« Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ | Main | The Legacy of Daily Kos »

Some advice for congressional Democrats

I know it is not likely they will take it, but I offer a little advice for congressional Democrats in a column at Townhall today.

If congressional Democrats seem a little hysterical these days, it just might be due to news that the surge counteroffensive in Iraq is yielding some progress.
...
For many months we heard that the war in Iraq was a huge failure with the evidence cited including that parts of the country were being taken over by terrorists, that there was increasing violence between different factions within the country, that the Iraqi police and military were not stepping up and were not being trained quickly enough, and that there was lessening support across the country for the mission of coalition and Iraqi forces.

Now that it appears progress is being made on many of those fronts, with much of the credit going to efforts of the surge counteroffensive, the focus is being shifted to the national political arena in Iraq, which has not experienced the same progress that is being seen on the local level. There is little praise to be heard from most Democrats for the progress that has been made - only talk about the areas in which the same progress is not being realized.
...
I will offer the following advice to Democrats in Congress knowing it is unlikely that they will accept it: Instead of ignoring, or worse denigrating, every word of progress our forces have worked to accomplish in Iraq, acknowledge that progress and celebrate it. You can still point out the areas in which progress is lacking. Just be honest about the good news there is to report.

If our mission in Iraq were to ultimately be deemed a success, everyone would know that most Democrats had been wrong to want to abandon the mission. But if Democrats would actually start celebrating our victories, maybe the majority of the public would forget that for a time they appeared to be actively working for defeat. Just maybe if Democrats in Congress would begin working to ensure that the progress that is being made in Iraq is built upon and encouraged, rather than belittled and abandoned and defunded, they would be able to share the credit for any resulting success.

If Democrats decided to encourage and support the things in Iraq that are going right, rather than trying to reverse them, even if the the ultimate mission was eventually deemed a failure they would not be blamed because they would have only supported the actions that were producing results. It seems like a win-win for me. Good for Dems and good for America. Click here to read it all.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/23120.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Some advice for congressional Democrats:

Comments (47)

This is the same Democratic... (Below threshold)
Mycroft:

This is the same Democratic Party that controls both houses, the one that Zogby just reported a 3% approval rating of in their handling of the war.

Bush isn't doing the greatest in the world at 24% approval, but last time I checked 24% > 3%.

"Bush isn't doing the great... (Below threshold)
Mark L.:

"Bush isn't doing the greatest in the world at 24% approval, but last time I checked 24% > 3%."

No it isn't. Not when you weight those numbers properly through the Community Based Reality filter used by the moonbat left.

- They really, really, REALLY believe that what they are doing is right regardless of facts to the contrary. So, that gives them the strength of three. Multiply 3% by 3 and you get 9%

- Bushitler is an evil nasty man, so his supporters are misguided fools. Divide his percentage in half to get its real value: 12%.

- EvilFoxNews is fooling even more people. That means we have to deduct another 5% from Bushitler's approval rating. That makes it 7%.

Having run the approval ratings through the Community Based Reality filter we can see that the Democratic Congress has an approval rating 9/7 higher than Bushitler's. That means that Congress's approval rating is really 54% (9/7*42 -- since Bushitlers approval rating of 24 is backwards we can switch the digits around top 42 for the purposes of this calculation).

So as you can see, in the Community Based Reality world the Democratic Congress *really* has an approval rating of 54%. That's a majority, folks.

Mark,Is that the C... (Below threshold)
yo:

Mark,

Is that the Community Based Reality filter, or the conversion algorithm for Celsius/Fahrenheit?

Lorie, where you listening ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Lorie, where you listening to me discuss this with my wife yesterday?

Cuz if not it's a mighty big coincidence....

ya thief!

lol

P

For those folks unfamiliar ... (Below threshold)
JFO:

For those folks unfamiliar with basic civics like Mycroft the Congress does not "handle" the war. It's our President (the Executive) who "handles" the war. Congress funds the war. Bush "handles" the war for cripes sake.

And, just a slight correction for the sake of accuracy since I know the how important that is to the posters here - Mycroft included. The 3% approval (deservedly) was for Congress' (Democrat and Republican) "handling" of the immigration reform. For gosh sake if you're going to slam them for something at least get your facts straight. Never mind, Bush never does so why should you.

Speaking of hysterical, any... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Speaking of hysterical, anyone see Sen. Dodd last night on Bill O'? And he is running for Prez? lol

JFO must be on Dodd's staff... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

JFO must be on Dodd's staff. snicker snort

Another excellent column Lo... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Another excellent column Lorie.

Of course the Democrats won't take your advice. They can't take your advice and it puts them in a catch 22 situation.

While the common leftist strawman that most Americans want us out of Iraq is true, the elephant in the room that the leftists pretend dosen't exist is that most Americans do not want to loose the war.

Now the evil, rabid, hate-filled leftist base (Kos, DU, HuffPo, WizBlue, etc.) does want America to loose this war. The Democrats know that they need the support of that evil, rabid, hate-filled base in order to win the primaries so every Democrat candidate is on record as promising that they, if elected, will let the islamofascist terrorists win the war in Iraq.

Of course this won't play well with average Americans so the press, after the primaries are over, will go into overdrive to try and hide these facts from the public they have been intentionally keeping informationally retarded for the last 35 years or so. Still it will hopefully be the Democrats undoing.

Only about 18% or so of the population really supports the leftists' agenda. The rest of the votes that the Democrats gat are from informationlly retarded persons.

JFO, as a typical liberal t... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

JFO, as a typical liberal talks out of both sides of his mouth. I believe the congressional democrats yesterday were changing the way the military deploys. So, there goes the "they only fund the war." JFO, read your current events before you try to debate. Whether you like it or not, the democrats have control of the agenda and the gavel, they get the credit or the blame. In this case, the blame. Historic low. Historic. ww

Last night we saw that Demo... (Below threshold)

Last night we saw that Democrats will happily cheat at voting procedure in the House as well.

Lorie, Another good... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Lorie,
Another good article. Given the behavior of the dems, we shouldn't have too much hope though.

We've turned a corner, I se... (Below threshold)
jpe:

We've turned a corner, I see.

At any rate, how long do you think we'll have to be in Iraq?

wildwilleYou reall... (Below threshold)
JFO:

wildwille

You really ought to learn some basics about out government. Congress cannot/does not have the power to order the redeployment of troops.You bleat on about this issue and your ignorance is quite astounding. What some Senators did yesertday was to "call on" the president to redeploy troops. A suggestion, a request.

Telling me to learn about current events when 1) you're wrong about what you say and 2) you don't even know how our government works would be funny were is not so p[pathetic. Buy a civics books and read it. Google troop redeployment so you can learn the facts. Otherwise you ought to shut up about it unless you like looking like a misinformed bloviator.

"At any rate, how long d... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"At any rate, how long do you think we'll have to be in Iraq? "

As long as it takes to ensure unquestionable victory.

How long do you think we'll have to be in the Balkins?

Or for that matter Germany, Japan, or South Korea?

What's the current death an... (Below threshold)
JFO:

What's the current death and maiming count in Germany, Japan and South Korea.

While the common leftist... (Below threshold)
Brian:

While the common leftist strawman that most Americans want us out of Iraq is true, the elephant in the room that the leftists pretend dosen't exist is that most Americans do not want to loose the war.

No, what doesn't exist is a solid definition of "lose" or "win". You have things backwards. Americans wanting out of Iraq is the objective fact. "Then you want to lose the war!" is your rhetorical strawman.

Americans want troops out. They do not believe Iraq will form a stable government. They do not believe our troops will solve the Iraqis' centuries-old problems. They do not believe we can stop the violence. They do not believe we are making the world or America safer. They do believe we are increasing the numbers of those who hate us. They do believe we are alienating the world. And they do believe more American troops will die in the pursuit of these fruitless endeavors. Every poll shows they know the potential consequences of pulling out. But they want the troops out anyway.

Then you guys come along with your vague bray that "that means you want to lose!" And yes, you've had some success browbeating people who buy that emotional argument and want to be known as the "hell no, I want to win!" cowboys. But even most of you do not have an idea what that even means. And those who do can only break it down into the points above that the American people don't believe are achievable. So then you retreat back to "then you want to lose!"

It's like watching your stock going steadily down and berating those who are selling along the way, telling them "you want to lose money!" And now here's Lorie admonishing everyone that they should really be buying, not because the stock will go up, but because when it finally tanks, at least they can all feel good that they were rooting for it.

Well, the American people have already expressed their opinions, and they don't buy your logic. They wish to keep their money (and the lives of our troops) safe, and watch the rest of this tragedy unfold without further involvement.

Better all the time...<br /... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Better all the time...
July 2007 81 Dead
July 2006 43 Dead
July 2005 54 Dead
July 2004 54 Dead
July 2003 40 Dead

Source http://icasualties.org/oif/

and of course this from Reuters
"However, Iraqi government figures released on Wednesday showed a sharp rise in the number of Iraqi civilians killed in July to 1,653 from 1,227 in June."

This isn't some high school game...where our school is down 35-0 with 5 minutes left to play
and we chant with our cheerleaders
"V I C T O R Y victory..victory that's our cry"

What State do You live in?<... (Below threshold)
nogo war:

What State do You live in?
How many funerals have You attended?
http://icasualties.org/oif/Statecity.aspx

I was watching CSPAN for a ... (Below threshold)

I was watching CSPAN for a bit today and saw another example of why the Democrats are a joke. On the floor of the House, representing the actions of a security committee was Alcee Hastings.

That made me nauseous by itself.

This is too tempting to not... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

This is too tempting to not say:

That made me nauseous by itself.

Now you know how the other 70% of the country feels when we see Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Alberto.

Its a shame your better sen... (Below threshold)

Its a shame your better sense didn't prevail over the temptation, sean.

It is despicable that the Democrats would allow on a sensitive committee a man impeached by Congress from the federal bench for bribery. It shows how empty the Democrats' promise to run a more ethical Congress actually is. Especially combined with their failure to reform earmarks and their cheating at voting last night.

JFO, you are so without a c... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

JFO, you are so without a clue. Look up what the democrats debated and passed yesterday concerning the military. Especially the provision for deployment restrictions. Well, have your mom do it anyway, then come back to the debate. I would accept your apology but, I will not hold my breath. Quite frankly, you are on the lighter side of smart, you know what I mean? ww

Outside of my brief persona... (Below threshold)
nogo war:

Outside of my brief personal comment on cheer leading...I notice no responses to the FACTS I posted and linked...
not surprising...after all it hurts our brains when FACTS interfere with what we have been told ...
Each month since our invasion we have been assured of progress by our Leadership...and we All really wanted to believe this....but WE (Americans of all political affiliations)no longer believe that line...
and why should we?

Yes I have serious problems... (Below threshold)
nogogo war:

Yes I have serious problems with Hastings...but I felt much more disgust about Foley being praised by Bush for "his efforts in stopping internet predators"
But hey...maybe American voters will see Dems as the party of corruption and not Republicans...
Should be a Republican Landslide in both the House and Senate in 2008...(maybe not in Alaska)

Nogo, your "facts" are not ... (Below threshold)

Nogo, your "facts" are not interfering with anything I believe. That they so impress you, does not surprise me.

The casualty figures for successive July's are not a coherent argument. Pretending that it is one is just one example of why you have no serious position other than foot stamping.

Nogo, casualties happen whe... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Nogo, casualties happen when people fight back.

When people don't fight back, casualties tend to decrease (though it's not an absolute, so don't bother searching Google for the few times in history when it went the other way).

In short, a counteroffensive, which is what we have going on right now, is going to inflict more casualties for a limited time. The goal is to remove the terrorists so that deaths will decrease over the long term.

But you can't comprehend that, because like most lefties, you're focused on the short-term and "now," not the future.

JFO, as a typical libera... (Below threshold)
Brian:

JFO, as a typical liberal talks out of both sides of his mouth. I believe the congressional democrats yesterday were changing the way the military deploys. So, there goes the "they only fund the war." JFO, read your current events before you try to debate. Whether you like it or not, the democrats have control of the agenda and the gavel, they get the credit or the blame. In this case, the blame. Historic low. Historic. ww

Hey, WildWillie. marc says that the only constitutional option available to Congress is to defund. You claim that Congress has the power to redeploy the troops.

I'm curious... which one of you is full of sh*t? You and marc feel free to discuss.

OK, pop quiz, everyone! Who... (Below threshold)
Brian:

OK, pop quiz, everyone! Who said this yesterday?

the Bush administration is waging a "phony war" on terrorism... the country is losing ground against the kind of Islamic radicals who attacked the country on Sept. 11, 2001.

"None of you should believe we are winning this war. There is no evidence that we are winning this war."

"[Republicans] were in charge for six years. I don't think you can look and say that was a great success."

Was it Edwards? Hillary? Harry Reid? Someone who could use Lorie Byrd's Fantasmagorical Advice for Congressional Democrats(TM)?

Maybe not.

Brian, The right h... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

Brian,

The right hates America too much to argue with inconvenient truths like you post.


Too bad, I'd really like to see them refute your 5:00pm and 9:06 pm posts. And nogo postal at 5:08pm. I just hate it when facts get in the way of cheerleading don't you?

And yes, Americans want the troops out. Now.

Even from the Zogby polls, ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Even from the Zogby polls, 50% want the Congress to fully fund to maintain the current troop levels. Beyond that, the Dem is in power for 7 months and they have reach 3%. Wow.

I am still surprised by the liberals who post here and can look at themselves in the mirror everyday hoping for American defeat. Yikes! Key question: who would want to stake their hope on American defeat? Obviously the liberals on this thread do. Sad and shameful.

http://thehill.com/byron-york/dems-real-big-problem-2007-08-03.html


The authors, both with the Brookings Institution, were early proponents of the war and later critics of Bush's handling of it. Now, they write, "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms," and they see the possibility of "a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with."

They might be wrong; in the fifth year of this war, anyone who is not deeply skeptical about reports of progress just isn't being realistic. And even if the surge is working, war supporters can be rightly furious at Bush for not doing it years ago.
But at least they aren't betting on -- haven't staked their hopes on -- American failure.

Who would want to do that?

Looks like Brian and CB agr... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Looks like Brian and CB agreed with Newt. So how would you answer his question here

How can you, in good conscience, walk away from these decent people and leave them behind to a fate which we've seen

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291301,00.html
GINGRICH: The left wing of the Democratic Party is deeply opposed to American victory and deeply committed to American defeat.

In 1975, when there were no Americans left in Vietnam, the left wing of the Democratic Party killed the government of South Vietnam, cut off all of its funding, cut off all of its ammunition, and sent a signal to the world that the United States had abandoned its allies.

What I would say to any Democrat who wants America to leave is quite simple. Millions of Iraqis have sided with the United States. They are known in their neighborhoods. They are known in their cities. If we abandon them, they are going to be massacred.

How can you, in good conscience, walk away from these decent people and leave them behind to a fate which we've seen, for example, in Afghanistan, where the Taliban recently was machine-gunning girls as they walked to school because the Taliban is determined to stop women from getting educated?

We are faced with evil opponents. Those opponents need to be defeated. And if General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker come back in September and say, "We actually can win this thing," I want to understand the rationale that says, "No, we don't want to let America win. Let's legislate defeat for the United States."

Even from the Zogby poll... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Even from the Zogby polls, 50% want the Congress to fully fund to maintain the current troop levels.

Well, I'd call you a liar, but you've shown often enough that you just plain can't understand what you read, so let's just chalk it up to that.

Ahem.

The number that you quote (50% want Congress to fund current troop levels) is the poll of "past or current members of the military and their families", not the general public. Of the general public, the number is 42%.

Hey, that means that 50% of "past or current members of the military and their families" do NOT want Congress to fund current troop levels. Doesn't that mean the troops hate the troops?

Since you focused on it, let's look at the other thoughts from "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
  • [more] 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
  • 50% agree U.S. should begin the phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year

It's OK. Since it no longer says what you want it to say, now you can go back to claiming that you don't trust polls.

Brian, I do not disagree wi... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Brian, I do not disagree with Marc. The congress should only fund the troops. But your dimmer leadership wants to put restrictions on deployment. Your party. I know they do not have the constitutional authority, Marc knows it, but the dimmer leadership does not understand the constitution. No wonder 97% or americans think congressional leadership sucks. ww

I find it interesting that ... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

I find it interesting that one GOP voice gets the lefties so excited, when they ignore statements like the following from their own people:

While some will no doubt claim that Iran is only attacking U.S. soldiers in Iraq because they are deployed there--and that the solution, therefore, is to withdraw them--Iran's parallel proxy attacks against moderate Palestinians, Afghans and Lebanese directly rebut such claims.

...

I hope the new revelations about Iran's behavior will also temper the enthusiasm of some of those in Congress who are advocating the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Iran's purpose in sponsoring attacks on American soldiers, after all, is clear: It hopes to push the U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan, so that its proxies can then dominate these states. Tehran knows that an American retreat under fire would send an unmistakable message throughout the region that Iran is on the rise and America is on the run. That would be a disaster for the region and the U.S.

The threat posed by Iran to our soldiers' lives, our security as a nation and our allies in the Middle East is a truth that cannot be wished or waved away. It must be confronted head-on. The regime in Iran is betting that our political disunity in Washington will constrain us in responding to its attacks. For the sake of our nation's security, we must unite and prove them wrong.

Or this:

Some argue that the new strategy is failing because, despite gains in Baghdad and Anbar, violence has increased elsewhere in the country, such as Diyala province. This gets things backwards: Our troops have succeeded in improving security conditions in precisely those parts of Iraq where the "surge" has focused. Al Qaeda has shifted its operations to places like Diyala in large measure because we have made progress in pushing them out of Anbar and Baghdad. The question now is, do we consolidate and build on the successes that the new strategy has achieved, keeping al Qaeda on the run, or do we abandon them?

...

I returned from Iraq grateful for the progress I saw and painfully aware of the difficult problems that remain ahead. But I also returned with a renewed understanding of how important it is that we not abandon Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran, so long as victory there is still possible.

And I conclude from my visit that victory is still possible in Iraq--thanks to the Iraqi majority that desperately wants a better life, and because of the courage, compassion and competence of the extraordinary soldiers and statesmen who are carrying the fight there, starting with Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. The question now is, will we politicians in Washington rise to match their leadership, sacrifices and understanding of what is on the line for us in Iraq--or will we betray them, and along with them, America's future security?

Of course, the Party of the Donkey kicked the person who made these statements out of their party. Though, to be honest, he still caucuses with the Dems in Congress, and votes with them most of the time... that's why I call him "one of their people."

Last I checked, Gingrich was still a Republican. And no one that I have seen or heard is saying that we should force him to become an "Independent Republican," like the author of the above quotes was forced to become an "Independent Democrat."

Guess one party handles dissent better than the other.

Brian, Oops, you ar... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Brian,
Oops, you are right in this case. You win a brownie point. 42% is the number for the overall population vs 50% for the past military members. Given this is a Zogby poll, this is a pretty good number. But here is the summary

Survey shows just 3% of Americans approve of how Congress is handling the war in Iraq; 24% say the same for the President

So can we say the American people trust Bush far more than the Dem in Congress now? (8 times more than the Dem congress)?

So Brian,
Since you brought up Gingrich, how would you answer his question now

How can you, in good conscience, walk away from these decent people and leave them behind to a fate which we've seen?

In the same spirit, Brian,
Do you stake your hope on American defeat? And do you think the majority of liberals hope for the same?

BTW, I am waiting for your answer here

And no one that I have s... (Below threshold)
Brian:

And no one that I have seen or heard is saying that we should force him to become an "Independent Republican," like the author of the above quotes was forced to become an "Independent Democrat."

Guess one party handles dissent better than the other.

Let's see him try to run for something. And let's see him win it. Then you can tell us how well your party handles dissent.

Survey shows just 3% of ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Survey shows just 3% of Americans approve of how Congress is handling the war in Iraq; 24% say the same for the President

As I pointed out before, that's because 52% want Congress to use funding to reduce troop levels, but they're not doing it. In other words, Congress has a low rating because the American public feels they're not doing enough to oppose Bush. You're welcome to feel good about that if you want.

So can we say the American people trust Bush far more than the Dem in Congress now?

If you want to celebrate that 24% of Americans approve of Bush, go ahead.

BTW, I am waiting for your answer here

And I'm waiting for you to read my answer here. You keep posting this on every thread, ane I keep posting my answer. Apparently you're unable to read. So I shall stop waiting for you to develop that ability.

If you want to celebrate th... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

If you want to celebrate that 24% of Americans approve of Bush, go ahead.
-----------------------------------------------
ARe you going to keep bringing up Bush 's 24% while ignoring the 3% approval rating of the Dem congress? Will you stop bringing up Bush 's poll number?


And I'm waiting for you to read my answer here. You keep posting this on every thread, ane I keep posting my answer. Apparently you're unable to read. So I shall stop waiting for you to develop that ability.
----------------------------------------------
Now you are running around like a cheap spinner. You brought up Bush 's statement "bring it on" as an example of his stupidity. In fact, I have shown you that Bush is much smarter than you, Obama, Reid and Pelosi. I was honest enough to admit my error. Will you be willing to admit your mistake now Brian and agree that Bush is smarter than you, Obama, and Pelosi. You challenged people to pick up your question and I did and you ran away with your cheap spin again. Your answer is a cop-out. Here is the question for you again.

Since you seem to be slow to understand and try to spin again, let me take your question and explain slowly to you (unless you are only interested in dishonest spin).

(1) Challenge the terrorists to bring it on against our troops (so that they can get get annihilated) and mock their cowardice for attacking women/children

(2) Reid/Pelosi holds a press conference every time the terrorists blow up more women/children as proof that our military has failed.

So you think it is smarter to do (2) since you are a supporter of Reid/Pelosi? Or should you be ashamed of (2)? Can you give an honest answer now?

Brian, Here is your stateme... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Brian, Here is your statement and you are hiding behind the 52% poll again.
Americans want troops out. They do not believe Iraq will form a stable government.

I didn't see the detailed questions in the poll, so I couldn't tell. I have been asking you for a poll that have asked the questions below. If you have the results let me know. Instead of hiding behind the polls, how would you answer the question below yourself (yes or no)? If you are so confident of your position, you shouldn't be afraid to give us a straightforward answer.

We should take American troops out of Iraq even if it means (1) A defeat for America and a victory for the terrorists, the Baathists, and the Iranian mullahs. (2) A bloody massacre (or genocide) even on a larger scale than the Cambodian genocide
If you are so confident ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

If you are so confident of your position, you shouldn't be afraid to give us a straightforward answer.

I'll give you mine, along with that of the majority of Americans:

"Do you think the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties; or do you think the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there?"

Keep Forces | Withdraw Forces
% %
39 | 59

=============

"All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?"
| Worth Fighting | Not Worth Fighting
% %
36 | 63

All you're doing is attaching some fake scary scenario to the "take American troops out of Iraq" option. (And oddly, you do this at the same time you berate polls for being biased.) But that's just your fantasy.

As shown by the above results, the American people have considered the consequences, and they still want out. And no matter how many times you rephrase it as "do you want the troops out of Iraq even if it means the Easter Bunny will pluck the eyes out of babies and feed them to Satan's dog?", the answer is the same.

Brian,All you're doi... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Brian,
All you're doing is attaching some fake scary scenario to the "take American troops out of Iraq" option. (And oddly, you do this at the same time you berate polls for being biased.) But that's just your fantasy.
-------------------------------------------------
You are even less honest than Obama. At least he is honest enough to admit the potential genocide in Iraq, but he argued that it is not the job of the US to prevent a genocide. You are the one who want to live in the fake reality. You brought up Newt Gingrich to bolster your point, but here is what Newt had to say. Why are you so afraid to answer this question? AlQ cooked children in Iraq to intimidate the parents. The Taliban killed girls who went to school. These scenarios are not real? Be honest and face the consequences of your rhetoric. Don't run around like a cheap spinner. BTW, are you honest enough to admit your mistake wrt Bush now? I set an example for you Brian. I am not afraid to admit my error. Admit it: Bush is smarter than you, Obama, Pelosi/Reid. Otherwise, defend your position.


We should take American troops out of Iraq even if it means (1) A defeat for America and a victory for the terrorists, the Baathists, and the Iranian mullahs. (2) A bloody massacre (or genocide) even on a larger scale than the Cambodian genocide

GINGRICH: The left wing of the Democratic Party is deeply opposed to American victory and deeply committed to American defeat.

In 1975, when there were no Americans left in Vietnam, the left wing of the Democratic Party killed the government of South Vietnam, cut off all of its funding, cut off all of its ammunition, and sent a signal to the world that the United States had abandoned its allies.

What I would say to any Democrat who wants America to leave is quite simple. Millions of Iraqis have sided with the United States. They are known in their neighborhoods. They are known in their cities. If we abandon them, they are going to be massacred.

How can you, in good conscience, walk away from these decent people and leave them behind to a fate which we've seen, for example, in Afghanistan, where the Taliban recently was machine-gunning girls as they walked to school because the Taliban is determined to stop women from getting educated?

We are faced with evil opponents. Those opponents need to be defeated. And if General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker come back in September and say, "We actually can win this thing," I want to understand the rationale that says, "No, we don't want to let America win. Let's legislate defeat for the United States."

Oh, BTW, I guess you would ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Oh, BTW, I guess you would deny the genocide after the withdrawal of American troops from Indochina (Vietname, Cambodia, Laos)?

I note, Brian, that you cho... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

I note, Brian, that you chose to snark about Mr. Gingrich's chances in an election rather than consider the substance of what Mr. Lieberman said.

Therefore, let us take the comments about which party handles dissent better off the table.

Would you like to respond to what Mr. Lieberman said now?

I note, Brian, that you ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I note, Brian, that you chose to snark about Mr. Gingrich's chances in an election rather than consider the substance of what Mr. Lieberman said.

Well yeah, Sherlock. That's what your comment was based on: "handling dissent", not responding to the substance of his position. I "chose" to respond directly on topic. It's unfortunate that you object to direct responses to your own questions.

Would you like to respond to what Mr. Lieberman said now?

Not much to repond to. It's a bunch of rhetoric about how evil Iran is. Big talk, not much else. It's nice that he formed such a lofty opinion after a quick trip. Meanwhile, 45% of the troops themselves "believe the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq incites anti-U.S. sentiment and creates a greater likelihood of a terrorist attack here at home", and 50% want a withdrawal. So why am I supposed to be taking Lieberman seriously?

Brian, you're a perfect Dem... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Brian, you're a perfect Democrat. You believe polls are the way to determine policy.

How about a response that doesn't involve easily-skewed polls?

Brian couldn't help hiding ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Brian couldn't help hiding behind the polls. Brian believes that the 3% approval rating of the Dem party is simply due to the fact that they haven't cut off the funding for the troops in Iraq. Brian is so confident of his position that he dares not answer the following simple poll question

We should take American troops out of Iraq even if it means (1) A defeat for America and a victory for the terrorists, the Baathists, and the Iranian mullahs. (2) A bloody massacre (or genocide) even on a larger scale than the Cambodian genocide

Note that we haven't even include other consequences such as more terrorist attacks on American homeland. Physical attacks at least didn't reach US soil after the VN war. This time that wont't be the case

Brian, before you attempt t... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Brian, before you attempt to spin... er... answer, you might want to read this article.

Seems the NY Times doesn't publish polls that don't fit its worldview... they run another poll to see if they can get a different result.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy