Ignoring strong Senate Democratic support for withdrawal from Iraq, NPR's Liasson claimed Democrats have "no position" on issue
SUMMARY: On Fox News, NPR correspondent Mara Liasson said the Democratic Party is "divided" and has "no position" on whether to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, apparently basing her conclusion on the opposition of most Democratic senators to an amendment setting a date for withdrawal. But a strong majority of Senate Democrats voted for a separate amendment calling for a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq beginning sometime this year.
On the July 9 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, National Public Radio (NPR) senior political correspondent Mara Liasson asserted that the Democratic Party is "divided" and has "no position" on whether to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, apparently basing her conclusion on the opposition of most Democratic senators to an amendment setting a date for withdrawal. But despite disagreement over whether to set a date for withdrawal, a strong majority of Senate Democrats voted for a separate amendment calling for a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq beginning sometime this year.
Liasson made her comments in response to NPR senior correspondent Juan Williams, who asserted that the "base" of the Democratic Party supports setting "a date for pullout" from Iraq. Liasson stated that "the Democratic Party in Washington is divided" on the issue, and that "only six Democrats" voted for an amendment setting a date for withdrawing U.S. forces. Liasson apparently was referring to an amendment proposed by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) that called for redeploying U.S. forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007. (In fact, 12 Senate Democrats and Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT) voted for the amendment.) Liasson added: "So how can you say that's what the party is for? There is no position."
In fact, a strong majority of Senate Democrats support withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq, despite disagreement over how soon that withdrawal should take place. Thirty-seven Democrats, one Republican, and Jeffords, voted for a separate nonbinding amendment sponsored by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jack Reed (D-RI), calling for the "begin[ning of] a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq this year" and urging the administration to submit to Congress its plan for continued redeployment beyond 2006. Six Democratic senators voted against the amendment, and one did not vote.
In making the assertion that Democrats have "no position" on Iraq, Liasson was engaging in the popular media practice of repeating as true a favorite Republican talking point -- that Democrats are in disarray over the issue.
From the July 9 edition of Fox Broadcast Co.'s Fox News Sunday, hosted by Chris Wallace:
CHRIS WALLACE (host): So, Juan, do you think it would be better or worse for the Democratic Party and its prospects for November if they -- if the Democratic Party votes to make him the nominee, Lieberman the nominee, or votes for the anti-war candidate and says, "We are anti-war"?
WILLIAMS: Well, I think it's up to the voters of Connecticut. There are other issues here --
WALLACE: No, but I'm asking you which would be better for the party, just to go down and say we are anti-war and that's the big issue?
WILLIAMS: Well, no. If it's a matter of the party. The party has to be very clear in what it stands for, and I think the party is for someone who agrees, a candidate who agrees, to a date for a pullout. Let's begin an exit strategy.
LIASSON: Well, the party hasn't decided that. I think the Democratic Party in Washington is divided. Look, look, only six Democrats voted for that amendment.
WILLIAMS: Correct.
LIASSON: So how can you say that's what the party is for? There is no position.
WILLIAMS: No, I think that's what the base wants.
LIASSON: Oh, sure, OK, the base.
WILLIAMS: I think that's what the base of the party wants. That's what the people who vote Democrat in this country want. And I think if you don't speak that clearly, then you invite people like Brit Hume to say you guys are engaged in a shadow dance.
...these FOX drones would alter their bit in the slightest (I don't know... to appear somewhat current??) Aren't these the SAME EXACT false accusations we've been hearing for, like, 2 years now?? Dems have no position, Dems want to 'cut and run', Dems are not strong on nat'l security...
Whoever's at the helm of this propaganda machine is falling asleep I think. Maybe Rove has potential indictment worries to fill his time? Seems the sheep can't think up their own lies.
Rather than 'falling asleep', Faux News is simply continuing to employ a tried & true tactic. They operate under the theory that if they repeat their talking points long enough & often enough it will seep into the public's subconscience, becoming their operative reality.
It is when the Right begins CHANGING its tactics that they stumble. Any time that they show anything less than 100% faith in the infallability of their positions, it only confuses the public. It makes them think, & that's the last thing that these people want. A populace that thinks too much isn't near as likely to vote against their own self interests.
Faux News is merely staying on message.
It's just so poorly done... I mean, are people really this dumb? If so... That, in itself, is a very sad commentary ... not only in regard to the GOP 'base', but to the populace at large.
I guess my question really is... Is it still working? I'm not so sure. But, maybe that's my projecting a bit.
Now, that really IS the question, isn't it? Its a question that sometimes drives near to despair. As a people, we are capable of acts of breathtaking levels of stupidity. I mean, Dubya' IS in his second term, isn't he? I know, I know... the last 2 presidential elections were stolen. I concede that point. It's just that if we were a little smarter as a people, Dubya' would have gone down in flames in either election.
The Right operates on the principle that people are stupid, greedy, frightened, cowardly, bigoted, & easily manipulated through a few repetitious Pavlovian techniques. The scary thing is how often they've proven themselves successful at appealing to these base emotions. The brutal certaintly fascism is nearly an aphrodisiac to large numbers of the population.
The Left, on the other hand, operates with a completely different mindset. We believe that the people are capable of operating on a higher intellectual & moral level. Leftists are, by nature, much more individualistic... & therefore much more fractious. We constantly bicker with each other over relatively small differences. We love to debate. We love to argue. It is difficult to get us all on the same page, because we DO NOT like walking in lockstep.
Hence, our message is generally much more subtle & nuanced. We don't present the public with a completely unified & simplistic answer to any particular problem. We insist that people THINK for themselves! We assume that if we present the more intelligent & comprehensive solution to a problem that they will gravitate toward our thinking.
Are we correct in our expectations? We'll see. This coming November & the one that follows in 2 years will give us our answer.
They know what they're doing, and they do it well; very well.
Of course, any objective person knows that "Fox News Channel", owned by murdoch and "programmed" by ailes, is not an actual "news outlet".
It is an infomercial for the RNC; their objective is to massage the opinion of the day into their viewer's heads, and to keep hammering away at confirming all of the opinions previously forwarded; their "political stories" are simply public relations pieces for the administration and the Republican Congressional leadership.
Right now, the opinion of the day is that the majority of American People who support a strategic redeployment of troops from Iraq, don't have any coherent leadership on the issue in Congress.
That's what the administration and the Republican Congressional leadership are advancing right now: There is no consensus on a strategic redeployment among congressional Democrats.
Well, you know that thirty-nine Senators (one of them a Republican!) voted for the Levin Amendment.
So there.
But as to "Fox News Channel", and their public relations work:
This item on Democratic support for a strategic redeployment is proof enough that "Fox" is just a spin machine; but consider this item from MMFA's archives...
[link to mediamatters.org]
...dated September 30, 2005, and titled "Fox News host, analyst, guest all ignored Texas law to falsely claim DeLay indictment based on weak evidence".
Now of course Mr. DeLay has since resigned his seat in Congress:
Who wants to bet money that he did that because he's going to be convicted of violating Texas state campaign laws?
Of course he's guilty; he'd have not resigned otherwise.
Back then in September, the "Fox Cheerleaders for the RNC" had this to say about Mr. DeLay being indicted (from the item):
Barbara Comstock, former director of the Justice Department's Office of Public Affairs under Attorney General John Ashcroft, from the September 28 edition of The Big Story with John Gibson:
COMSTOCK: When you look at the indictment, all they say is "conspiracy" with no facts. They just allege this amorphous conspiracy
Roll Call executive editor Morton M. Kondracke, from the "Fox News All-Star Panel" on the September 28 edition of Special Report:
KONDRACKE: I think it is very thin. It alleges that DeLay was part of a conspiracy, but it includes no evidence whatever of what he did with the conspiracy.
Also, Fox News host Sean Hannity, during an interview with DeLay on the September 29 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show:
HANNITY: They do not mention you. There's no single sentence, there's no information provided in this indictment linking you to any crime. I have spoken to numerous lawyers who find this extraordinary.
DeLAY: It's very extraordinary, in fact, my own lawyers think this is good, we can get rid of this case fairly quickly because it's obvious they have no evidence, nothing to substantiate any claims at all as it pertains to me.
Well, that's enough; so Delay said "we can get rid of this case fairly quickly because it's obvious they have no evidence, nothing to substantiate any claims at all as it pertains to me"...
Why did he resign then?
The "Cheerleaders" at Fox did all they could to spin for Tom; but instead of them and him "getting rid of the case", Mr. Delay resigned.
The "Cheerleaders" are still at it though; a different day, a different opinion to advance.
No consensus among Democrats for a strategic redeployment is as good as DeLay's innocence.
... if today"s MEDIA would just be FAIR to the Democrats position on an issue?
No need to advocate, no need to cheerlead, just tell the accurate TRUTH.
Instead, the Rightwing SPIN is presented as THE TRUTH, and it is a program-wide effort.
Ask any Rightwinger, and they will tell you Liasson is with NPR and is thus a zany extremist LIBERAL. Yet here she is, spouting rightwing SPIN in place of just being FAIR to Democrats.
They have to cover all the other options and have reasoned debates on what to do. The Republicans simply have to stick to the "Stay-the-Course" rhetoric of the Rove-Chaney policy, which means we simply have to kill arabs until all the bad ones are dead. Then we'll have peace and democracy in the middle east. It's simple, viscerally satisfying, and totally unworkable...not to mention murderously insane. It is up to the democrats to oppose this, and hear all the demagoguery about being "wishy washy", "unpatriotic", even "treasonous". .
Mara Liasson should open every session of Faux News "All Star Panel" with the words "I'm not a liberal, but I play one on TV."
had any brains, they would cut and run from Hillary, Kerry, Gore, Feingold and Murtha. A moderate could win and this stack of losers do nothing but rejuvenate the right.
So run Hillary run!!
Seriously
The "stack of losers" you list are all popularly elected public officials. Gore got more votes than Bush, and Kerry (leaving aside Ohio GOP corruption) ran a virtual dead heat with an incumbent "wartime" president, who should have won in a landslide.
Are we to assume that your definition of "loser" is someone elected to office?
Or is it the Iraq thing? A "LOSER" says we need to get out, agreeing with 60-70% of the electorate, while the "WINNERS" are for "stay the course" and getting ever more of our soldiers killed for nothing, and these "WINNERS" are fond of saying they don't care about polls or public opinion or what THE PEOPLE say they want, they'll operate on "PRINCIPLE" and let history sort out if they were right.
Problem is, this definition of "WINNER" is the formula for LOSING elections. I get so confused when you rightwingers make your golden proclamations.
Could you provide some proof to this statement? I don't think it is accurate, but I want to give you the chance to prove it is: " Or is it the Iraq thing? A "LOSER" says we need to get out, agreeing with 60-70% of the electorate, while the "WINNERS" are for "stay the course" and getting ever more of our soldiers killed for nothing "
In the last votes on whether we "cut and run" or "stay the course" that happened in congress or senate (whichever), could you give me the stats on how the vote went? I just want to make sure that you aren't providing misinformation through the MMFA web site.
Look up the word "electorate."
Electorate Function: noun 1 : the territory, jurisdiction, or dignity of a German elector 2 : a body of people entitled to vote
He/she could have been talking about anyone able to vote. He/she did not specify whether he/she was talking about the public or the elected officials until after I asked. But, I appreciate your concern.
I would have guessed I would get a link to the public poll and not the way public officials voted, considering it was the elected officials that he/she called by name and also went on the assumption we were talking about elected officials.
[link to www.pollingreport.com]
NOTE: 62% DISAPPROVE of the way Bush is "handling" the war in Iraq. VOTERS. The "electorate".
They are the ones keeping the conservatives in power. As the Democratic Party continues to move left, left, left, the conservatives continue to gain support and insure continued success. The Democratic Party has become the “fringe” and since the majority rules, the future for Democrats looks rather bleak. I would suggest that it is the message and ideas of the party that are really hurting Democrats, not the cast of characters. Abortion, re-distribution of wealth and cuttin' & runnin' in Iraq are not the position of the majority of Americans yet those are the main planks in the Democratic platform. This has been proven election after election but still, the Democrats keep moving left. Lieberman is the only one with a clue but the Democrats can't distance themselves fast enough. Democrats should take note of Hillary's attempt to at least appear more moderate. She knows that's the only hope for Democrats to get back in power but the rest of the party appears to be taking a page from George Bush's playbook, just stay the course. Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan, Move-on.org are all hurting any chance of regaining power yet that is the direction the party continues to move. Good luck!
...concern troll.
... and the country into the ground.
--"[Dems'] stack of losers"--
Last time I checked, Bush and Cheney's approval ratings *COMBINED* barely added up to 50%.
I can't believe the gop wingnuts are now taking over NPR. It's a sad day. Next they will try for our blogs.
But PBS did recently run a great documentary about Dick Cheney called "Darkside." You can watch it free at www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/
Not all is lost, I say!
After flailing around...trying to come up with a position on the war in Iraq...it's crystal clear now.
Thanks to mmfa for highlighting the cut and run position of the democrats.
Once again the democrats attempt to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...bring on the mid-terms.
--"the jaws of victory..."---
Based on the bloody weekend Iraq just had, your "jaws of victory" sounds more like the maw of Hell.
I want to see as many Americans killed as possible position
Dem position has been pro-war since 1789. The Dem Party always votes FOR the war, all the wars, overwhelmingly, in all the House and Senate votes. They been voting to bomb Iraq since 1991, don't look like they plan to stop anytime soon. Looks like a position to me.
The Non-Stop War Party, that's all we got. Dems and Repubs is just an illusion.
MMFA says, "Ignoring strong Senate Democratic support for withdrawal from Iraq........."
DUH!!! Everybody supports withdrawal from Iraq, its merely a question of when. The Republican position is; we withdraw when the job is finished. Democrat position is; ??????????????? In resolution after resolution presented in BOTH the House and Senate, any resolution that DICTATES the timing for withdrawal, or restaging of troops, or immediate withdrawal has recieved very LITTLE Democrat support. I think that CLOSEST the Democrats came to finding a concensus among THEMSELVES about withdrawal mandated a July 07 withdrawal date and that drew 39 Democrat votes as I recall. I have a question however about the Democrat resolution to withdraw troops in July 07. If we're finished before then, DO THE TROOPS HAVE TO STAY IN IRAQ UNTIL JULY??
We are building permanent military bases in Iraq because we really WANT to withdraw. That makes sense. On planet Wingnut
So your position is that if we maintain a token force in Iraq, which will presumably be an ally, with the approval of the Iraqi government, then that would not constitute "withdrawal?" Is your view is that even ONE soldier in Iraq would still constitute a "military presence?" We still have troops in Japan, Germany, Italy just to name a few. Are you suggesting that we still "occupy" these countries? Fact is, your silly suggestion aside, EVERYONE supports withdrawal at some point. Republicans support it when the job is finished, Democrats support it......................???????????????? Well, no one seems to know with any level of certainty. I think the Kerry bill got what, 6 votes was it?? The Murtha Bill in the House sometime back got what, 3 votes? Maura was correct, Democrats have NO concensus opinion on Iraq. At least I don't see one, do you??
In the interest of "full disclosure", don't you think that presenting "bills before Congress" is disingenuous? After all, the GOP controls both houses, and so ONLY bills which they have written, approved, or sabotaged ever make it for a vote. They totally mischaracterized Murtha's original proposal to call for an IMMEDIATE withdrawal, and that GOP rewritten proposal indeed went down in flames. Not Murtha's bill, but the GOP's bill.
So, get it right. Claiming a desire to "stay the course" based on rigged bills presented to Congress by the GOP leadership is a fraud and a scam.
- and so ONLY bills which they have written, approved, or sabotaged ever make it for a vote. - tex
The last two "democrat" senate proposals went down in flames.
Get it right!
Kerry and Levin were smoked...by republicans and democrats.
In the interest of "full disclosure", don't you think that presenting "bills before Congress" is disingenuous?
It's not disingenuous at all. While Democrats were out in public talking about withdrawal, in the case of Murtha, he didn't have the integrity to actually present a referendum calling the House to vote on what he was publicly spewing, so the Republicans put it to a vote for him. It got 3 votes, if memory serves. You're being disingenuous because I'm sure you know that actual democrat bills were presented in the Senate recently. One called for a set deadline of removing troops by July of 07. It got 6 votes I think. The other called for a "general" withdrawal to start before the end of the year. It garnered 39 votes. So the one of us being disingenuous would be you Tex. Fact is, there is no consensus plan by Democrats, which is the subject of this thread.
--"The Republican position is; we withdraw when the job is finished"--
In other words, the Republican position is a stubborn, indefinite stay in Iraq-because the "job" as defined by Bush will never, ever be "finished". Stay-and-pray. YEARS..... And meanwhile, as thousands more Americans and Iraqis die, these Republicans and right-wing talk show hosts will continue their speeches about "great progress" being made in Iraq. Bush's term in office, if he has his way, will end without any admission whatsoever of his own grave mistakes, and with the unsolvable problem being passed-on to somebody else-someone who has the guts Bush lacks to admit Iraq was the worst strategic and diplomatic blunder since Vietnam.
In other words, the Republican position is a stubborn, indefinite stay in Iraq-because the "job" as defined by Bush will never, ever be "finished". Stay-and-pray. YEARS
When 78 Senators voted for the resolution to invade Iraq, I don't think I would be going out on a limb to suggest that their intention was that we stay until the job was finished. I would highly doubt that EVEN democrat Senator's intentions were to go in, topple Saddam and then leave before the democratically elected government was stable and their police and military capable of defending that government and its people, leaving them in chaos. Do YOU realize that we still have troops in Bosnia, fully TEN YEARS after we went in? Did Clinton leave the job UNFINISHED for Bush to complete? What about Germany, Italy, Japan??? But the point and subject of this thread deals with the Democrat position on Iraq, or lack thereof. Can you articulate for me what the consensus Democrat position is on Iraq as it relates to withdrawal? I doubt it, because there ISN'T one, just as Maura opined!
When 78 Senators voted for the resolution to invade Iraq,
Actually, they voted to give the President the authority to see that Iraq was living up to its agreements with the UN after Operation Desert Storm (i.e., were they manufacturing weapons of mass destruction). If the language had specifically said that we were going to "invade," I doubt it would have passed at all.
I don't think I would be going out on a limb to suggest that their intention was that we stay until the job was finished.
And you still haven't said what that means. For that matter, neither has Bush, or rather, he hasn't stuck to it. At different times, "finished" has meant when the WMD are found and removed (hah!), when Saddam is removed from power, when he's actually captured, and when they have their own government set up. Let's not forget that Saddam wasn't captured until a full seven months after that ridiculous "Mission Accomplished" episode.
I would highly doubt that EVEN democrat Senator's
That's "even Democratic Senators'."
intentions were to go in, topple Saddam and then leave before the democratically elected government was stable and their police and military capable of defending that government and its people, leaving them in chaos.
No, their intention had more to do with WMD's, which Bush & Co. consistently lied about, and which you seemingly wish to ignore.
But thank you for admitting that the actions of the party you support has indeed resulted in chaos. That's refreshingly honest of you.
If the language had specifically said that we were going to "invade," I doubt it would have passed at all.
Rewriting history are we?? The resolution stated that it authorized the President
.....use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate.....
That seems to be all encompassing to me! But back to the subject of the thread. Can you articulate the consensus democrat position of Iraq??
The CONSENSUS DEMOCRAT (and majority American) view of Iraq is that it is a bloody and horrendous mess.
It is a bloody swamp, and the concensus is that it needs to be drained immediately. That we went in the first place is on Bush; all the death and destruction is HIS doing.
But now, we need to get out without unnecessarily further endangering our exiting troops.
The CONSENSUS of Democrats, the American People, and GW BUSH HIMSELF is that a "war on terror" cannot be "won". There will be no VICTORY. We need to change our tactics from slogging out a civil war in a land that posed us NO threat, to going after terrorists wherever in the world they are, and neutralizing them. THAT is a "war on terror" that will make us safer.
The Iraqi meatgrinder serves only to make a few billion for Bush's Oil buddies every bloody day Bush can keep the "war" going.
If THIS Liberal were president, I wouldn't set a "deadline for withdrawal" either. I would contact all the military leaders on the ground, and have them formulate a plan to withdraw placing maximum emphasis on protecting our troops in their withdrawal.
Once they made that plan, I would contact the "new" Iraqi government and inform them that they had only that much time to get their defenses operating properly ... or not. It's their problem.
I would tell the American people we have succeeded in all our objectives. We assured Saddam had no WMDs. We deposed and captured Saddam. The Iraqis have set up their own democratic government. The Iraqis will assume responsibility for their own defense. All objectives accomplished; our troops are coming home.
This is a PLAN, but it has no "consensus" on an exact withdrawal time (to be determined by those military leaders on the ground), but DOES have a clearly stated intention.
So stop already with this crap about needing a "CONSENSUS POSITION". It's a canard, a distraction, a bogus argument.
Oh yeah. I forgot to mention that other part of the Republican "plan" to stay the course in Iraq: another _300 billion dollars_ down the toilet.
Oh yeah. I forgot to mention that other part of the Republican "plan" to stay the course in Iraq: another _300 billion dollars_ down the toilet.
You failed to answer my request that you articulate the Democrat position on withdrawal. Here was the question:
Can you articulate for me what the consensus Democrat position is on Iraq as it relates to withdrawal? I doubt it, because there ISN'T one, just as Maura opined!
May I assume by your lack of response that you agree with Maura, and me, that there is NO clear consensus Democrat position on withdrawal?
There's no clear Democratic consensus on withdrawal. So what? At least some Democrats are engaged in finding a satisfactory resolution to the Iraq war, while the Repubs continue to pretend that "stay the course" is a strategy when there is no course.
There's no clear Democratic consensus on withdrawal.
At least your honest enough to admit it!! My compliments!!
You're welcome. Why do you think it's preferable to be united behind a non-strategy, as the Repubs are, than to be engaged in a debate on a workable strategy, as the Democrats are? Which side is more likely to actually develop a workable strategy?
I don't understand the pubs logic on this. It's not just failed policy in Iraq, its multiple policy failure and all they can say is at least we were all in agreement. We should shoot it back to them and say so you have consensus to be failures. I am sure we’re all familiar with brainstorming. Potential solutions to problems and new ideas are brought to the table and the merits and setbacks of ideas are SERIOUSLY debated by the brightest in a given company, most successful managers will attest to the merits of this managerial practice.
Which side is more likely to actually develop a workable strategy?
That's an excellent observation. I would submit to you however, that until a better solution comes along, that can garner the support of both Democrats and Republicans, there is NO OPTION but to continue to follow the current strategy. That's the entire point here and has been for some time. It's easy to sit back and say the strategy being employed is flawed, it's quite another to come up with a BETTER strategy that can gain bipartisan and public support. It doesn't even have to be bipartisan, to the extent that if Democrats could even come out with a plan that THEY could agree on, it would put pressure on Republicans to take that plan seriously. It's easy for Republicans to dismiss out of hand any strategy that fails to even garner Democrat consensus.
Good sensible posts, thanks for that!!
You're welcome again. I agree that implementing a workable solution will take bipartisan effort. Republican politicians constantly accusing the other side of wanting to "cut and run," so that their party can appear "tough" in November, does not further that effort.
I agree that implementing a workable solution will take bipartisan effort.
If Democrats themselves could come up with something they could all agree on, as I said, it would put pressure on the Republicans to respond, instead of just issuing the "cut and run" dogma. Clearly, a bipartisan plan would be much better, but before the Democrats can get Republicans to take notice, they have to come up with consensus themselves first, or so it would seem. To me, and this is just my humble opinion, the Democrats are split themselves, you can see it around here reading the posts. Many, just absolutely DEMAND immediate withdrawal, while others like yourself seem to understand that's NOT a strategy, it's surrender and prime fodder for Republicans to poo-poo ALL Democrat plans for Iraq. I'm not sure what motivates this LEAVE NOW crowd, but clearly it's NOT a viable plan. Kerry's plan in the Senate, that merely called for withdrawal A YEAR FROM NOW, drew ONLY 6 votes or something along those lines, but yet the LEAVE NOW crowd keeps right on trucking and it hurts the overall dialog, at least in my view!
Gotta go now, but really enjoyed the dialog, thanks!
But none of that justifies Republican inaction on Iraq. Are we to believe that absence of 100% Democratic unity on a plan is a reason for Republicans to obstruct the process with their childish "cut and run" rhetoric, while they do nothing themselves even though they know Iraq is a problem that needs fixing? That's incredibly irresponsible governance. If Republicans are interested in working on Iraq they need to be engaged, not just sitting on their hands and waiting for the Democrats to come up with an answer.
On DRAINING A SWAMP.
you can cut a canal to the nearest river, you can pump it dry, or you can add in "filler".
There are several ways to approach a problem, and a "consensus" is determined when the decision is made to actually DRAIN THE SWAMP. Each idea has merit, and one will be determined "the best" and executed.
Rightwingers make the fundamental error of asserting that a lack of "consensus" on the METHOD of draining the swamp means that the swamp is just dandy.
Actually, fox is doing it right this time. They have brought on a commentator from the (so far out there) liberal NPR and had her state that democrats are divided. What better strategy than to have a super liberal company claim that the dems are divided? The democrats will NOT be looking forward to the next couple elections as long as they stay divided on the cut and run (exit) philosophy. The good thing is that all the votes that would have gone to the dems will probably go to a third candidate, who may collect a lot of votes because the right side is dividing, also, and those votes could go to the third party as well. So, we may finally have a decent president and not some horny liberal or fanatic neocon.
---"What better strategy than to have a super liberal company claim that the dems are divided? "---
Comments like the above typify the right-wing "strategy". It's not a strategy of saving lives, it's a strategy to score political points. As more Americans and Iraqis die every day in an immoral, unjustified, unwinnable war, conservatives like this seek to put as much blame on someone-other-than-themselves as they possibly can. And there's no one better at it than George W.
This media whore is bug-eyed all the time for a reason. She is crazy as a bedbug. Looney Tunes all the way. That is why she is on Faux News. They only hire the Loonies or send them out to be a press mouthpiece in the Bush Crime Family White House.