Conservatives continue to distort Clyburn's remarks to attack Democrats for being "invested in defeat in Iraq"
Following House Majority Whip James Clyburn's (D-SC) July 30 remarks to Washington Post reporters that if Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, issued a report stating that the military effort in Iraq "is working very, very well at this point; we would be foolish to back away from it," then it would cause "those 47 Blue Dogs ... to want to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to remain united, as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," conservative pundits have seized on and distorted Clyburn's remarks to accuse Democrats of, among other things, being "invested in defeat in Iraq," and "want[ing] the United States to lose" in Iraq.
As Media Matters for America has noted, during a July 30 "PostTalk" interview for washingtonpost.com, Post reporter Dan Balz asked Clyburn, "What do Democrats do if General Petraeus comes in in September and says, 'This is working very, very well at this point; we would be foolish to back away from it'?" Clyburn responded: "Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that, simply because of those 47 Blue Dogs. I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to remain united, as they have been, then it would be a problem for us." In other words, Clyburn did not say that good news from Iraq is bad news for Democrats, as many conservatives have suggested. Rather, he said that a recommendation from Petraeus against "back[ing] away" from the current course in Iraq would impede Democrats' efforts to garner support in Congress for legislation to begin withdrawal. Indeed, Clyburn added: "None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq. If we are going to get in position to yield a good result, I think Democrats want to see that."
On July 31, the Republican National Committee issued a "research briefing" titled "They Said It!" that cropped the quote from Clyburn to read: "[It Would Be] A Real Big Problem For Us." The "research briefing" reads, in full:
They Said It!
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) On Gen. David Petraeus Providing A Positive Progress Report In Iraq
Clyburn: "[It Would Be] A Real Big Problem For Us." (Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza, "Clyburn: Positive Report By Petraeus Could Split House Democrats On War," The Washington Post, 7/30/07)
Conservative media figures also attacked, citing Clyburn's statement as evidence that Democrats are "invested in defeat in Iraq," as syndicated columnist Cal Thomas wrote. Media Matters has documented distortions from conservative columnists Michael Barone, Clifford D. May and Kevin O'Brien; an Investors Business Daily editorial; and Fox News host John Gibson, who asserted on the July 31 edition of Fox News' Big Story that anti-war Democrats, in their "nightly prayers," wish for "their country [to] lose a war because otherwise they might lose an election."
Several conservative radio hosts have similarly misrepresented Clyburn, as did Thomas:
- During the August 1 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Sean Hannity called Clyburn's statement the "most outrageous comment I think I've heard" and said that it "expose[s] everything we have said about the Democrats." Hannity then aired an edited clip of Clyburn's response to Balz, in which Clyburn was heard saying: "Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that. And if the Republicans were to remain united, as they have been, then it would be a problem for us." Hannity commented: "Can you just, folks, imagine this? A United States congressman, a leader in the House of Representatives for the majority Democrats here is on record saying that if the news is good, if the news is positive, if America is winning that that's a real big problem for us. In other words, if our armed forces are successful, that's a problem for us here. It'll be a real big problems [sic] for the Democrats here."
- During the August 2 edition of his syndicated show, radio host Neal Boortz discussed Clyburn's remarks, asserting: "I honestly believe, my friends, I honestly believe that there are Democrats out there who kind of give a little hand pump and go, 'Yes!' every time they hear bad news out of Iraq or they hear of the deaths of a large number of American servicemen. Because they are much more dedicated to the cause of gaining power and keeping power than they are a victory against Islamic fascism." Boortz added: "I've been telling you for a year or more that the Democrats are invested in our failure in Iraq. Democrats do not want the United States to win. Democrats do not want peace in Iraq. Democrats do not want the American armed forces to establish any sense of stability in Iraq. They want failure. They are invested in failure. Good news in Iraq is bad news to Democrats. They are telling you this." Later in the show, Boortz said, "Many of those people out there with that 'D' after their names would gladly sacrifice any semblance of victory in Iraq, and against the scourge of Islamic fascism, if it would mean maintaining and holding their hold on power in Washington."
- In his August 2 nationally syndicated column, headlined "What if We Win?" Thomas pointed to Clyburn's comments as evidence that "[m]ost Democrats seem so invested in defeat in Iraq that they apparently have no 'Plan B,' which would be success."
- During the August 3 broadcast of her nationally syndicated radio show, Laura Ingraham claimed that Clyburn was "being very honest, uncharacteristically honest for a Democrat" because he "sa[id] good news for our troops in Iraq" is "bad news for the Democrats." Ingraham asserted that Clyburn was "admitting what we all knew all along, as the Democrats cheer on America's defeat." Ingraham recently announced that she has been offered the opportunity to guest-host a CNN program.
From the August 3 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Laura Ingraham Show:
[begin audio clip]
BALZ: What do Democrats do if General Petraeus comes in in September and says, "This is working very, very well at this point; we would be foolish to back away from it"?
CLYBURN: Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that. And if the Republicans were to remain united, as they have been, then it would be a problem for us.
[end audio clip]
INGRAHAM: Congressman James Clyburn, Democrat, North [sic] Carolina. He says good news for our troops in Iraq, bad news for the Democrats. Being very honest, uncharacteristically honest for a Democrat.
[...]
INGRAHAM: Little bit early this hour, but that's all right. Mix it up a little bit: Sound Bite Contest.
[...]
INGRAHAM: Sound bite number one: Congressman James Clyburn admits that good news from Iraq is bad news for the Democrats.
[begin audio clip]
BALZ: What do Democrats do if General Petraeus comes in in September and says, "This is working very, very well at this point; we would be foolish to back away from it"?
CLYBURN: Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that. And if the Republicans were to remain united, as they have been, then it would be a problem for us.
[end audio clip]
INGRAHAM: Admitting what we all knew all along, as the Democrats cheer on America's defeat.
From the August 1 edition of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:
HANNITY: The most outrageous comment I think I've heard -- although it does expose everything we have said about the Democrats. Here all this good news is coming out of Iraq. Here you have people that have been harsh critics from the Brookings Institute saying, "What if we win this war? Hey, things are looking pretty good and troop morale is high." And then we've got James Clyburn saying the following.
No, maybe we don't. Well, anyway, he says if, in fact, Iraq improves, it's going to be a big problem for us.
[...]
HANNITY: Now, this all gets summed up here in the comments of Congressman James Clyburn, Democrat, South Carolina. Now, this is an amazing moment in history here, where you have somebody being this open, this honest. He's the House majority whip, and he said that a positive report in September from General Petraeus is bad news for the Democrats, would undermine his party's efforts to get the president to concede the war is lost. Listen to what he said.
[begin audio clip]
BALZ: What do Democrats do if General Petraeus comes in in September and says, "This is working very, very well at this point; we would be foolish to back away from it"?
CLYBURN: Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that. And if the Republicans were to remain united, as they have been, then it would be a problem for us.
[end audio clip]
HANNITY: Can you just, folks, imagine this? A United States congressman, a leader in the House of Representatives for the majority Democrats here is on record saying that if the news is good, if the news is positive, if America is winning that that's a real big problem for us. In other words, if our armed forces are successful, that's a problem for us here. It'll be a real big problems [sic] for the Democrats here.
From the August 2 edition of Cox Radio Syndication's The Neal Boortz Show:
BOORTZ: But I've been telling you that the Democrats are invested in our defeat in Iraq. They're -- Democrats believe that their political fortunes rest on our defeat in Iraq. And in the last election, in this election, any good news out of Iraq is bad news for Democrats. Bad news out of Iraq is good news for Democrats. I honestly believe, my friends, I honestly believe that there are Democrats out there who kind of give a little hand pump and go, "Yes!" every time they hear bad news out of Iraq or they hear of the deaths of a large number of American servicemen. Because they are much more dedicated to the cause of gaining power and keeping power than they are a victory against Islamic fascism.
[...]
BOORTZ: I want to tell you this. About this New York Times report last week by these two harsh critics of the war in Iraq that says "this is a war we just might win."
"Everywhere, army and Mari-- " this is them writing after their visit. "Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services -- electricity, fuel, clean water, and sanitation. In each place, operations have been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. Civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began." Isn't that something?
"In Ramadi, we talked to an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a largely Sunni Iraqi police company and a largely Shiite Iraqi Army unit. He and his men have built an Arab-style living room, where he met with local Sunni sheiks -- all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups -- who are now competing to secure his friendship."
"In Baghdad's Ghazaliya neighborhood, which had been some of the worst -- the scene of some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers."
It's an amazing report, and the Democrats couldn't be more upset.
Did you hear about the House minority whip, James Clyburn from South Carolina? You people in South Carolina, you have so much to be proud of with James Clyburn, a Democrat. He's not happy about this report from [Michael] O'Hanlon and Conley [sic: Kenneth Pollack]. He's not unhappy. He says that this could impede Democrat efforts to press for a timetable to end the war. Gen. David Petraeus is going to be making a report to Congress soon about what's going on there. James Clyburn says that if David Petraeus delivers a positive report of what's going on in Iraq, as these two liberal, anti-- if he -- it could impede the Democrats' press for a timetable to end the war.
Now listen to this. This is a direct quote from your Democrat congressman from South Carolina: "I think there would be enough support in that group" -- he's talking about the 47 Blue Dog Democrats, the more conservative Democrats in the Democrat caucus. "I think that there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course. And if the Republicans were to stay as united, as they have been, then it would be a problem for us." Hear that? Good news in Iraq is a problem for us.
[...]
BOORTZ: I've been telling you for a year or more that the Democrats are invested in our failure in Iraq. Democrats do not want the United States to win. Democrats do not want peace in Iraq. Democrats do not want the American armed forces to establish any sense of stability in Iraq. They want failure. They are invested in failure. Good news in Iraq is bad news to Democrats. They are telling you this. They are telling you this. Right now, liberal writers from the Brookings Institute, they deliver a positive report on what is happening in Iraq, and the Democrats immediately say, "This is bad news for us."
[...]
BOORTZ: Many of those people out there with that "D" after their names would gladly sacrifice any semblance of victory in Iraq, and against the scourge of Islamic fascism, if it would mean maintaining and holding their hold on power in Washington.
[...]
BOORTZ: This is how bad things are now with the Democrat Party, a party that is completely invested in our surrender and our defeat in a fight for our very lives against Islamic fascism. They want the United States to lose. They want our troops to lose, so that they can demonize the president and gain more power in Congress.
From Thomas' August 2 column:
Most Democrats seem so invested in defeat in Iraq that they apparently have no "Plan B," which would be success.
[...]
So cynical have our politics become that a spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democratic leaders are "not willing to concede there are positive things to point to" in Iraq. And House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn said that a favorable report from Gen. Petraeus could lead 47 moderate to conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats to oppose a withdrawal timetable, making it virtually impossible for the liberal leadership to pass withdrawal legislation. "(It would be) a real problem for us," said Clyburn.
We certainly could fantasize about "winning" in Iraq. We could go to the movies, though, for something more sensibly plotted - maybe "Texas Chainsaw something or other". Meantime, we should expect our Congress to deal with reality.
These Cons continue to try and distort the Democatic positions. I do not believe it is working.
I think I had short debate with AnotherAmerican about this a couple of days ago. If I remember right he was questioning the patriotism of Congressman James Clyburn.
Why is this even news. Can we be grown-ups about all of this? The nature of our adversarial political system as it has become, is that politically, when anything is going well - be it the economy, the war, technological accomplishments, it is good for the party in power. If things are going bad, it is better for the opposition in a political sense. Now why is it that putting words to those ideas are all of a sudden so "controversial". The answer is that the basic idea behind this is not new to anyone. It is simply fake indignation we have come to expect.
If Kosovo had become a failure, it would help Republicans at the time as they were largely opposed to it. Is this idea really all that shocking as a political reality?
The problem as usual is that people want to unnecessarily attach a moral component to a simple explanation of the political reality in this instance.
This latest assault on reason, this latest well-coordinated attempt to frame the issues of Iraq, terror, and the legality of various types of surveillance as being the "Democrats INVESTED IN DEFEAT" ...
... how is THIS bogus framing any different from the original Bush declaration that you either supported BUSH's policies entirely and without question, or you were "with the terrorists"?
It's the exact same strategy the rightwing has used all along: demonize opponents as TRAITORS, in order to try to get them to SHUT UP.
It worked to a degree just after 9/11. Five years later, this "cry WOLF!" strategy no longer works. Personally, I believe this rightwing "strategy" is rooted in advice from Bill Bennett. As a gambling addict, he understands the concept of throwing good money after bad. As a pathological gambler, he know that anyone who stands in the way of the next bet is "invested in LOSING." The only way to WIN, after a long losing streak, is to just KEEP BETTING. As long as you keep betting, you haven't "LOST".
It's the thinking of the gambling addict. And it has destroyed more families and lost more rent payments than can be counted. It's a LOSER's denial, excuse-making, and blame-shifting. It's an illness, and it is fatally dangerous.
Right, Tex. It's what is erroneously labeled "optimism" by the clinically stoopid.
Not only does this line of thinking encourage the waste of human lives and money, it sets a standard; The most effective move for any administration is to start a war. Anybody who disagrees with that adminstration is a loser.
Who are the 25 or 30 % (haven't checked lately) who are still buying this load of shiiiite?
There can never be victory. Iraq was lost the moment they began planning the invasion. Our leaders want perpetual warfare. They do not fight to win, they fight to fight, they just want to kill people. There's no realistic political goals in any of their plans, just more and more war for the sake of war. There is no concept of what victory might look like, all they envisage, all they dream of, is more damn war. Only in Peace can one find Victory.
RedKing, give me a break. The Democrats want us to lose. Thats the fact.
You don't really know what you're talking about anyway. You've never been to Iraq. You quote distorted facts. And you speak elf. Just shut up and thank real Americans for keeping you safe at night.
Of course the Democrats want us to lose...they want to keep fighting the war. As for my knowledge of Iraq, I happen to pride myself on the good quality of the intel I receive from various websites and reporters, especially Seymour Hersh and Pat Cockburn. Your average...and they're all average, trust me...Senator or Congressman gets his news from FOX and CNN. They all eat the same war propaganda from the same sources. I don't. I have a keen interest in military science, am well read on the subject, and watch world conflicts with a critical eye. I understand how and why wars are won and lost. And this one never stood a chance. Ask Sun Tzu, he'll back me up on this one.
As far as being a "real" American, you make me laugh. My ancestors were the amongst the first English settlers to Pennsylvania, before Penn even acquired it. The German lines who came soon after were here well before the War of Independence. I qualify for the Sons of the Revolution, an ancestor rode with Washington's Legion in North Carolina against the redcoats. There's some ancestry from the native Americans and to top it all off, I was born on the Gettysburg battlefield, where the hospital now stands. Unless they're three-quarters eskimo, they don't get more "American" than me.
The only people I see threatening our freedoms are the exact same people who claim to be protecting us. They drag us down, into wars, racism, poverty, and despair. Our coffers are empty, our jobs are gone, our sons are dying, our debt is sky-rocketing while our prisons are bursting. They're turning this country into a dump. That's not the kind of America I want to live in. And I don't need them telling me I don't love it when I want what's best for it. Peace brings prosperity, we need it so badly.
And as far as speaking elvish, it's a tribute to a great linguist. It's fun playing with a fake language, composing sentences as mental exercise. More people need to exercise their minds, don't you think?
Try to understand. We Democrats and Liberals ALL want VICTORY over our enemies. Victiory over terrorists, and victory over other enemies of America.
We ALL wanted VICTORY in Afghanistan. We heard VICTORY defined as deposing the Taliban, destroying it, and then tracking down Bin Laden and taking him "dead or alive". We heard "he can run, but he can't hide."
We were denied VICTORY in Afghanistan, because the hunt for Bin Laden was abandoned, and the Taliban was not sufficiently wiped out, and we didn't finish the job. Instead, George W. Bush declared he wasn't interested in Bin Laden any more, and he diverted all our attention to Iraq.
The Taliban is now re-established, and the drug traffic is breaking all previous records.
We ALL wanted VICTORY in Iraq. We heard VICTORY defined as ridding Iraq of all Weapons of Mass destruction. We heard VICTORY defined as deposing Saddam Hussein, and bringing him to justice. We heard VICTORY defined as establishing a democratic government, elected by the people in votes held across the nation. All these things were achieved, and it was VICTORY.
Or WAS it?
Again, our VICTORY was denied, because George W. Bush keeps changing the criteria for defining VICTORY. The way he now defines it has to do with establishing "security" in the nation, and expecting the elected leadership to compromise in ways WE desire them to. Neither goal is achievable by military means, and neither goal is OUR BUSINESS. Neither goal is REMOTELY a reason for WAR, or continuing a war. Yet, Bush insists that THESE newly defined "victories" are necessary for American security at home.
Meanwhile, the OTHER VICTORY, over terrorism nationwide, has ALSO been abandoned. Terrorism (defined as Al Qaeda) is in over 60 nations of the world, in cells which operate within those nations. To make WAR on terrorism calls for specific intelligence, cooperation, and the planning and execution of "surgical" strikes to destroy our enemies.
The FIRST step of this type of WAR is diplomacy ... gaining the cooperation of other nations in locating and destroying these terrorist cells. The Administration of George W. Bush considers diplomacy to be weakness, and an "appeasing". So he doesn't do it. So we are not fighting any kind of effective "war" on terrorism. Victory has again been denied us, by our President.
It is not the American people, it is not Democrats nor Liberals who do not want VICTORY. We DO. It is George W. Bush who keeps moving those goalposts, rationalizing why we had to abandon the agreed-to goals, and take on unachievable goals. It is George W. Bush who has consistently DENIED America of any VICTORY ... even when they were in our grasp, or actually ACHIEVED!
Americans are tired of being blamed, being accused, being challenged ... when it is clear that it is not WE THE PEOPLE who are the problem here. As our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers DIE in Iraq, and 30,000 now maimed for life, we see no end in sight, because our President keeps setting new goals ... goals which cannot be achieved by military might ... short of killing ALL Iraqis.
On the other hand, Iraqi Oil continues to flow, and American oil corprations continue to post record profits in the tens of BILLIONS. Haliburton is thriving. We begin to wonder if WAR is the goal, rather than VICTORY. This would explain why our President keeps DENYING Victory for the American People.
He may define VICTORY in different terms ... in terms of "cash flow" for his friends. If this is the case, the betrayal of America is incalculable. It is too horrible to contemplate, but the EVIDENCE tells us we MUST.
Tex, this is very good, but why did you post it in two threads?
"We the People" keep voting Democrat and Republican and keeping the War Party in power. So it is "We the People"'s fault for not voting for the Peace parties. That's the way Democracy works. You can't just blame a handful and ignore all those who pulled the lever next to that name.
Both War Parties are leading us astray. They lead us into a dark oblivion of police state, fascism, never-ending 1984 bs. This has full bi-partisan support from both sides of both houses. They are both firmly committed to plans of continued agression and belligerency, with a diplomacy built around making threats and bullying smaller nations. They have no credibility left out there. They can't hide all that hypocrisy behind slick words any longer.
The only ones who can take the country back from them are the voters. They MUST vote Green or Libertarian or the wars will keep going on and the country will get worse and worse. It's that simple. War or Peace.
Delusional. Naive. I think that sums it up...
Our bad. We'll try to stop taking libs comments at face value. For future reference if you guys could just release a statement telling us how we should interpret things dems say before they say it that would probably cut down on having to do damage control AFTER a lib inserts his foot into his piehole. Granted, as a con who believes we should not be in Iraq I do agree with some of what the dems want to do with the war. But the spin you guys are trying to put on this would put Tiger Woods to shame.
You're exactly right. MMFA can't spin out of this one. Clyburn explicitly said that good news in Iraq is bad news for the Democrats. His comments weren't distorted in any way, except perhaps by Media Matters in their lame attempt to put a good spin on what he said.
Most Democrats want to get out of Iraq regardless of what the report says (I personally think a good report should hasten the withdrawal). If Patraeus comes back with a report that says the troops should stay because the surge is working [in his opinion] then some of those Blue Dog Democrats may vote against withdrawal and vote with republicans to extend the occupation, blowing a chance for American troops to come home.
And Media Matters is spinning his comments; the far right is doing that.
The question was not about the effect on the american troops. It was a question about what a good report would have on dems. Nice try though. I agree, by the way, that we should get out. Iraq is not ready for democracy and is not doing it's part there but I would welcome good news (unlike Clyburn). That said it would be nice if the dems just admitted, as clyburn did, that good news in Iraq is bad news for dems. I hammer cons when they screw up and am not a republican, I just can't understand why most libs seem to blindly cling to the "dems are infallible" mantra and go to great lengths to defend them.
"The question was not about the effect on the american troops."
It looks like you're trying to spin my comments.
"It was a question about what a good report would have on dems."
The Democrats want to redeploy or withdraw from Iraq. A good report from Petraeus would potentially hinder this because the Blue Dogs may vote with republicans.
"Iraq is not ready for democracy and is not doing it's part there but I would welcome good news (unlike Clyburn)."They're ready for democracy, just not together
"That said it would be nice if the dems just admitted, as clyburn did, that good news in Iraq is bad news for dems."
It would be bad news because the Blue Dogs may vote to continue the occupation of Iraq.
"I just can't understand why most libs seem to blindly cling to the "dems are infallible" mantra and go to great lengths to defend them."
You're making this comment based on the far right spin on his comments.
You are the one attempting the spinning. You divorce the question from its obvious context. Do Dems run the war effort? No the white house does. So when asked about what the report means to Democrats what is being asked? What it means for their mandate from the elections to get us out of Iraq. IF Congress ran the operations of the war it might mean something else, they dont, it didnt, and only the congenitally obtuse or those trying to spin partisan hay dont understand this.
Effect Democrats in what way? What does the question mean. Obviously since Congress does not run the war this question can ONLY mean the Democratic policy of getting us out of Iraq. Any other reading of this question can only be made by those comitted to ideological blindness. Certainly the Congressman understood the question this way as the ENTIRITY of the answer makes clear. I dont get why conservatives spin and work so hard to find venal motives in EVERYTHING a Dem does.
How did I miss the meme that Iraq is not doing their part. What a dumb talking point. So then your point is it is the IRAQI'S fault that OUR invasion of THEIR country isnt going the way WE wanted it to. Are you kidding me?
Wow, it took you three posts to say what you wanted to say. That's when you know you're spinning.
Look Shaw, you and Rhino are allowing these dishonest, despicable, and unpatriotic right wing talkers to help formulate public opinion by forwarding what they said instead of what was actually said. The Congressman said the following;
". . .if the Republicans were to remain united, as they have been, then it would be a problem for us,"
What part of that don't you understand? He never NEVER said that it would be a problem for Democrats if there is good news from Iraq. I suppose it's just fine with the two of you to use only part of his comment as long as it strengthens the right wing talkers backward view of those who have been correct about Iraq all along--DEMOCRATS !
Meanwhile, they're the ones trying to score points against those who who want to get us out of Iraq. It seems that it would be just fine with them to keep wretched war going. Could there be anything more unpatriotic?
"The question was not about the effect on the american troops. It was a question about what a good report would have on dems."--SS
Actually, Clyburn simply used the pronoun "we" and "us". It appears from the context that Clyburn was evaluating the political consequences such a positive report would likely have on the goal of getting Congress to agree on pulling troops out of Iraq and nothing more. If he was only concerned about the effect on Democrats, why did he differentiate regarding the conservative Democrats? It should be obvious this was about an issue and its likelihood of passage in regards to a political hypothetical.
But don't let that stop you from mischaracterizing what he really said.
Yes they were and YOUR lame attempt to pretend otherwise is weak.
SS and RH, you both read it wrong, even after having the entire context provided. It's not "good news" that's a problem, it's an administration that continues to fabricate "good news" contrary to all reality, in an effort to get at our wallets for as long as they can.
SS, you can take things at face value, as long as you understand what was said.And if the two of you think it's worth our troops dying and our money being stolen so you can hear some "good news", I would hope you'd pay closer attention if you plan on voting in the future.
"You're exactly right. MMFA can't spin out of this one. Clyburn explicitly said that good news in Iraq is bad news for the Democrats."--rino hunter
Ummm, I think you need to re-examine your use of the word "explicitly" and what it actually means. If Clyburn's remarks were indeed "explicit", you wouldn't have to resort to paraphrasing them as you just did.
"Our bad. We'll try to stop taking libs comments at face value."
No. You're putting your far right slant on his words.
"Our bad. We'll try to stop taking libs comments at face value."--SS
You know what? I think it would be great if you would start taking our comments at face value. So far, we you guys only seem to be able to attack us with your amazing mindreading skills as is the case with Clyburn.
"Our bad. We'll try to stop taking libs comments at face value." - SS
Now that's amusing coming from conservatives who say they believe in personal responsibility while blaming everyone else for their own failures; from conservatives who say they believe in fiscal discipline while borrowing and spending like tomorrow hasn't been invented yet and bringing us a nine trillion dollar debt ceiling; from conservatives who say they don't believe in nation-building while falling back on that very rationale when all their other excuses turn out to be tin-foil-hat delusions; from conservatives who say they believe in national security while leaving our ports and borders wide open for six years after an attack. I think it's about time for conservatives to stop taking their own comments at face value.
"from conservatives who say they believe in national security while leaving our ports and borders wide open for six years after an attack"
And what have the Democrats done to secure the border? The last time I checked they were more concerned about granting illegal immigrants amnesty then about securing the border.
Thanks for admitting that the other points are perfectly valid by not addressing them. For six years after 9-11 it was Republicans who had the exclusive power to do something about securing ports and borders, and they spent their time diagnosing Terry Schiavo long-distance (diagnosing her incorrectly, btw.) What did Republicans do about illegal immigration? Absolutely nothing. You had no problem with that, but now that Republicans are out of power in Congress, you want to cry about how someone else isn't doing something about it. What Republicans couldn't even begin to address in six years, you expect Democrats to solve in six months with Republican obstructionism barring every effort to accomplish anything. Where's the indignation? You can blame Clinton for 9-11 when Republicans were in power, but you can't blame Republicans for the results of six years of do-nothing when Democrats control Congress.
I also noticed that you only want to talk about the southern border, and not the fact that containers entering our ports are largely uninspected. Small amounts of fissionable material would (and may have already) slipped right through. What did Republicans do about that in six years? Absolutely nothing. You want to complain about what Democrats are doing after six months, but not about what Republicans didn't do in six years. That's very conservative of you. With the face value of a conservative and three dollars, you can get a cup of coffee at Starbucks. But don't expect to get any change back.
No matter how you slice it, the Democrats are invested in defeat.
Pelosi doesn't even care what the General says when he returns. Bad news in Iraq is good news for the Dems.
So if it's fair to proclaim that Democrats are invested in defeat, it would be fair equally fair to proclaim that Republicans are invested in endless war.
I would say the republicans are invested in imperialism.
Well that comment pretty much sums up your ignorance. I guess ousting dictators is a bad thing right? God forbid we allow freedom to get in the way of an efficient totlitarian regime. Isn't that right comrade?
The Iraq invasion was all about oil.
Thats silly.
You're silly if you think the Iraq invasion was about anything else.
Well color me silly
The falllacy of the "war for oil" take is simply this....we've been there over five years and haven't taken a drop of Iraqi oil. But please don't let facts get in the way of your argument. Now had you said something about the military/industrial complex you might have a point, but according to you it's all about oil, thus proving you honestly do not know what you're talking about.
"The falllacy of the "war for oil" take is simply this....we've been there over five years and haven't taken a drop of Iraqi oil."
Two things - Iraq has been pretty choatic for the past five years and the Bush sdministration is trying to get at Iraq's oil surreptitiously; they can't do it overtly for obvious reasons. This is where the Iraqi Oil Law comes into play.
"Now had you said something about the military/industrial complex you might have a point, but according to you it's all about oil, thus proving you honestly do not know what you're talking about."
Oil is the major reason for the invasion. There are other minor reasons but they pale in comparison.
So you just admitted that we haven't taken any oil but your argument is that we invaded for oil. Your debating skills are clearly beyond compare. Very convincing. I guess I now understand how someone like yourself could take the words that clyburn said and grossly misinterpret them to suit your cause. At first I thought you were just defending him but now I see you're simply illogical.
“So you just admitted that we haven't taken any oil but your argument is that we invaded for oil.”
The Bush administration cannot overtly take the oil because it will undermine the excuses they gave for invading Iraq. And the Bush administration miscalculated the war and subsequent occupation. When Cheney and his oil buddies were divvying up Iraq's oil fields in early 2001 just in case the administration invaded Iraq, I don't think any of them imagined that this illegal invasion would yield little or no results thus far. They were banking on the Iraqis welcoming them with flowers.
"Your debating skills are clearly beyond compare."
I admit they're pretty good.
"I guess I now understand how someone like yourself could take the words that clyburn said and grossly misinterpret them to suit your cause."
Clyburn said the right thing. I agree 100 percent with it. We should get out of Iraq. The Bush administration had no business invading Iraq in the first place [for oil] and they certainly have no business occupying Iraq now [for oil].
it really is a conservative skill to take what people say crop it to fit what they believe then attack that person for "agreeing" with them its like debating a 14 yr old girl
Was he LESS of a dictator when he was our ALLY? Are we going to get rid of the dictatorship in Pakistan? No he is an ally, in Saudi Arabia, no they are allys also, what about Myanmar, Rhodesia, well in far too many countries to list here are you saying its our policy to overthrow dictators everywhere? Then why did we overthrow democracies and INSTALL dictatorships in Iran, Guatemala, Brazil, The Dominican Republic and Chile? Either you are KIDDING, or woefully uninformed.
Who is ignorant? If Iraq had gone better, there seems more than a possibility we would have invaded at least a half dozen more countries.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5293057486293276897
SHAW:
There are at least two approaches to the notion of "spreading freedom and democracy", and they have very different possibilities of success.
One theory is that you can invade a nation that has some form of totalitarian rule, and use FORCE to get them to adopt a democratic form of government. This theory requires that they then will elect leaders invested in freedom and who will follow and enforce rule of law. Very important that it be rule of LAW and not of MAN. To be successful, you must win their "hearts and minds" to this end, and killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians and destroying their homes and infrastructure and places of worship will not interfere with this push to get them to agree with their invaders. This theory requires that you must continue to occupy that nation until they comply with all our demands. And in the meantime, the occupiers are free to exploit that nation's natural resources' after all, we are occupiers, and so we CAN.
ANOTHER THEORY of "spreading freedom and democracy" is quite different in approach. It requires that America be a "beacon" of freedom in the world, with citizens who enjoy the full benefits and POWER of freedom, and who have no reason to fear their government. The government is restricted from interfering in the rights and liberties of its citizens, and any in government who try to violate citizen's rights are dealt with severely. This shows the world that FREEDOM WORKS, and there is no greater motivation to someone living under a dictatorship than to see a glowing example of FREEDOM IN ACTION. Government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people ... has enormous appeal.
A FREE nation also does not behave with invasions of its neighbors, or with IMPERIALISTIC goals. A dictator desires ever more power and influence in the world, while a FREE and PEACE-LOVING nation does not abuse force, and instead relies on being a "good example". In a truly FREE NATION, giving an example with enormous appeal to the rest of the world, citizens CANNOT JUST BE TAKEN by the government ... "disappeared" ... without due process and LAW, just on the say-so of the dictator.
The way BUSH is running this nation, there is NO example of the freedom and liberty of the citizens to be a shining EXAMPLE to the rest of the world. "YOU SHOULD DESIRE FREEDOM LIKE WE HAVE!" we tell the world, and when they look at OUR current "freedom" situation, they see torture and "preemptive war and invasion" and domestic spying without consequence. They see a government that routinely LIES to the citizens, that covers up its actions, and operates in SECRECY behind excuses of "national security". They see blatant war profiteering by the military-industrial complex, and the exponential advance of a class system whereby the WEALTHY have all the advantages, while the rest of the nation's quality of life declines. They see rampant PROPAGANDA that demonizes any who dare disagree with "the leader".
When the world sees our "EXAMPLE" of freedom and democracy under George W. Bush, the world says, "NO THANKS. If THAT is 'freedom', we've already GOT that kind of behavior from OUR leaders ... what's the difference?"
And they are absolutely RIGHT. As long as we have Bush's "Unitary Executive" (read: Dictatorship) as our ruling system, we HAVE no operational freedom, liberty, or democracy to export. We have nothing to show, nothing to be proud of, in the way of citizen's rights.
"Pelosi doesn't even care what the General says when he returns. Bad news in Iraq is good news for the Dems."
Bad news or good news from Iraq, we should start pulling the troops out and let the Iraqis decide their country's future. Plain and simple, we should not be occupying their country.
We should be doing whatever we want to their country if it's a direct concern to our national security. And that goes for any country...Pakistan, Iran, whoever.
if they pose a direct threat to our nation then we can and should do whatever is necessary to end that threat.
Leaving Iraq to fend for itself would create a situation much worse then the present one and would only result in our having to go back to Iraq at some point in the not too distant future. And I'm tired of these Democratic phrases like redeployment. Do they think we can't read between the lines?
Like it or not we CAN'T leave with the country as it is.
As far as Clyburn's remarks, I'd say it's been pretty obvious that the dems are for retreat and defeat in Iraq and they have been for some time.
LoLo, since you are assuming the outcome of Iraq if we leave the country, let us go back before then INVASION? My question to you would be, now that you know that were a instilled in a quagmire, would you make the same decision to invade? And please, nothing about changing the planning and strategy because that only makes my Administration look bad. Would you go?
No I would not.
"We should be doing whatever we want to their country if it's a direct concern to our national security. And that goes for any country...Pakistan, Iran, whoever."
Iraq is not a direct concern to our national security. With Pakistan and Iran, it's too early to tell.
"if they pose a direct threat to our nation then we can and should do whatever is necessary to end that threat."
Continuing the occupation of Iraq poses a threat to our national security.
"Leaving Iraq to fend for itself would create a situation much worse then the present one"
I disagree.
"and would only result in our having to go back to Iraq at some point in the not too distant future. And I'm tired of these Democratic phrases like redeployment. Do they think we can't read between the lines?"
You're basing this assumption on your previous assumption.
"As far as Clyburn's remarks, I'd say it's been pretty obvious that the dems are for retreat and defeat in Iraq and they have been for some time."
Call it whatever you want. The Iraqis should be the ones deciding what happens to their country.
Loonz we disagree about the consequences for withdrawl. We also disagree that Iraq is, or would be if we left, a direct threat to national security.
But I respect your opinion and time will tell who's right. It might be you.
LoLo, I do not understand how Iraq would be a threat to our national security, sans OIL. The "War on Terror" is worldwide according to our President so how is it that Iraq would be a threat? Would other ares be as equally threatening? Is Iraq just a BADGE OF HONOR for the Repubs?The "If we pull-out, they will come here" card is already dedunked They are already here.
I am for leaving that country in a phased pullout, not as the Repubs put it, surrender. By the way, I really don't recall the country calling the pull-out of VietNam a surrender.
Sorry, Lolo, repeating the same old tried cliches of "We can kill who we want if we say the magic word "national security"." doesn't cut it any more. The Evil Empire has been exposed, the illusion of peace and democracy and freedom that we call the USA is shattered.
Funny, most times the US army leaves a country, PEACE breaks out! Can't have that, can we?
No matter how you slice it the Republicans are invested in their lets get as many Americans killed as we possibly can policy in Iraq.
You really believe that? Scary.
There's obviously no evidence of that at all, and there's all kinds of evidence that demonstrates that the Democrats are invested in our defeat in Iraq.
I think you both missed Solon's facetious point. There is no evidence to support either conclusion. It pretty much relies on your own baseless prejudices and assignment of motives to conclude either way.
"God forbid we allow freedom to get in the way of an efficient totlitarian regime." -SS-
Silly me, I thought we were talking about Iraq, and Not the Cheney/Bush Administration!!!
Missing you all down here at Gitmo,
Signed,
Your Favorite Illegal Enemy Combatant, BoB
"Democrats..being "invested in defeat in Iraq," and "want[ing] the United States to lose" in Iraq."
As a Canadian citizen my response to this tiresome and predictable charge is "define defeat".In fact define success while we're at it my Republican beauties.My sense is that this so called "war" has never been anything more than an illegal act of aggression designed to pilfer the regions oil and introduce a muscular strategic military presence.The idea that this has ever had a thing to do with "Democracy" and the welfare of Iraqi people is lamentably laughable at best.The fact of the matter is,America has no moral justification what so ever for the horror they have inflicted on the Iraqi people.There IS NO WINNING THIS WAR.Its all about cutting your losses and rebuilding your badly tarnished reputation before its too late.
"Two thousand Iraqis are fleeing their homes every day. It is the greatest mass exodus of people ever in the Middle East and dwarfs anything seen in Europe since the Second World War. Four million people, one in seven Iraqis, have run away, because if they do not they will be killed. Two million have left Iraq, mainly for Syria and Jordan, and the same number have fled within the country."...Pat Cockburn, Counterpunch 7-30-07
Right now an estimated 8 million Iraqis in the country are in desperate need of emergency aid. Many Iraqis subsist on government rations, like before the invasion. Now that is being seriously disrupted by the fighting.
This is the news that the US media never even mentions. The truth is that the US is committing genocide on the Iraqi people while our press sits back here and pontifcates on how great it's all going. Tell your friends in Canada they only need to look south to see the face of evil, to see the faces of Mass Murder, Inc.