans know who I am and don't plan on changing anything except for my CF.net handle. Except that your accusation that "Liberals" are putting party interests ahead of country is keeping Bush and party in the equation. You are doing exactly what you accuse others of. While you may disagree with those who oppose the surge have you considered that that opposition is based on more than party loyalty? And you are correct that skepticism should be even handed but what you are doing in this thread doesn't strike me so much as being equally skeptical but as being reactionary. Considering again that you are arguing so vociferously based on only a couple of articles, and again one that is an op-ed, as just being reationary. As I stated I'm willing to take the original article and other positive news at face value. I'm skeptical and have explained why. What I don't understand short of gullibility or wanting to be reactionary. Again maybe its your style but I find it hard to swallow that one day you would be declaring things an utter failure but then based on an op-ed you suddenly come back and argue so hard that victory is possible. Frankly to me that lacks credibility as it shows that you are easily swayed, which I don't think you are, or that you never held either position honestly.
Again, I don't think putting party politics ahead of national interests is "treason". That's your interpretation. It's like saying that buying anything that causes pollution is murder since that pollution is causes someone to die somewhere. And since this is more often a Democratic charge against Republicans, then Democrats have accused Repulicans of treason over and over again. It just cheapens and broadens the definition of treason. As for your name change, why don't you just ask clutch to change it? He can do that ya know? NO need to become a rookie again. I don't think I am being reactionary, I think I am seeing a reactionary response by liberals against this "idea" that some progress is being made. I encourage a bit of patience, and everyone gets up in arms, therefore I see this as a more political issue then that of a national interests one. The evidence before had made the war appear to be an unequivical failure, but there is some news now, not just this op-ed piece, but even a few dems, who are saying there's some positive momentum, and I'd like to see if that can build or if it will fizzle before we just write it off and let the country slip into civil war. Of course, this is hard to comprehend, because people don't like it when you keep an open mind and are willing to take a different stance with new information, and they will attack you as "easily swayed" or "waffling" or "gullible", which you can do...but again, I think that's a charge that's more driven to discredit then to seriously debate and keep an open mind.
Pure Propaganda We now learn that the military set up the whole thing. excerpts from Glenn Greenwald speaking of Steve Schmidt, a former top aide to Dick Cheney for communications strategy (i.e., media management). -- The most significant revelation occurred during the following exchange, when Allen excitedly reported that Schmidt's media management techniques have been adopted not only by the GOP presidential campaigns, but also recently by the U.S. military in Iraq, with one particularly large payoff this week: When Allen gushes that "the military's getting better at this," what he means by "this" is "media and political messaging about the war." As has been evident for months now, the U.S. military in Iraq has been devoting far more efforts to all sorts of propaganda campaigns designed to shape American public opinion about the war. Many of those media management efforts by the (absolutely nonpolitical) U.S. military have been shaped by the same individual responsible for media management in the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign and, subsequently, in Dick Cheney's office. And it was as part of exactly that newly shaped campaign that -- to use Allen's words -- "the military organized the O'Hanlon-Pollack tour." During the U.S. media part of their "tour" after they returned from Iraq, O'Hanlon and Pollack tried to create the impression -- with the able help of their very-impressed media interviewers -- that they were intrepid war reporters who practically fought their way into the war zone and dug deep into the gritty realities of the front line and came back hardened and a bit shell-shocked but nonetheless so impressed by the military progress they saw first-hand that they had no choice but to admit that the Surge is Succeeding. What they actually did was prance around on a meticulously calibrated path shaped by a Bush-Cheney P.R. operative and U.S. military communications strategists in order to view what Sen. Jim Webb recently called the "dog and pony show" -- the same show that the U.S. military produces for war-supporting political and media figures who take a trip for a few days to Iraq so that they can come back and begin every pro-war sentence with "having just returned from Iraq." O'Hanlon and Pollack saw what the U.S. military communications team wanted them to see, and that, in turn, was shaped by the same individual whose job it was to manipulate the media for the Bush/Cheney '04 campaign. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html
O Canada! Our home and native land! True patriot love in all thy sons command. With glowing hearts we see thee rise, The True North strong and free! From far and wide, O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. God keep our land glorious and free! O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
And Republicans haven't been accusing Democrats of treason over and over again? I'm sure that would come as a surprise to Ann Coulter. The problem is though is whether someone is knowingly putting party interests ahead of country is where your definition is problematic. Something which I believe you recognize yet continue to make that charge. If someone is knowingly putting party interests ahead of country then that is the equivalent of treason. I will emphasize that is my words and while I brought that up is because that is a serious charge that requires more substantiation. I had asked Clutch but I don't think he wants to do that to prevent being inundated by people wanting to change their handles. Clutch has enough on his plate so I didn't want to press him about so went ahead with taking the rookie route. For not wanting to be reactionary you sure were quick to label people as putting party interests ahead of country's. Its a huge stretch though from saying the war is an unequivocal failure to now saying that it can be won, militarily. Unequivocal would mean that it is hopeless. It certainly worthwhile to have an open mind but this seems rather thin evidence to make that sort of change. To me this tells me that you didn't believe before it was an unequivocal failure but you were being reactionary the other way. And telling people that they are putting party interests ahead of country isn't meant to discredit them and is having an open mind? YOu seem to be getting upset that myself and others are questioning your credibility on this which I will admit too yet you are fine doing the same to others. Again I think it is fine that you have an open mind but you seem more interested in using that to try to bludgeon people rhetorically with it than to debate the merits of the issue. If you are so open minded have you considered that there is a reason why people are very skeptical of reports of progress? Are you willing to consider the merits of the argument that O'Hanlon isn't as unbiased as he is, or that his experience might not be reflective of all of Iraq?
