PDA

View Full Version : Democrats Shift The Message: To GOP Advantage?



Kathianne
04-08-2007, 05:42 PM
This fits in with the Dems taking ownership of the war, a strategical mistake in my opinion. The non-conservative, Mickey Kaus makes the point rather clear. Links at site:

http://www.slate.com/id/2163575/&#layup


From a Layup to a Tossup--The Dems Switch Debates: Here's something I only realized under prodding from Bob Wright on Bloggingheads: There are two obvious possible debates to have about Iraq:


Debate A: Was launching the war a good idea in 2003?

Debate B: Should we "surge" or withdraw in 2007?

Haven't the Democrats, by prosecuting their funding fight with Bush over setting a withdrawal deadline, succeeded in changing the Iraq debate from A to B? From a debate over the war to a debate over the surge? From a debate about the last four years to a debate about the last four months?

And if so, isn't that a really dumb thing for them to do? Debate A looks like a sure winner for Democrats--it's hard to see anything happening between now and 2008 that would convince a majority of voters that starting the war in the first place was a good idea. Debate B, on the other hand, looks much iffier, as the surge shows at least some signs of at least temporary success. Even if the Democrats are right on Debate B they might lose Debate B. The more the surge succeeds, the more Debate B becomes a tossup. But even with a muddled "surge" scorecard, Debate B might skew against the Democrats if the aftermath of a pullout continues to look bloody and chaotic.**

Only a strategic mastermind like N. Pelosi would shift from an argument her party is bound to win to an argument it might lose.*** It would be especially ironic if Democrats lose Debate B because voters are convinced withdrawing would produce a sectarian bloodbath--since that would ordinarily be a powerful additional argument for a Dem victory in Debate A (i.e., the decision to launch the war has been such a disaster that we can't even withdraw in good conscience--we're trapped).

**--You hear rumblings that the Bushies know the surge won't ultimately succeed in winning (i.e. stabilizing) Iraq. But it could still succeed in winning the 2008 election. It's not hard to imagine the Bush administration pursuing the surge through November, 2008--and then shifting to a Juan Cole-like 'negotiated withdrawal' strategy.

***--I would guess we're about 36 hours from the first pundit speculating that Speaker Pelosi doesn't really want a Democrat to win the presidency, because Pelosi and the Congressional Dems have more prominence as an opposition power center. Under President Obama, nobody will care if Pelosi travels to Syria. ... Maybe Dick Morris has already said this. ...

Update: N.Z. Bear charges that the Dems have unnecessarily "become fully and totally invested in failure." (Tish Durkin has a good Iraqi invested-in-failure anecdote in her underappreciated, agonized Huffington post.) ... Backfill: Thomas Edsall implicitly made an argument like this in the NYT of 3/22. And you don't even have to pay to read it. ... 12:56 A.M. link

Gaffer
04-08-2007, 06:21 PM
Seems even a lot of dems are not happy with pelosi. I bet she resigns from speakership in the next six months. She's way over her head here and she can't swim.

Kathianne
04-08-2007, 06:27 PM
Seems even a lot of dems are not happy with pelosi. I bet she resigns from speakership in the next six months. She's way over her head here and she can't swim.

Well if she'll keep up weeks like this I say, "Let her stay." :cool:

lily
04-08-2007, 08:00 PM
Only a strategic mastermind like N. Pelosi would shift from an argument her party is bound to win to an argument it might lose.*** It would be especially ironic if Democrats lose Debate B because voters are convinced withdrawing would produce a sectarian bloodbath--since that would ordinarily be a powerful additional argument for a Dem victory in Debate A (i.e., the decision to launch the war has been such a disaster that we can't even withdraw in good conscience--we're trapped).

Had to stop right there. The author actually thinks most Americans buy what Bush is saying, that withdrawing would produce a sectarian bloodbath? Yeah right. Eat it up.

Dilloduck
04-08-2007, 08:21 PM
Had to stop right there. The author actually thinks most Americans buy what Bush is saying, that withdrawing would produce a sectarian bloodbath? Yeah right. Eat it up.

What do you think would happen ?

lily
04-08-2007, 08:47 PM
I think if there is a gradual withdrawl, the Iraqi parliment and citizens will realize that the free ride is over and get their shit together. Look at it from (recent) past history. We told them the exact dates to have elections, they had their elections. Even the one on their constitution, they weren't ready for, but they met the deadline.

It's high time we got our focus back on Afghanistan, where a real democracy might have a chance to be an example, before it's too late.

Dilloduck
04-08-2007, 08:51 PM
I think if there is a gradual withdrawl, the Iraqi parliment and citizens will realize that the free ride is over and get their shit together. Look at it from (recent) past history. We told them the exact dates to have elections, they had their elections. Even the one on their constitution, they weren't ready for, but they met the deadline.

It's high time we got our focus back on Afghanistan, where a real democracy might have a chance to be an example, before it's too late.

Is there anyone in the world who agrees with you?

lily
04-08-2007, 09:10 PM
Is there anyone in the world who agrees with you?

Quite a few, thanks for asking........and the next time you don't want my opinion on something, don't bother asking.

Dilloduck
04-08-2007, 09:17 PM
Quite a few, thanks for asking........and the next time you don't want my opinion on something, don't bother asking.

I did want your opinion but I still would like to know who this segment of the population is that thinks everything wll be rosy in Iraq (and neighboring countries) after the troops are withdrawn.

lily
04-08-2007, 09:33 PM
I did want your opinion but I still would like to know who this segment of the population is that thinks everything wll be rosy in Iraq (and neighboring countries) after the troops are withdrawn.

Well, last time I checked a poll %70 of America thought so and I do believe the elections spoke to that. One of our biggest allies, Saudi Arabia no longer stand behind this war. Please note that I did not say withdraw all the troops. Even Patareas (sp) said this war can't be won militarily......so what do we do? A troop surge.


As for the surrounding countries, how do you expect results when you refuse to talk to them?

Seriously, Dill.......if we want to show an example of how democracy can work, we've screwed up too much in Iraq. Move the troops that were moved out of Afghainstan and let those Iraqi troops that we've spent 5 years training do something. Afghainstan is still winable and would be a great example. Hell, I know if I were living in the area, I wouldn't want democracy if it looked like Iraq.

We can knock down doors and rummage through their things, but the Iraqi soliders know the language, customs and the difference between the sects. It's past the time to stand up. We've invested too much money in training and equiping them. STAND UP and fight if you want your country to be a democracy. We can want it for them but until they want it, then it's shoving it down their throats by the barrel of a rifle.

Dilloduck
04-08-2007, 09:41 PM
Well, last time I checked a poll %70 of America thought so and I do believe the elections spoke to that. One of our biggest allies, Saudi Arabia no longer stand behind this war. Please note that I did not say withdraw all the troops. Even Patareas (sp) said this war can't be won militarily......so what do we do? A troop surge.


As for the surrounding countries, how do you expect results when you refuse to talk to them?

Seriously, Dill.......if we want to show an example of how democracy can work, we've screwed up too much in Iraq. Move the troops that were moved out of Afghainstan and let those Iraqi troops that we've spent 5 years training do something. Afghainstan is still winable and would be a great example. Hell, I know if I were living in the area, I wouldn't want democracy if it looked like Iraq.

We can knock down doors and rummage through their things, but the Iraqi soliders know the language, customs and the difference between the sects. It's past the time to stand up. We've invested too much money in training and equiping them. STAND UP and fight if you want your country to be a democracy. We can want it for them but until they want it, then it's shoving it down their throats by the barrel of a rifle.

70% of America thinks everything will be peachy in Iraq as the troops are being withdrawn ? Where did you get that number ?

lily
04-08-2007, 09:59 PM
I'm sorry, it was %70 that was against the troop surge and %59 want out of Iraq......and I'm sorry, but I lost the link.

avatar4321
04-08-2007, 11:56 PM
What do you think would happen ?

flowers, dancing, basic utopia when the big bad americans are gone:-p

lily
04-09-2007, 10:19 PM
flowers, dancing, basic utopia when the big bad americans are gone:-p


Boy.......does that sound familiar or what????

Dilloduck
04-09-2007, 10:25 PM
Boy.......does that sound familiar or what????

It does. It sounds like the Democrats are predicting the same outcome of troop withdrawal as the Republicans promised upon going in.

Gaffer
04-10-2007, 08:42 PM
Well, last time I checked a poll %70 of America thought so and I do believe the elections spoke to that. One of our biggest allies, Saudi Arabia no longer stand behind this war. Please note that I did not say withdraw all the troops. Even Patareas (sp) said this war can't be won militarily......so what do we do? A troop surge.


As for the surrounding countries, how do you expect results when you refuse to talk to them?

Seriously, Dill.......if we want to show an example of how democracy can work, we've screwed up too much in Iraq. Move the troops that were moved out of Afghainstan and let those Iraqi troops that we've spent 5 years training do something. Afghainstan is still winable and would be a great example. Hell, I know if I were living in the area, I wouldn't want democracy if it looked like Iraq.

We can knock down doors and rummage through their things, but the Iraqi soliders know the language, customs and the difference between the sects. It's past the time to stand up. We've invested too much money in training and equiping them. STAND UP and fight if you want your country to be a democracy. We can want it for them but until they want it, then it's shoving it down their throats by the barrel of a rifle.

Let's see afganhistan has been going on longer than iraq. There is still a lot of serious fighting going on there along with suicide bombings and attacks on the soldiers there. We have trained and equipt the afgan army and police, isn't it time we got out of there now? How is afgan different? Other than iraq is being used as a political pawn by the libs.

afganhistan and iraq are two fronts of the same war. They involve the same enemy. libs in their hatred of Bush can't seem to figure that out.

lily
04-10-2007, 09:12 PM
[QUOTE=Gaffer;36483]Let's see afganhistan has been going on longer than iraq. There is still a lot of serious fighting going on there along with suicide bombings and attacks on the soldiers there. We have trained and equipt the afgan army and police, isn't it time we got out of there now? How is afgan different?

well, we're in agreement so far.


Other than iraq is being used as a political pawn by the libs.

Can you explain to me, how the libs are using Iraq as a political pawn and the repubs aren't?


afganhistan and iraq are two fronts of the same war. They involve the same enemy.

My point was, Afghanistan still has a chance to be won. Moving the troops out of there into Iraq was one of the dumbest moves I've seen. We've been training Iraqi troops, let them stand up and let us get back to Afghainstan before it's over run. It's still winable. If you want to fight the war on two fronts, then let some of the citizens fight for their country. We can want them to have demorcacy until we're blue in the face, but until they want it.....



libs in their hatred of Bush can't seem to figure that out.

.......and here I thought better of you than to throw out that tired old line.

Gaffer
04-10-2007, 10:48 PM
[QUOTE]

well, we're in agreement so far.



Can you explain to me, how the libs are using Iraq as a political pawn and the repubs aren't?

everything in the 08 election centers on iraq. Success means the libs lose. Failure means they win. But they will lose in the long run cause a few years down the road will be more 9/11's on grander scales. iraq has been the lib political football since it started. And the media continually reports nothing but negative news out of iraq. They ignore afganhistan where some pitch battles have been fought and never reported. Why? because its more important to report on one soldier killed in baghdad than a major battle in afgan where the taliban were beaten back with no loses to our troops.

My point was, Afghanistan still has a chance to be won. Moving the troops out of there into Iraq was one of the dumbest moves I've seen. We've been training Iraqi troops, let them stand up and let us get back to Afghainstan before it's over run. It's still winable. If you want to fight the war on two fronts, then let some of the citizens fight for their country. We can want them to have demorcacy until we're blue in the face, but until they want it.....

NO, None, nada, troops were taken from afganhistan to go to iraq. nay that may have been moved because of specialties were replaced by others. The number of troops in afgan did not change with the invasion of iraq. The invasion of iraq was done with three divisions. 3ID, 101st, and 3rd Marines. along with some attachment units. Afgan was somewhat stabilized at this point. binladen was hiding in pakistan. going in after him would constitute an invasion on a soviergn country.


.......and here I thought better of you than to throw out that tired old line.

Afganhistan is a backward mostly agricultural country with little to offer anyone except poppies. It's a nice quiet place to train terroists and difficult to manuvuer in countryside. Iraq on the other hand has an infrastucture. electric, water, some manufacturing capabilities, and most importantly...OIL. So if you head up a terror organization which one would you rather have control of?

As for that tired old line, as you call it, is totally accurate. The libs are not against the war, they are against Bush. iraq is nothing more than an excuse to attack him and try to get more power in government. They consistantly demoralize our troops and embolden the enemy. They show the world a divided nation in time of war. I'm sure you read plenty of lib boards as well. Tell me truthfully, most of them are just plain anti-Bush posters that spout nothing but hatred for the man. Am I wrong? The libs are fixated on Bush and not concentrating on the overall long range results of what they are doing.

lily
04-10-2007, 11:18 PM
everything in the 08 election centers on iraq.

Whoa there a minute.......are you telling me that everything in the '04 election didn't center on Iraq? All we heard was stories on how the Republicans can keep us safe........and all we're hearing now is if we don't get them there, they will follow us here. Both sides are highly betting on Iraq. The only difference this time, is the people spoke in '06 and the only ones that are going to get the vote, is the one that actually has a plan.


Success means the libs lose. Failure means they win. But they will lose in the long run cause a few years down the road will be more 9/11's on grander scales.

Oh hogwash. Anyone that thinks the Democrats want to lose this war, just to score points is smoking crack. It dates back to that "You're either for us or against us" bullshit. Dividing this country like it's never been before. As for the more 911........as I said fear worked for you in '04, I doubt it will work for you again. We've tried it the Republican way for 5 years now and look what we've got. It's time to try something else.


iraq has been the lib political football since it started. And the media continually reports nothing but negative news out of iraq. They ignore afganhistan where some pitch battles have been fought and never reported. Why? because its more important to report on one soldier killed in baghdad than a major battle in afgan where the taliban were beaten back with no loses to our troops.
They ignore Afghainstan, because sadly 1/2 the country forgot about it.



NO, None, nada, troops were taken from afganhistan to go to iraq. nay that may have been moved because of specialties were replaced by others. The number of troops in afgan did not change with the invasion of iraq. The invasion of iraq was done with three divisions. 3ID, 101st, and 3rd Marines. along with some attachment units. Afgan was somewhat stabilized at this point. binladen was hiding in pakistan. going in after him would constitute an invasion on a soviergn country.

I'm not talking abut the invasion of Iraq.......I'm talking about moving the soldiers in the middle of the war with Afghanistan. Can you give me one reason why we needed to fight this war with Iraq when we did? Bush 41 had him contained.



Afganhistan is a backward mostly agricultural country with little to offer anyone except poppies. It's a nice quiet place to train terroists and difficult to manuvuer in countryside. Iraq on the other hand has an infrastucture. electric, water, some manufacturing capabilities, and most importantly...OIL. So if you head up a terror organization which one would you rather have control of?

So....cut and run?


As for that tired old line, as you call it, is totally accurate. The libs are not against the war, they are against Bush. iraq is nothing more than an excuse to attack him and try to get more power in government. They consistantly demoralize our troops and embolden the enemy.

Wow......I haven't heard demoralize the troops and embolden the enemy in a long time. Right along with bush bashers. I honestly don't think that our soldiers are the bunch of pansies that the Republicans think they are. I think they can handle a debate about the war. What I think would demoralize them would be being sent to Iraq over and over, staying longer that they were told, not having the proper equipment and taking the same cities over and over......but hey..that's just me.


They show the world a divided nation in time of war.

We are not the ones that made the claim.....with us or against us. Sometimes I think that the Repbulicans think that if we all hold hands and wish really hard all together that some magic will happen.


I'm sure you read plenty of lib boards as well. Tell me truthfully, most of them are just plain anti-Bush posters that spout nothing but hatred for the man. Am I wrong? The libs are fixated on Bush and not concentrating on the overall long range results of what they are doing

Yes you are wrong. We discuss how things can be better. You should try it sometime.

loosecannon
04-10-2007, 11:20 PM
[QUOTE=lily;36514]

Afganhistan is a backward mostly agricultural country with little to offer anyone except poppies. It's a nice quiet place to train terroists and difficult to manuvuer in countryside. Iraq on the other hand has an infrastucture. electric, water, some manufacturing capabilities, and most importantly...OIL. So if you head up a terror organization which one would you rather have control of?

As for that tired old line, as you call it, is totally accurate. The libs are not against the war, they are against Bush. iraq is nothing more than an excuse to attack him and try to get more power in government. They consistantly demoralize our troops and embolden the enemy. They show the world a divided nation in time of war. I'm sure you read plenty of lib boards as well. Tell me truthfully, most of them are just plain anti-Bush posters that spout nothing but hatred for the man. Am I wrong? The libs are fixated on Bush and not concentrating on the overall long range results of what they are doing.


Gaffe, have you ever been outdoors? I mean your posts are so obviously those of shut in paranoid schitzo types that I wonder if your whole knowledge of the world came from reading the cereal box.

Bush invaded to steal Iraqis oil.

There were no WMD, Bush lied.

There are no Islamofascists except the ones Bush holds hands with in real life.

Bush couldn't give a shit about AQ or BinLaden, and you know it.

The War on Terror is a farce. We may have a terror enemy but Bush certainly doesn't care about them.

Bush's whole game is about eliminating taxes on the rich, providing welfare for war profiteers and using the US military as a security squad to help oil corps steal the ME oil reserves.

You know all that, why do you pretend that Bush ever had a virtue?

Jesus himself would laugh and point at you, and you know it.

Gaffer
04-11-2007, 12:38 AM
Whoa there a minute.......are you telling me that everything in the '04 election didn't center on Iraq? All we heard was stories on how the Republicans can keep us safe........and all we're hearing now is if we don't get them there, they will follow us here. Both sides are highly betting on Iraq. The only difference this time, is the people spoke in '06 and the only ones that are going to get the vote, is the one that actually has a plan.

04 did center on iraq, which is why Bush won. I don't believe republicans or democrats can keep us safe. We are going to need a real wartime president in office come 08. I haven't seen a single democrat running that I want to see in the oval office. And I have NEVER heard any plan from any democrat about how to conduct the war other than cut and run and having a dialoge with the enemy.

Oh hogwash. Anyone that thinks the Democrats want to lose this war, just to score points is smoking crack. It dates back to that "You're either for us or against us" bullshit. Dividing this country like it's never been before. As for the more 911........as I said fear worked for you in '04, I doubt it will work for you again. We've tried it the Republican way for 5 years now and look what we've got. It's time to try something else.

Obviously your a democrat. There's a difference between a democrat and a liberal. Though the libs have taken over the democrat party. It sucks cause I have to vote either independent or repulican now. As for fear working for someone. There is something to fear. It's called islam. we can go Bush's route of trying to democratize the ME or we can leave and let it all boil over and see our cities dealing with suicide bombers, random attacks and WMD's. If we pull out they won't follow us right away. They will consolidate their holdings and continue to build up. They will send more and more terror cells into this country ready to attack when the order is given. There are already many of them here. They are not concerned with time tables, they have been fighting this war for over 1300 years.


They ignore Afghainstan, because sadly 1/2 the country forgot about it.

half the country forgot about it because the media didn't report on it. every attack, every bombing, every body count in iraq is reported, except for enemy dead and captured. A battle in afgan that left 200 taliban and AQ dead with a couple of wounded on our side, that even went hand to hand at one point, went unreported by the media.


I'm not talking abut the invasion of Iraq.......I'm talking about moving the soldiers in the middle of the war with Afghanistan. Can you give me one reason why we needed to fight this war with Iraq when we did? Bush 41 had him contained.

They didn't move any soldiers from afganhistan. Any that would be moved would be small specialty units for tactical reasons. Rangers, Delta Force etc. saddam ignored 17 un resolutions, he was presumed to have bio and chem weapons by all the worlds intel agencies. He was shooting at our planes flying over the no fly zone. He was stealing the oil for food money letting his people starve. He was executing people by the thousands. He was paying hamas and supporting hezbollah and other terror groups. He gave safe haven to AQ agents. But he was contained.


So....cut and run?

That's what the dems are proposing. I asked the question because you said we needed to pull out of iraq and move everything to afgan. In effect turning iraq over to AQ and iran. iran would quickly take over everything.

Wow......I haven't heard demoralize the troops and embolden the enemy in a long time. Right along with bush bashers. I honestly don't think that our soldiers are the bunch of pansies that the Republicans think they are. I think they can handle a debate about the war. What I think would demoralize them would be being sent to Iraq over and over, staying longer that they were told, not having the proper equipment and taking the same cities over and over......but hey..that's just me.

ever hear what the troops have to say about the media and the reports they get. They can't believe what they hear. They are seeing and doing one thing while the media reports on something completely different. Always a negative. AQ and the iranians and the syrians and every other dictator watch out news reports. They have agents that do nothing but forward this stuff along to their leaders. They see the reports that the majority of Americans are against the war and they order new attacks to kill American soldiers. They see discussions of a time frame for withdrawing they sit back and wait. They see division they do anything they can to create a wider division. The war is not fought only on the battlefield. It's fought in the minds of the people as well. As for being sent to iraq over and over. yeah that would be demoralizing, but then when re enlistment comes up they can always chose to get out. Equipment needs to be replaced. They do have what they need and the war fronts get priority on everything. The troops at home might not have all their equipment but the troops in combat will. Taking cities and then leaving was the problem they had before the surge began. Now they are taking the cities and occupying them. That is the strategy change and that's why the necessity for more troops.

We are not the ones that made the claim.....with us or against us. Sometimes I think that the Repbulicans think that if we all hold hands and wish really hard all together that some magic will happen.

Actually I belive the actual quote is " Your either with us or your with the terrorists". And only RINO's hold that holding hands view as do most libs.

Yes you are wrong. We discuss how things can be better. You should try it sometime.

Well enlighten me on how things can be better.