« The 'Lee Ward' Demographic Factor in the 2008 Presidential Election | Main | The Strange Case of Hsu, Lillian Vernon, Hillary, and Bill »

Another Democrat surrender bill defeated

Another day, another defeat for Harry Reid and the Defeat Caucus, reports Anne Flaherty for the Associated Press:


The Senate rejected legislation Friday that would have ordered most U.S. troops home from Iraq in nine months, culminating a losing week for Democrats who failed to push through any anti-war proposal.

The vote, 47-47, fell 13 votes short of the 60 needed to pass.


Read the whole story at the link above. Only one day after the Webb Amendment (which would have forced withdrawal through the back door by limiting combat tours) failed, another attempt to force retreat and surrender in Iraq is defeated.

Baloney, really. All this amounts to is Kabuki theatre, played out in an elaborate production to pacify the far-left constituencies of the Democratic Party who have demanded their congressional majorities end the war. Naturally, the Democrats could do this very easily by cutting off the funding.

If they did that, though, they would own the consequences. Even those Democrats who have opposed the war from the beginning understand that a precipitous withdrawal would lead to immediate disaster on the ground. So they seek to diddle at the periphery of policy, attempting to appease the rabid anti-American interest groups with avoiding taking any responsibility for surrender.

Another day, another bill, another Danse Macabre, another attempt to look frustrated enough on camera to satisfy MoveOn.org and Code Pink that they "really, really tried."

It's ugly to watch unfold, but perfidy is never pretty, is it?


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/24267.

Comments (84)

Gee, does't congress have o... (Below threshold)
David:

Gee, does't congress have other things to do.

Yes - cursed Democrats, pan... (Below threshold)
jim:

Yes - cursed Democrats, pandering to that far-left fringe 72% of America that wants us to pull most of our troops out of Iraq, in two years or less.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Don't get me wrong - you're absolutely right in that all the Democrats have to do, is stick to their guns and push bills through that limit the funding.

Heck - all they'd have to do is pass a bill demanding an audit of Halliburton, so we can see what happened to that $8.8 BILLION they 'lost'. (I'd love to try that trick on the IRS some time...somehow I don't think it would work.)

So the Democrats are letting me and all the nation down, by not being firm enough. It looks to me like they're playing a waiting game...which is frustrating to me and the majority of Americans who voted them into control of both houses.

Still, at least they're not just rubber-stamping Bush's as much as the GOP Congress and Senate was. They're pursuing a line of independent thought and action, even if it's not in my opinion strong enough.

Once again, "jim,": If you... (Below threshold)

Once again, "jim,": If you are going to use polls to justify your position, then you MUST first admit that invading Iraq was the RIGHT thing to do, since it enjoyed overwhelming support in the opinion polls at the time.

Either that, or admit you are a two-faced hypocritical moron.

I for one am glad the timet... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

I for one am glad the timetables bills are failing.

Things are going so well in Anbar. Bush has figured out you can't govern Iraq without the Sunni Arab tribes, so he's arming the ex Baathists to the teeth.

Bush is repeating exactly what worked for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s and later. Our very own dictator repeating the same tactics that Saddam used. Ain't that special.

One of the main problems with this strategy is that both the Sunni tribes and Shia nationalists are profoundly anti-American and don't trust each other--a potential recipe for further disaster.

Timetables? Bah Humbug. Let these neocons hang themselves for 2008

And you know that for a "fa... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

And you know that for a "fact" cb?

"The vote, 47-47, fell 1... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

"The vote, 47-47, fell 13 votes short of the 60 needed to pass."

Uh, it failed to even garner a MAJORITY of Senators!

p.s. to jhow66, CB is allergic to "facts"

Jhow,Why don't yo... (Below threshold)
cviil behavior:

Jhow,

Why don't you try actually refuting what general betray us and the decider in thief have outlined as their "return on success"is.

They've been doing exactly what Saddam did.

Try refuting why they have decided to follow in Saddam's footsteps as far as tactics go.

I tell you why you won't. Because they are doing exactly what worked for Saddam and admitting that is antithetical to what your propoganda tells you to espouse.

Some surge.

cviil behavior: "they ha... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

cviil behavior: "they have decided to follow in Saddam's footsteps as far as tactics go."

Here're a few for you, CB:

mid-March of 1988, Saddam Hussein and his cousin "Chemical Ali" drop chemical weapons on the town of Halabja in northeastern Iraq...killing an estimated 5,000 civilians

1987-1988 Saddam Hussein ordered the "Anfal" campaign against the Iraqi
Kurdish people...killing between 50,000 and 100,000

In March and April of 1991,Saddam Hussein's forces killed somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000 Iraqis, most of them civilians, as part of the suppression of the 1991 uprising.

Saddam ordered the draining of the southern marshes beginning in the early
1990's...killing and displacing hundreds of thousands

Routine and systematic killings of political opponents and anyone even suspected of being one. Beyond the killings are the documented tortures and rapes.

Just a few of the "TACTICS" you find so similar as to how WE are achieving success in Iraq.

CB,I apologize for b... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

CB,
I apologize for being ill-informed but could you elaborate more specifically on how the US Military in Iraq is following the tactics of Saddam Hussein?

Yep...a grand victory...<br... (Below threshold)
nogo war:

Yep...a grand victory...
in November 2008...by then at least over 4500 dead..with continued too short rotations....
This election...on all levels will be about
Iraq...
This is now officially the Republican's War..
Not just Bush...
If you folks think escalation without commitment by the Iraqi govt is a winning hand with the voters in America...then keep on cheering...
Let every Republican running for office use these votes as the cornerstone of their candidacy...

I surely hope the absentee ballots from our brave...extended troops...are counted..
God Bless those making the real sacrifice..
They will really start coming home in 2009.
After a Democratic Party landslide.

cb, It gose even ... (Below threshold)
Oclarki:

cb,

It gose even futher back into the history of this facist evil experiment known as America. In 1943 we were fighting a war against Germany. Germany had invaded the Soviet Union. Even though we had defeated Hitler, by 1948 we were training German soldiers to fight the Soviets just like Hitler had.

"It's ugly to watch unfold.... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"It's ugly to watch unfold..."

Are you talking about the war? We're in agreement.

civil behavior, Oc... (Below threshold)
barney'smom:

civil behavior,

Oclarki's got you dead to rights on that.

By the way, we are not armi... (Below threshold)
David:

By the way, we are not arming the Sunnis, they already have their own weapons, which 10 months ago were using on us. I have no problem with us figuring out how to have them shoot AQ rather than us.

jim:Yes - curs... (Below threshold)
marc:

jim:

Yes - cursed Democrats, pandering to that far-left fringe 72% of America that wants us to pull most of our troops out of Iraq, in two years or less.

Something doesn't equate. This from you own poll on the same day:

"From what you know about the U.S. involvement in Iraq, how much longer would you be willing to have large numbers of U.S. troops remain in Iraq: less than a year, one to two years, two to five years or longer than five years?"

The total for those that are willing to leave troops in Iraq from one to two years to longer than five years is 40%.

"How much longer do you think large numbers of U.S. troops will have to remain in Iraq: for less than a year, one to two years, two to five years, or will U.S. troops have to stay in Iraq for longer than five years?"

The total for those that realize troops will be needed in Iraq from one to two years to longer than five years is 82%

As I said something doesn't compute.

But that's true of all polls isn't it?

"attempting to appease the ... (Below threshold)
nogo war:

"attempting to appease the rabid anti-American interest groups with avoiding taking any responsibility for surrender."

Pick a poll..any poll...put in back in the deck, now shuffle the deck.
If you want to call a clear majority of Americans anti-American then fine.
Remember we are following a commander-in-Chief who said this yesterday in his press conference yesterday.

"I thought an interesting comment was made when somebody said to me, I heard somebody say, where's Mandela? Well, Mandela is dead, because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas. He was a brutal tyrant that divided people up and split families, and people are recovering from this. So there's a psychological recovery that is taking place. And it's hard work for them."

Our Commander-in-Chief truly believes Nelson Mandala is dead..and his family was wiped our by Saddam. If you all want to support this Commander's vision...well...ok

nogo, Your commen... (Below threshold)
Oclarki:

nogo,

Your comment shows that you have the reading comprehension skills of a 2nd grader. If I was a stupid as you, I wouldn't be so eager to share it. Either that or you are just a liar, and you understood what the president was saying but wanted to distort it to score a point. Either way you are scum.

nogo:I surely ... (Below threshold)
marc:

nogo:

I surely hope the absentee ballots from our brave...extended troops...are counted..

Assuming some asshat doesn't "pull a kerry" you mean?

That aside, so do I, because despite your delusional wish you will be sadly disappointed int he results.

As for the failure of yet another surrender bill, note this is essentially the same bill that was attempted to ram thru the Senate last summer, it received 5 less votes for passage this time.

The dems are losing ground, not gaining it.

How disapointed the liberal... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

How disapointed the liberal will be in the demacrats they must be ready to pull their hair out

nogo:Our Comma... (Below threshold)
marc:

nogo:

Our Commander-in-Chief truly believes Nelson Mandala is dead..and his family was wiped our by Saddam. If you all want to support this Commander's vision...well...ok

A clear case of BDS and seeing something that is not there.

Reading comp is one of many of your weak suits.

we've all, at one time or a... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

we've all, at one time or another, seen a child throw a tantrum like this one I witnessed AT a shopping mall a couple weeks back...(I capitalized and bolded "AT" for a reason)

A mother was half dragging a small child into a store at the mall to buy school clothes (the child screams this at one point, is how I know).

Child: "I don't WANT to buy clothes"
Mother: "Well we're going to"
Child: "I don't WANT to go to the mall"
Mother: "We're AT the mall"

Reminded me of the Dems. A lot. Whenever a discussion about comes up regarding how the war is GOING, or how end the war SUCCESSFULLY...or even how to end the war AT ALL...they always bring up the fact that they didn't want the war in the first place!

Hey...we are AT THE MALL!!! I mean, the war is a FACT.

The FACT that it is going well (finally), and that we can in fact achieve a very worthwhile success is what needs to be discussed...whether you believe we should have been there in the first place or not.

If he wasn't referring to M... (Below threshold)
JFO:

If he wasn't referring to Mandella to whom was he referring?

Way to spell JFO.... geez..... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Way to spell JFO.... geez....Mandela

Seriously JFO, you are purp... (Below threshold)
Oclarki:

Seriously JFO, you are purposely being obtuse. There is no way you could read the quote and think the president thinks Saddam killed THE Nelson Mandela. I thought you guys were the smart nuanced ones.

Apparently you are even able to understand an abstraction. What the president was communicating is the idea that there is no one in Iraq to unify the country in the manner of Nelson Mandela, becasue under Saddam such dissidents were killed. If you understand it any other way its because YOU are stupid, not the president.

JFOIf he wasn'... (Below threshold)
marc:

JFO

If he wasn't referring to Mandella [sic] to whom was he referring?

Surprised?

Not in the least.

nogo, JFO help is <a href="... (Below threshold)
marc:

nogo, JFO help is on offer.

Not that it matters to you two idiots.

Pretty pathetic that jfo an... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Pretty pathetic that jfo and nogo can't understand Bush's point. Though something tells me they know exactly what he was saying but just want to get some kind of shot in anyway...luckily it just displays their own idiocy.

[hattip to the WSJ Opinion ... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

[hattip to the WSJ Opinion Journal]

alReuters started the "Mandela" thing, thusly:

Nelson Mandela is still very much alive despite an embarrassing gaffe by U.S. President George W. Bush, who alluded to the former South African leader's death in an attempt to explain sectarian violence in Iraq.

What Bush ACTUALLY said:
Part of the reason why there is not this instant democracy in Iraq is because people are still recovering from Saddam Hussein's brutal rule. I thought an interesting comment was made when somebody said to me, I heard somebody say, where's Mandela? Well, Mandela is dead, because Saddam Hussein killed ALL the Mandelas. He was a brutal tyrant that divided people up and split families, and people are recovering from this.

WSJ editor:
In this context, it is clear that the literal meaning of "Where's Mandela?" is "Where is the Iraqi who will play the role in his country that Mandela played in postapartheid South Africa?" This was a pithy metaphor, not an "embarrassing gaffe."

Now, how did Reuters get the story wrong? There are, it seems to us, three explanations:

Stupidity. The reporter was so bone-headedly literal-minded that he simply did not understand the rhetorical device Bush was employing.

Laziness. The reporter wasn't actually at the press conference and didn't bother to check the context of the quote.

Dishonesty. The reporter knew full well that Bush was speaking metaphorically and deliberately twisted his meaning in order to fit the stereotype that Bush "has a reputation for verbal faux pas."
********************

Justrand here...my bet is on DISHONESTY

Baghdad barney:<em... (Below threshold)
marc:

Baghdad barney:

The Democrats do not want an immediate pullout.

By democrats are you implying ALL democrats? If so your either a partisan hack, a liar, or sadly misinformed.

Both Dennis "Dept of Peace" Kucinich and Sen. Dodd are on record supporting an immediate pullout.

So which of the three options given are you Badhdad?

BarneyG2000: "The Democr... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

BarneyG2000: "The Democrats do not want an immediate pullout."

November 2005 Murtha submitted H.J. Res. 73 calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq

Then House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi announced SHE would advocate an immediate troop withdrawal

more recently Chris Dodd sponsored a bill in Senate that DEMANDED immediate withdrawal!

Last week Obama DEMANDED immediate withdrawal, claiming "There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was"

Gee, BarneyGoogle...it sure seems like you don't know much

Bagdad barney - I forgot tw... (Below threshold)
marc:

Bagdad barney - I forgot two, Obama:

"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was," Obama said in a speech to about 500 people.

"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year -- now," the Illinois senator said.

Bill Richardson:

What I would propose is a deauthorization resolution, under the War Powers Act, Article I, that basically allows the Congress to determine whether we're at war at not. And what has happened now is, I believe, is that the first resolution that was voted on several years ago is not operative anymore.

In simple terms, out now, or as soon as his purposal passes. (never mind it's a pipedream)

So again Baghdad, which are you a partisan hack, a liar, or sadly misinformed?

Gee, BarneyGoogle.... (Below threshold)
marc:
Gee, BarneyGoogle...it sure seems like you don't know much
Justrand, master at stating the obvious.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

What about pelosi barney, i... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

What about pelosi barney, is SHE a leading democrat?!

Nice try Baghdad barney - b... (Below threshold)
marc:

Nice try Baghdad barney - but what about the rest of those cited as supporting an immediate pullout?

As far as Dennis K, he is hardly a leading Democrat.

But he IS a democrat and he IS running for president.

C- is your grade and that's just because I'm feeling charitable.

Why do the democrats themse... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Why do the democrats themselves use the word "immediate" barney? murtha, pelosi, obama, edwards, kerry, the list goes on and on.

Also, why can you not understand the President's metaphor?

Baghdad barney:<em... (Below threshold)
marc:

Baghdad barney:

I should have used that term "cut off funding" and not "immediate" that was my mistake.

To cut off funding is an immediate withdrawal numbskull.

There is no magic wand the DoD can wave to instantly remove them.

Your hanging your hat on parsing words and semantics. Never a good choice and the second mistake you made in trying defend an obvious BS statement to start with.

Baghdad barney:<em... (Below threshold)
marc:

Baghdad barney:

marc, since Allan Keys is running for President that means that he speaks for the majority of Republicans?

Your grade has been amended to "F".

No he doesn't. But your original contention was that no dems were in favor of an immediate pullout. ("The Democrats do not want an immediate pullout.")

Give it up, you've been unmasked. Again.

Barney argument is that unl... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Barney argument is that unless a Democrat calls for somehow withdrawing every American from Iraq "immediately" (TELEPORTATION??)...then they are not calling for "immediate withdrawal". A VERY Standard Dem tactic these days.

For the last two years damn near EVERY Democrat has called for forcing the BEGININNG of withdrawal "immediately" without regard for consequences or circumstances on the ground.

Of course one LEADING DEMOCRAT called for redeploying to OKINAWA (Murtha, D-Leisure World).

<a href="http://www.nytimes... (Below threshold)
marc:

sen. murtha (nov. 2005:

Mr. Murtha, a conservative who voted in 2002 for the resolution authorizing use of force in Iraq and who supported the Persian Gulf war in 1991, called for "the immediate redeployment of American forces."

When the Repubs called the dems bluff and called for a vote on immediate pullout three dems voted yes: Democrats Jose E. Serrano (N.Y.), Robert Wexler (Fla.) and, (who thankfully is long gone) Cynthia McKinney (Ga.)

Jan 2006, SAN FRANCISCO -- House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Saturday reiterated her support of Rep. John Murtha's call for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but said she will continue to support funding for the war effort.

Mar, 2007, Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat who wants an immediate end to the Iraq war and is expected to vote against her party's bill, said a group of fellow anti-war House Democrats now plan to support the controversial measure.

Baghdad barney after so ent... (Below threshold)
marc:

Baghdad barney after so enthusiastically supporting his lie has suddenly gone silent.

Maybe he's off conducting a side conversation with Brian, JFO, nogo and freedomFRIED on what to do next.

Wow that is good news! I wa... (Below threshold)
Republican thinker:

Wow that is good news! I was really scared that our troops were going to get an extra few months off with their families, and wouldn't have to serve beyond their service. I thought we were going to give them a break from being shot at after a reasonable amount of time to avoid combat fatique.

Luckily this is not the case! Our troops get extra time in lovely iraq to get shot and killed. Whoohoo!! thank god the republicans are looking out for our men and women in uniform. Maybe we could cut their benefits when the get back so the can get substandard treatment after being shot in their extra tours of duty? Oh wait we already did that...

republican thinker:<p... (Below threshold)
marc:

republican thinker:

I thought we were going to give them a break from being shot at after a reasonable amount of time to avoid combat fatique. Luckily this is not the case! Our troops get extra time in lovely iraq to get shot and killed. Whoohoo!!

They are, and the reasonable amount of time is when their 15 month deployment is completed.

marcUnlike you I t... (Below threshold)
JFO:

marc

Unlike you I think for myself and speak for myself. But it is nice to see I'm inside your head.

Baghdad barney:<em... (Below threshold)
marc:

Baghdad barney:

I'm still here marc. If you want to waste time on parsing my words go ahead. The fact is I said phased withdrawal over and over again, and not just on this tread but on several others.

Horseshit, no parsing needed I gave your exact quote as used in THIS thread and the quote gave no "time quaifiers." It was only after you were proven to be wrong you pulled the "phased withdrawal card"

Horseshit.... again. If you think idiots like murtha and dodd have changed their position your nuts.

Damn guys, Usually... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

Damn guys,

Usually I chuckle a bit when you hand Barney his buttocks, but now it's like a cat torturing a poor bird!

Fly away, Barn, fly away!

To each of you....... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

To each of you......interesting isn't it that the American military industrial always needs to set up a bogeyman and then arm them so that later they can claim they didn't know at the time that it would come back to bite them.

P.S. Justrand, DaveD

Since 2003, more than 3,775 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq.

Some two million people have been internally displaced.

Another two million have are refugees in other countries fleeing their country altogether

Abu Ghraib

Guantanamo

At least US$10 billion has been embezzled.

The governing Shia parties have taken control by using militias to "sectarian cleanse" Baghdad. Deaths from sectarian killings are down in Baghdad because almost the entire Sunni middle class lives in Jordan or Syria.


UPCOMING EVENTS BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION:
Eventually the Sunnis will be free of al-Qaeda, and no longer fighting the US. The old Saddam cadres with a base among the tribal militias in Anbar will be coming into Baghdad for a little payback. There will be assasinations of Shia officials. The U.S. will be unable to stop this. The Sunnis will target anyone who have close ties to Iran. It will be a proxy war against Iran. HIstory will repeat itself.

And you want to compare what Saddam did with what Bush has unleashed?


Yeah, right.

Naturally, anyone with even... (Below threshold)

Naturally, anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the logistics involved understands that a bill requiring our troops to be out of Iraq in nine months would mean we must start the process immediately, and make it the primary focus of personnel in country. The mission, for all intents and purposes, would end right away. The rest of the time would be spent dismantling and preparing equipment for transport, and protecting our retreat (the most dangerous exposure in battle).

Anyone who voted for the "out in nine months" bill was voting for immediate withdrawal. Anyone who claims otherwise is a liar, a fool, or both.

Count one vote for "both."<... (Below threshold)
marc:

Count one vote for "both."

CB, I guess it didn't hit m... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

CB, I guess it didn't hit me until just now how close you and Uncle Saddam must have been. I'm sorry Bro', we've been insensitive.

But since he IS gone, and we've already BEEN insensitive at your loss, I guess we might as well continue!

first the travails you list:
- Since 2003, more than 3,775 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq.
True, and incredibly sad. One of us (me) appreciates the sacrifice they made, and holds them up as heroes. One of us (you) feels all they fought for is worthless, and decries them as chumps.
Those troops did NOT die in vain. They died deposing a monster who threatened violence upon all within his considerable reach, and beyond. And they died offering people a chance at freedom who never had such a chance. The success we always sought, of Iraqis fighting WITH us, finally seems achievable. Which accounts for the hysteria on the Left.

Some two million people have been internally displaced.
Another two million have are refugees in other countries fleeing their country altogether

I'll accept the numbers...except WE didn't displace them. And they are now beginning to return.

Abu Ghraib
An example of the American military policing itself, and punishing ACTUAL criminal actions. Of course now the media (including Hollywood) wants to paint EVERY soldier with that brush. You too, of course.

Guantanamo
A splendid place to house terrorists while we interrogate them. What's you point?

At least US$10 billion has been embezzled.
Sooner or later Ted Kennedy will swing for this...we ARE talking about the BIG DIG in Boston...right?

and as for you crystal ball gazing...get a new one. your predictions might have looked plausible 12 months ago...but they're flat now.

try accepting the fact that we just might win...and TRY to feel good about that!! Just try, eh?

Perfidy? Yes. It's almost a... (Below threshold)
OLDPUPPYMAX:

Perfidy? Yes. It's almost as ugly as treason.

OLDPUPPYMAX: "Perfidy? Y... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

OLDPUPPYMAX: "Perfidy? Yes. It's almost as ugly as treason."

Assuming you are calling out the Democrat Senators and their MoveOn.org handlers as "treasonous"...RIGHT ON!!

geez Barney...you stated: "... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

geez Barney...you stated: "The Democrats do not want an immediate pullout."

And then got reminded that most of the leading Dems called for just that!

So the LEADING Dems changed to "Phased Withdrawal"...which, although it sounds slightly LESS sexual, still implies withdrawal without a consideration of the consequences.

Point is, boyo, the Dems don't give a damn about whether we win or lose in Iraq...they just want POWER!

time to choose sides, Barney, America or those that want to destroy us. There really aren't any other sides you know.

For the liberals who love t... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

For the liberals who love to hide behind polls. Also, I wonder how any informed or decent American would want to support the liberal left these days. Their actions speak for themselves. THe vile Moveon.org owns 20+ Dem senators and "all" their presidential candidates. More despicable actions/silence from the left.

Ahmadinejad Yes, ROTC No.
Where is the left?


http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200709/NAT20070919c.html
In survey results released Wednesday by the Gallup polling organization, 54 percent of respondents said they believe Petreaus' plan for removing troops is the right pace or too quick, while only 33 percent view the withdrawal as moving too slowly. Also, 52 percent of those polled said the plan withdraws the right amount or too many troops, while 36 percent said it removes too few troops.

Is this an immediate withdr... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Is this an immediate withdrawl?

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/21/breaking-levin-reed-amendment-fails/
Senate voted 47-47 on an amendment sponsored by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jack Reed (D-RI) that "would require a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq to begin in 90 days and end in nine months."

Harry Reid, after being def... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Harry Reid, after being defeated 70-28 (2 not-voting) on a resolution TODAY to end the war!:

"We are united, we vote together all the time."

There're only 28 DEMOCRATS in the Senate??

Sweet Jesus, I am typing thru tears while laughing my ass off!

Honestly, if Harry Reid didn't exist the Republicans would have to invent him!!!

Also<a href="http://... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Also
http://nonpartypolitics.blogspot.com/2007/09/dailykos-slams-democrats.html


That's not the only bad news for the "progressive" blogosphere. If the left has also been following reports on Iraqi civilian casualties, they will have learned that violence in Iraq has plummeted, dropping to its lowest level in 18 months.

The "progressive" left has become so pathetic, they have to resort to outrageous, disgraceful blogging, with posts such as: Kansas cemetery 'full' because of Iraq war.

It is bad enough that Harry Reid can't get Republicans to vote for his legislation, but 22 Democrats recently crossed the aisle and sided with Republicans in condemning the MoveOn.org ad.

cb sorry I did not get to a... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

cb sorry I did not get to answer you but you got your ass kicked by others so no need for me to answer.

Baghdad barney:<em... (Below threshold)
marc:

Baghdad barney:

Now show me where you or anyone else called me out where the post number is before 29.

BB, your ass sucks peanut butter if you truly believe that.

I don't give a good G-Damm what your next sentence said in that comment, my issue from your comment was the accusation no dems had called for an immediate withdrawal.

You were definitively, decisively and finally proven WRONG by myself and others that gave quotes and links.

And finally, you have become what you claim Bush is.

You knee-jerk your way into stupid unsubstantiated or flat-out incorrect statements and are unwilling to admit the mistake.

Frankly, it's HILARIOUS watching you "STAY the COURSE!

Dickhead.

LoveAmerica Immigrant #61 ~... (Below threshold)

LoveAmerica Immigrant #61 ~ Thanks, now "jim," nogo, Brian and the other leftists who cite polling numbers to justify their opinion will switch sides, of course . . . NOT. But calumny may be the least of their sins.

#62 ~ Yes! It would be practically impossible to plan, coordinate, and execute a full withdrawal in less time, unless you want to leave billions of $$ in equipment, materials, ordinance, etc. behind.

The Democrats evidently believe that 30 years is enough to wash the blood of 3 million people from their hands as a result of their last full bug-out . . . .

Just like the "retreat cauc... (Below threshold)
marc:

Just like the "retreat caucus," Baghdad barney declares a victory and scrams from the thread.

No one thinks you "won" but yourself. You're a gutless buffoon.

with continued too... (Below threshold)
stan25 Author Profile Page:
with continued too short rotations....

Rotations of troops is a fairly recent thing. That started at the end of the Vietnam War. It was thought of by the same democrat idiots that are in there ie Ted Kenndy- D Chivas and the other old brain dead farts. Before that, units stayed in theater until the war was over. They sent in replacements for the soldiers that were either kia or wia. Hell in the Civil War there were no replacements for the dead or seriously wounded. Some unit at the end of that war were down to a platoon when the war ended

The war in Iraq is over and... (Below threshold)
kim:

The war in Iraq is over and the globe is cooling. You think I'm joking.
====================================

Kim, I agree that the war i... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Kim, I agree that the war in Iraq is looking much more winnable. Doesn't mean the MSM-Democrat-alQueda triangle won't keep fighting...and may still achieve a short-term victory or two.

But the momentum that was once in their favor is now firmly in ours...ours being the United States of America.

As for the globe, whatever it is doing temperature-wise it will do with or without humans.

We all want cleaner water and air. The Gore hatchlings want to use our common desire for a healthy environment to achieve power for themselves, and hamstring America in the process.

Notice I carefully say 'the... (Below threshold)
kim:

Notice I carefully say 'the war in Iraq'? The struggle against radical Islam ain't over by a long shot, but must ultimately be fought by moderates within the religion. It was a fatwah against violence by the spiritual leaders that has throttled down violence in Iraq in the last month. Oh, yes, the surge and the Anbar Awakening helped by setting the stage for the reconciliation. Both Shia and Sunni remembered they are Arab.
=================================

Once again, "jim,": If y... (Below threshold)
jim:

Once again, "jim,": If you are going to use polls to justify your position, then you MUST first admit that invading Iraq was the RIGHT thing to do, since it enjoyed overwhelming support in the opinion polls at the time.

Huh?

Interesting possibility. However, I'm not talking about whether or not invading Iraq when we did was a good idea.

I'm pointing out to you that wanting to leave Iraq *now* is not a fringe-left sentiment. Unless you count over 70% of the US as "fringe".

Either that, or admit you are a two-faced hypocritical moron.

I'll just settle for you admitting you were wrong.

re: # 16:Something... (Below threshold)
jim:

re: # 16:

Something doesn't equate. This from you own poll on the same day:

"From what you know about the U.S. involvement in Iraq, how much longer would you be willing to have large numbers of U.S. troops remain in Iraq: less than a year, one to two years, two to five years or longer than five years?"

The total for those that are willing to leave troops in Iraq from one to two years to longer than five years is 40%.

Well I think that's a mis-reading of the question; I think it's clear that when the questioner is asking "how much longer", that means a maximum (1 to 2 years, and then leave) and not a minimum (stay at least 1 to 2 years more).

But let's say your interpretation is the case.

That still means a greater number of people, 49%, want the troops out in less than a year. So that means calling the Democrats beholden to a far-left fringe is simply innacurate.

The total for those that realize troops will be needed in Iraq from one to two years to longer than five years is 82%

The exact phrase is not "Will be needed in Iraq" but "will have to stay in Iraq". I think this means that voters have kind of given up on the possibility that Bush will ever pull troops out of Iraq for any reason. I agree with this assessment. I think Bush is trying to set things up so that US soldiers have to stay in Iraq forever.

Now we can push around all day whether that's a good idea or a bad idea - but that's not how this invasion was sold to the American people, and not how it was sold to the troops when they signed up.

As I said something doesn't compute.

But that's true of all polls isn't it?

True, to a certain point. Polls are tools like anything else, imperfect and subject to possible interpretation.

Nonetheless, they provide a clearer picture than *not* using them.

And the picture they provide here, any way you slice it, is that the majority of America wants what the Democrats are trying to do with Iraq - and wants even *more* of it than the Democrats are doing.

jim: "I'm pointing out t... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

jim: "I'm pointing out to you that wanting to leave Iraq *now* is not a fringe-left sentiment. Unless you count over 70% of the US as "fringe"."

Over 70% of Americans do NOT want to leave "NOW".

Only the unbalanced Left doesn't care one damn bit of the consequences, and offers NO honor for the sacricies made, or the success achieved.

Leaving "NOW" means turning tail and running away...regardless of any and all realities. Only the Left wants that...and they are NOT 70+% of Americans!

p.s. to Jim:US ... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

p.s. to Jim:

US News & World Report's "Political Bulletin" highlighted polling that found when "[a]sked, 'If General Petraeus asks for the troop level to remain in place for another nine months, would you approve or disapprove this proposal,' 54% approve it; 43% disapprove.

Gallup poll: Fifty-four percent of those surveyed said they believe Petraeus' plan for removing troops is the right pace or too quick. By contrast, only 33 percent view the withdrawal as moving too slowly.

gee, Jimbo, looks like your "70+% who want to cut & run NOW" is dwindling...or has already dwindled!!

Justrand, you're right. I o... (Below threshold)
jim:

Justrand, you're right. I overstated when I said "now". It would have been more accurate to say, "over %70 of Americans want us to start leaving in the next 2 years."

But this is the same position that Democrats are pursuing - and thus the Democrats are in sync with what over %70 of America wants, and if anything the Democrats are pursuing it more conservatively than this overwhelming majority.

No Justrand, neither of tho... (Below threshold)
jim:

No Justrand, neither of those polls clash with my original quoted poll, of wanting to begin withdrawal of troops within 2 years.

The war in Iraq is over. I... (Below threshold)
kim:

The war in Iraq is over. I wouldn't be surprised if we can withdraw troops faster than anyone predicted. There is no credit to Democrats for the prosecution of the war, nor its ending. They've been disloyal opposition, and Americans are going to remember it.
========

jim, nice try, but the real... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

jim, nice try, but the reality is that the Democrats HOWLED for Bush to "listen to the Generals"...and "we need a NEW strategy!".

Of course they meant listen to OUR Generals (Weasely Clark, et al). And wanted a "strategy" of Cut & Run.

The "within 2 years" line has only appeared recently...and only since real progress started to appear in ways too obvious to ignore.

One small fact, is that although this month began with a tragic VEHICLE ACCIDENT, the American casualty rate is the lowest in a YEAR. This while we are making dramatic progress, and the enemy is finding it harder all the time to even strike SOFT targets...let alone attack us.

Wesley Clark, bless his pea... (Below threshold)
kim:

Wesley Clark, bless his pea-pickin' little heart, said that Petraeus should be trusted.
==================================

So Justrand, you're agreein... (Below threshold)
jim:

So Justrand, you're agreeing that the Democratic Senate and Congress's is actually in line with the desires of over 70% of America?

I'm asking this, because you've stopped arguing this directly. Instead you seem to be switching to another argument - ways you think the Democrats are wrong.

*sigh*jim, at any ... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

*sigh*

jim, at any given time, in any given conflict, a high percentage of Americans would like the conflict to end...and our troops to come home.

this is no different

What IS different is that the Democrats USED TO call for "immediate withdrawal" (and some, Chris Dodd, et al, still ARE) without regard to conditions on the ground.

But the Dems got STOMPED (rightly) on that stance. And 70+% of Americans did NOT agree with them.

So yes, most Americans would (as always) like to see our men & women return safely as soon as possible.

The poll I cited earlier in this thread shows that MOST Americans want to us successful FIRST!! That puts MoveOn.org and its bought & paid for politicians at odds with most Americans.

jim, it's this simple. If ... (Below threshold)
kim:

jim, it's this simple. If Americans were given the impression we had a chance to win over there, they'd support it. With Dems and the MSM lying about the situation in Iraq, the public is confused.

Now that the war in Iraq is essentially over, and we and the Iraqis have won,how do you think the public is going to deal with the fact that they were not allowed to expect such a thing by the Democrats and the MSM? There will come a point when they wonder, just a little, at credibility issues.
====================

And, of course, its corolla... (Below threshold)
kim:

And, of course, its corollary, credulity. Where did you get the idea we lost over there?
=====

I've actually heard, "Well,... (Below threshold)
kim:

I've actually heard, "Well, we didn't get the oil, did we". Dissonance unplumbed.
============================

So the bottom line is that ... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

So the bottom line is that the Justand's polls don't actually contradict jim's polls ... Justand's polls just contradict the way that jim wants to dishonestly mispresent his polls.

OK, I'm convinced.

What IS different ... (Below threshold)
What IS different is that the Democrats USED TO call for "immediate withdrawal" (and some, Chris Dodd, et al, still ARE) without regard to conditions on the ground.

I don't recall any majority of Democratic Senators or Congressmen, EVER calling for an "immediate withdrawal" of our troops from Iraq. Not even anywhere *NEAR* a majority.

If I'm wrong, please show me when this was.

This is the problem, for me. You really seem to think:

1) the Democrats want the US to lose.
2) the Democrats are only following the wishes of the "far-left fringe".

This is not the case.

Now we can push around point 1 for a while - but first, I just would like to hear you admit that the Democrats wanting troops to begin leaving Iraq, is in step with what over %70 of the American public wants.

Because that's reality.

jim, it's this sim... (Below threshold)
jim, it's this simple. If Americans were given the impression we had a chance to win over there, they'd support it. With Dems and the MSM lying about the situation in Iraq, the public is confused.

Well Kim, the way the major media cheerleaded for this war, if there were any possible way that the public could buy it, they would be.

But the public have brains and memories. They remember how there were supposed to be WMD's, and there were none; how we were supposed to be greeted with flowers; how the occupation would pay for itself with oil revenues; how we were *definitely* going in with enough soldiers; how these insurgents were just "dead-enders" who'd soon drop away; how the elections were going to solve everything and bring peace and stability; etc. etc. and how we seem to always be "just another 6 months" from having peace and stability.

These tales were all pushed very hard by the major media. And not one of them has come true.

So I don't think you can blame the media, for how the public perceives the occupation of Iraq is going. I think the majority of the US has a clear picture of how things are going, *in spite* of how the media has been consistently pushing the Bush administration line on Iraq.

Well Kim, as regards "losin... (Below threshold)

Well Kim, as regards "losing over there", let me ask you this: what would the US winning in Iraq look like?

What specific objectives, goals and milestones will we have reached, in order to realistically and objectively show that we are winning or losing?

SQPR, as usual, sigh:... (Below threshold)

SQPR, as usual, sigh:

You love to accuse me of being dishonest.

Please show how you think I am dishonestly misrepresenting the polls.

And Kim,l I think we lost o... (Below threshold)

And Kim,l I think we lost over there because our invasion and occupation of Iraq

- has greatly strengthened our oenemy, Al Qaeda

- has greatly increased terrorism worldwide

- has distanced us from alliances we've had for over 50 years

- has created great risks for our other allies in the same region, most especially Pakistan. Which has nukes. Great.

- has caused millions of Iraqis to flee Iraq

- has caused a constant increase in Iraqi civilian deaths, with no known end in sight (and which *increased* with the 'surge').

- has caused ethnic cleansing in Iraq

- has caused a surge in Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq, as well as in the entire region.




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