NY Sun headline falsely claimed Sen. Durbin "concedes surge is working"
An August 9 New York Sun article on recent statements by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) regarding President Bush's troop increase strategy in Iraq appeared under the headline: "A Ranking Senate Democrat Concedes Surge Is Working." The Sun based its article on comments Durbin made during a CNN interview with American Morning co-host John Roberts on August 8. Yet while Durbin cited military progress in Iraq during the CNN interview, he did not "concede" that the "surge is working" as the Sun article's headline stated. Rather, he specifically said that he sees "two important parts to this story. ... As we are seeing military progress, the political scene is discouraging." When President Bush announced his troop increase strategy in January, he observed, "A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operation."
The article itself noted that Durbin is "pessimistic about political progress" in Iraq. Durbin later reiterated his point on the August 8 edition of NPR's Morning Edition, noting that "our troops show some progress towards security, [but] the government of [Iraq] is moving in the opposite direction."
The Sun article reported that Durbin had cited military progress during his CNN interview with Roberts and that he and Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) "told CNN that they saw little evidence that the Iraqi parliament would soon reach a political compact between Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis":
The no. 2 Democrat in the Senate -- the assistant majority leader, Richard Durbin of Illinois -- is conceding that the surge of American troops has led to military progress in Iraq.
His comments make him the second Democratic leader in 10 days to make comments that could open the door for the majority party in Congress to pivot away from its insistence on a deadline for an American retreat.
Speaking to CNN yesterday while visiting Baghdad, Mr. Durbin said, "We found that today as we went to a forward base in an area that, in the fifth year of the war, it's the first time we're putting troops on the ground to intercept Al Qaeda."
[...]
While Mr. Durbin and Senator Casey, a Democrat of Pennsylvania, have acknowledged recent military progress, they were more pessimistic about political progress. They told CNN that they saw little evidence that the Iraqi parliament would soon reach a political compact between Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis.
When announcing his Iraq escalation strategy in January, Bush specifically stated that "[a] successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operation" and will include a political component: "hold[ing] the Iraqi government to the benchmarks [America] has announced":
A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.
To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.
On American Morning, Durbin criticized the political component of Bush's strategy, claiming that the U.S. military is "making real progress" in Iraq but that "the political scene is discouraging." Moreover, Casey argued that "there's a bipartisan agreement right now to change the course. I think the president should listen to the will of the American people":
DURBIN: There are two important parts to this story: the military part -- as Senator Casey said, where men and women are doing their best and making real progress. We found that today as we went to a forward base in an area that for -- in the fifth year of the war, it's the first time that we're putting troops on the ground to intercept Al Qaeda. But I have to tell you there's another side to this story that the Brookings Institution shouldn't miss. As we are seeing military progress, the political scene is very discouraging.
[...]
DURBIN: Well, what we find is that the surge has troops going into areas where, for four and a half years, we have not seen our military in action. And naturally, they are routing out the Al Qaeda in those areas. That's a good thing. But there is no evidence of the government of Iraq in these areas. There are no Iraqi policemen, no Iraqi soldiers. These are Americans.
[...]
CASEY: And we've said from the beginning that our troops are doing their job. The problem here is the president of the United States continues to insist on a stay-the-course policy -- no change in direction, no sense that the American people can determine there's a light at the end of the tunnel. That's why I think there's a bipartisan agreement right now to change the course. I think the president should listen to the will of the American people.
Durbin later reiterated his assertion on Morning Edition, praising the work of the U.S. military but criticizing the Iraqi government:
STEVE INSKEEP (co-host): Have you heard something that has changed your skepticism about the overall mission?
DURBIN: Well, I've never been skeptical about our troops and their ability to accept a mission and to perform it well. I can see that even in the earliest stages here. But there's a reality as well. There is no evidence of the Iraqi government in this area -- none. And when you meet with local people and talk to them about the follow-through once our troops have really done the job, there's still a long, long way to seeing that happen.
INSKEEP: Are Iraqi troops working alongside the American troops at all?
DURBIN: No. And it's disappointing, but I think it reflects the reality. For almost five years now, we have talked about standing up 300, 400,000 Iraqi troops to take the place of American soldiers. In some parts of the country, that's happening in a limited way, but the idea that our surge will be handed off to the Iraqis, at this point, is just a theory.
[...]
DURBIN: I can just tell you honestly, I don't know if we left in 10 months or 10 years if there would be a remarkable difference. I think we're making some measurable progress but it's slow-going. And the fact that as our troops show some progress towards security, the government of this nation is moving in the opposite direction. This is really unsustainable with the American people. I mean, they are behind the troops and their families, we want them to be successful, but we have to accept the reality on the ground. And I think the Bush administration has really ignored this reality. They're not accepting the fact that this al-Maliki government is not a government of national unity.
From the August 8 edition of CNN's American Morning:
ROBERTS: Senator Durbin, the Brookings institution scholars Michael O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack were over there recently, wrote an editorial in The New York Times in which they said, "Yes, there is progress, and the progress is significant enough that U.S. troops should stay on the ground at least until the beginning of 2008." Did you see any of the progress they were talking about?
DURBIN: There are two important parts to this story: the military part -- as Senator Casey said, where men and women are doing their best and making real progress. We found that today as we went to a forward base in an area that for -- in the fifth year of the war, it's the first time that we're putting troops on the ground to intercept Al Qaeda. But I have to tell you there's another side to this story that the Brookings Institution shouldn't miss. As we are seeing military progress, the political scene is very discouraging. We have seen this al-Maliki government, which was once branded a government of national unity, coming apart. We see Shias leaving, Sunnis walking out. It's not the kind of promise that we want in terms of bringing stability to this country.
ROBERTS: But hold on. Let me back you up there. You said you did see military progress?
DURBIN: Well, what we find is that the surge has troops going into areas where, for four and a half years, we have not seen our military in action. And naturally, they are routing out the Al Qaeda in those areas. That's a good thing. But there is no evidence of the government of Iraq in these areas. There are no Iraqi policemen, no Iraqi soldiers. These are Americans.
ROBERTS: I understand all of that. But Senator Durbin, everybody in the Democratic Party is saying that the surge has failed. Senator Casey, do you agree with your colleague that there are some signs of military progress here?
CASEY: Sure there are, John. And we've said from the beginning that our troops are doing their job. The problem here is the president of the United States continues to insist on a stay-the-course policy -- no change in direction, no sense that the American people can determine there's a light at the end of the tunnel. That's why I think there's a bipartisan agreement right now to change the course. I think the president should listen to the will of the American people.
From the August 8 edition of NPR's Morning Edition:
RENEE MONTAGNE (co-host): [NPR White House correspondent] David [Green], stay with us. We're going to listen now to one of the president's opponents in Congress. Steve?
INSKEEP: Yeah, his name is Richard Durbin. He is the number-two Democrat in the Senate, which means he's been at the center of Democratic struggles to assert some control over U.S. policy in Iraq. And this morning, we reached Senator Durbin as he visited Baghdad.
DURBIN: Well, I can tell you that it's hotter than a furnace here. And we went over to a patrol base 10 miles outside of Baghdad where there's a surge effort on the way, about 900 of our troops are involved. They're really trying to take control of the territory, which in the first five years or so of this war has really been left to the enemy. It's a valiant, heroic effort by our troops, and one that's showing some results on the ground.
INSKEEP: Really? Have you heard something that has changed your skepticism about the overall mission?
DURBIN: Well, I've never been skeptical about our troops and their ability to accept a mission and to perform it well. I can see that even in the earliest stages here. But there's a reality as well. There is no evidence of the Iraqi government in this area -- none. And when you meet with local people and talk to them about the follow-through once our troops have really done the job, there's still a long, long way to seeing that happen.
INSKEEP: Are Iraqi troops working alongside the American troops at all?
DURBIN: No. And it's disappointing, but I think it reflects the reality. For almost five years now, we have talked about standing up 300, 400,000 Iraqi troops to take the place of American soldiers. In some parts of the country, that's happening in a limited way, but the idea that our surge will be handed off to the Iraqis, at this point, is just a theory.
INSKEEP: What does that imply for U.S. efforts or hopes to eventually pull out of Iraq?
DURBIN: Well, it's not very encouraging in that regard. I have to tell you quite honestly that when you ask about when will this end, I think most of these soldiers view it in terms of their deployment -- 15 months of risking their lives every single day to do their mission, and then probably handing an off to a another group of American soldiers.
That's the thing that I think many of us find troubling. And this is a troubled nation. The very basics are still an issue here: electricity and water and jobs. And it's a troubled government where the Shias that were loyal to [Shiite cleric Muqtada al-] Sadr were forced out, and the Sunnis walked out. It's no longer a government of national unity and, honestly, even the best military leaders in America suggest the long-term goal here has to be a strong government. We're a long way from it.
INSKEEP: Well, if you are a long way from that government, can I ask what would happen if you got your way, which is a relatively early -- relatively early withdrawal of U.S. -- U.S. troops?
DURBIN: Well, I honestly believe that we have to understand the reality on the ground here and deal with it. And the reality is that the Iraqis are still caught up in these squabbles between factions here that branch into civil war in their worst iteration. And we have to let them know that we cannot stay here indefinitely and wait for them to come to grips with basic questions. Do they want a nation? Do they want to come together as a nation? Who will they choose as their government, and will they be loyal to that government? I mean, these are fundamental issues still unresolved in the fifth year of this war.
INSKEEP: As you know, President Bush has warned of chaos if U.S. troops leave. Senator John McCain, your fellow senator, has even used the word "genocide" as one possibility. Without saying that will happen, I wonder if you're willing to accept that possibility. If you would say, even if the worst happens, it's better for U.S. troops to pull out when they can.
DURBIN: I can just tell you honestly, I don't know if we left in 10 months or 10 years if there would be a remarkable difference. I think we're making some measurable progress but it's slow-going. And the fact that as our troops show some progress towards security, the government of this nation is moving in the opposite direction. This is really unsustainable with the American people. I mean, they are behind the troops and their families, we want them to be successful, but we have to accept the reality on the ground. And I think the Bush administration has really ignored this reality. They're not accepting the fact that this al-Maliki government is not a government of national unity.
INSKEEP: As you look across the United States Senate, how much longer do you think the White House can sustain enough support to prevent you from forcing a new policy on the White House?
DURBIN: Well, that's quite -- that's an important question. It was asked to me this morning by a soldier sitting next to me on a C-130 as I came in with the troops sitting in the back end of a cargo plane. And he said, "Well, are we leaving? Are we gonna get out of here?" And I said, "We've got four Republican senators who've joined Democrats, we need seven more." He says, "I wish one of those senators could spend a day with me in the life of a soldier here in Iraq." I think that said it all from where I was sitting.
INSKEEP: Richard Durbin of Illinois is the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate. We reached him in Baghdad. Senator, thanks very much.
DURBIN: Thanks so much.
Yet while Durbin cited military progress in Iraq during the CNN interview, he did not "concede" that the "surge is working" as the Sun article's headline stated.
I frankly could care less what Burbin thinks, surge working or not his opinion is irrelevant. Our troops are there because his party did not stop Bush in 2002. If they voted against the resolution maybe we would not be in the situation we are in today. As for the surge, again I do not know if it is or is not working, but the monday morning quarterbacks better stop it and figure out a way to end the war, or else .
The NY Sun is obviously lying. Sen. Durbin, one of the most anti-military haters in the Democrat Party will never acknowledge any success by the troops in Iraq. Remember, this is the same person who compared US troops to Nazis and Stalinists not too long ago.
Durbin quoted an FBI report on prisoners who were shackled naked to the floor at Gitmo.
He didn't say the prisoners were shackled by troops.
They could have been shackled by CIA employees or contractors.
Thanks E.J.
Makes one wonder where Ghengiz gets his "News"?
Makes me wonder where you get YOUR news from. He compared Americans at GITMO to Nazis, Pol Pot's killers, and Stalinists. Not once did Durbin ever state that he was discussing contractors and not troops (as if the distinction matters). Here's some reading material; lots of news to catch up here: He has now offered the Senate his "heartfelt apologies", saying he never meant to offend US troops [[link to news.bbc.co.uk] />
God you right wingers lie as easily as some people breathe. Durbin compared the troops to Nazis? Wow, really?
I notice you become super detective and provide a link to Durbin's apology, which was hounded out of him. (The link is dead, but no matter.) But of course, you can't provide a link to what Durbin said. That is because it completely undermines your argument. Here is what he said:
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control," he said, "you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings."
See, that's a little different than saying all the troops are Nazis. He was saying that if you read the report from the FBI, you couldn' tell the difference between how these prisoners were treated and how the Nazis treated their prisoners.
Durbin was talking about prisoners being chained in the fetal position without food and water.
You beat me by a minute. I basically duplicated your post below.
Funnymanpants and Loonz - You said, "He was saying that if you read the report from the FBI, you couldn' tell the difference between how these prisoners were treated and how the Nazis treated their prisoners. Durbin was talking about prisoners being chained in the fetal position without food and water." Is that so? I know Durbin is not considered to be a bright ulb by even his colleagues but even he should know that the Nazis and Pol Pot's killers did MUCH MORE than chain prisoners and make them sit in a fetal position. Have Durbin (and apparently, some of you) heard about gas chambers, crematoria, and re-education camps where cildre were forced to kill their parents and siblings? Don't recall anything of this sort happening in GITMO. The comparison is ridiculous and so is your defense of Dick Durbin.
Is that so? I know Durbin is not considered to be a bright ulb by even his colleagues but even he should know that the Nazis and Pol Pot's killers did MUCH MORE than chain prisoners and make them sit in a fetal position.
You've just defended Durbin.
How so? I just pointed out that Durbin's dim-witted comparison was invalid and that Nazis were far worse than soldiers at Gitmo. How does this translate into Durbin's defense?
You don't dispute that what was contained in the report were abuses that happened during the rule of Pol Pot and others. You said that Pol Pot and others did those things.
"You said that Pol Pot and others did those things."Loonz - you are misrepresenting me entirely given that you've given up attempts to make your own argument. Pol Pot and the Nazis did not chain people; they gassed them alive, cremated their victims, and conducted barbaric experiments. Even someone as partisan as you has to accept that comparing the US troops to Nazis is ridiculous - unless you agree with Durbin, of course.
>> Pol Pot and the Nazis did not chain people; they gassed them alive, cremated their victims, and conducted barbaric experiments.
God you are full of crap. I am not an expert on Nazi torture techniques, but I assume the movie *Schindler's List* is representative of what happened. In that movie, the vicitims were not burned alive every single second, not were experiments performed on even most of them.
Nazi prisoners were tortured. This I know. And chaining someone in a fetal position--not even to mention what else was done at Gitmo--certainly is torture. I am pretty sure that the Nazis and Pol Pot did engage in this form of torture. I know for a fact that Stalin did.
"God you are full of crap."Maybe so but you seem to be a Holocaust denier. In my book, that's a worse crime than being "full of crap." You'll disagree, of course.
"I assume the movie *Schindler's List* is representative of what happened. "No, it certainly is not!
Oh yes, and you expect to be taken seriously? I am not a Holocaust denier because I point out what happened in the Holocaust? And Schindler's list is wrong because--well, simply because you say it is wrong!
Just admit it: you don't know what you are talking about and like to use innuendo and smear instead of argumentation. Durbin is right; you are not.
He said the un-American behavior sanctioned by the administration could have written about several brutal regimes. You really don't dispute this. What you're saying is that it was unfair to say it because those brutal regimes took it several steps further. He agrees with you and that's why he apologized.
That is certainly true, at least with Stalin. He did do those things--and much worse.
Durbin never said that Gitmo was the same as the massive atrocities committed by the Nazis. Not even close. Ghenriz knows this. He said if you read the report of what happened at Gitmo, you could very well be reading a report from a Gulag or a concentration camp.
I've noticed you have switched your target. At first you were foaming at the mouth because Durbin compared the troops to Nazis. Now you are simply saying that Durbin is wrong in his comparison. And you throw in a lot of invective about his being dumb, as if we are supposed to be fooled.
I've actually read all of Solzenistin's *Gulag,* all 2,000 plus pages, so I know exactly what the Soviets did to their prisoners.
Since you claim Durbin is so wrong and are setting yourself up as an expert, tell me what the Nobel prize winner said was the worst form of torture, what made all the medieval forms completely superfluous.
C'mon, I'll wait, Mr. expert.
What a ridiculous red herring! Amazing.
Nice try. We are not fooled. Do you even know what a red herring is?
You claimed that it was ridiculous to compare the reports from Gitmo to what happened in the Gulag. I have read all of Solzenistin's *Gulag* so I know exactly what happened.
I asked you what Solzinistin, an expert who experienced first hand Gulag torture, thought was the worst from of torture, something so bad it made all the medieval devices practiced in the medieval ages, such as the wrack, superflous.
Of course you didn't know so throw out red herring.
I'll tell you. It is sleep deprivation. Exactly what is practiced in Gitmo. No human being can stand up to sleep deprivation. So stop saying it is inaccurate for Durbin to say that if you read the report on Gitmo, you would not know it was from the Gulag. He is right, as you would know if you read Solzenistin and stopped trying to demonize those you disagree with.
And yes, being chained in a fetal postition, especially if kept there for any length of time, is torture. I remember Solzenstin talking about how hardened soldiers would weep when handcuffs were screwed on their wrist too tight and kept that way, how these prisoners would beg for relief. That happened in the Gulag, too.
Sleep deprivation.
Damn, how did you know? Did you get it from one of my earlier posts?
Anyway, you win the cigar. Good jog on your history.
I did remember it from one of your earlier posts. However my mother LOVED Solzenitskin and read a few of his books and talked about them.
He read reports of behavior sanctioned by the Bush administration and said that these abuses were something that could have been written about Pol Pot and other regimes.
Makes one wonder where Ghengiz gets his "News"?
Ghengiz is starting to remind me of someone who used to participate on another board I frequent - she constantly referred to herself as a "CCR" (Christian Conservative Republican) and was always posting stories from NewsMax and World Nut Daily - because she though that Faux News was "too liberals"
And she was wrong most of the time, too.....
wzwriter - Just FYI and I guess this is going to disappoint you. I am NOT a Christian and despite the frequent comments here about being a "white conservative," I'm NOT white either. Throws the liberal "diversity" argument into a tailspin, doesn't it? Oh...for the record - I consider Newsmax, Would Net Daily, BillO, and Keith Olberman to be dubious sources - all of them.
That just displays your lack of discernment that you think that Keith Olbermann is on a par with the first two you listed.
Oh, I see. So he compared the CIA or contractors that work for us to Pol Pot who killed millions. That Durbin is a sharp guy.
No he didnt stop lying. He compared specific abuses described by the FBI agent as torture techniques to things done by Pol Pot and Stalin.
No he didnt stop lying.
Another misquoted and misinterpreted and misrepresented Democrat's statement, wow.......there are more of them than you can shake a stick at.
Yes there are one thing you have to give to those bloviating screechmonkeys, they are open for business 24/7. I wonder if they ever sleep but they surely NEVER STOP, they absolutly will not stop distorting misquoting and lying
Well, the only answer is for the Democrats to completely boycott the entire media altogether - the print/cable/radio/TV/comic books - everything......the boycott of Fox News is just not enough, apparently. They are constantly having to explain their statements. They should have T-shirts printed with "I didn't say that, what I meant was......."
Let them communicate to their brethren through their own filtered websites from now on. Whew, problem solved.
That's the wrong approach. They should go on these stations and just call them bold-faced liars.
I couldn't agree more.
But they won't.
A lot of Democrats are too civil but I'm not.
And you would be a refreshing change to the politics of dancing around questions and smiling through spin. Run for office, would ya?
How far do you think I would get if I told reporters to go f--k themselves?
They'd throw their microphones and clipboards in the air, put their hands on their hips, and say "Well, get him........"
Even being a liberal, you'd get my vote ;)
Careful - as a casual observer, I would guess that you are far too liberal to get away with pulling a Cheney on the press corps.
Of course they will as long as they are legitimate news sources even when they are doing these things. What they DIDNT do and I agree completely is PRETEND Fox propaganda network IS a legitmate news organization.
The troops have had great successes in Iraq but the fact of the matter is that the troops should have never been sent there and they shouldn't be there now.
I pulled this from Wikepedia, I am not sure how reliable. Looks like it was started by a group who felt the NYT was too liberal. Suprise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ny_sun
I was very disappointed by Durbin's remarks, especially since the invocation of Hitler is something I normally expect to come from the right wing.
Two years can be relatively considered to be "not too long ago".
Since you've taken the liberty of dredging up a two-year old incident, I'll take the liberty of dredging up what happened a week later.
He didn't have a choice but to apologize. Even Mayor Daley of Chicago blasted him and asked him to apologize. When even a fellow partisan Democrat like Daley thinks you've gone too far, it's time to apoogize.
Our troops are there because Bush abd the GOP-controlled Congress put them there, and the American People were to stupid to send Pretzelboy packing in 2004.
The Surge has two parts. First was providing enough military to allow the politicians to do their jobs. Second was the politicians doing their job.
The Surge is not just the additional boots on the ground.
Saying that there's military progress is not the same as saying that the surge is working.
Exactly NoMo...
And The Sun knows this.
We know that the NY Post is owned by Satan--I mean Murdoch.
I don't know who owns The Sun? Is it just another right-wing rag sheet?
There has been some political success though.
I heard some never before seen general, tell viewers at FOX that the surge is working. His Ailes paycheck must also be working.
Ahh but the military success is good news is it not?
Not really. The Iraqis are the ones who should be doing all of this. We shouldn't even be in their country.
AA,
Yes, military success is good news for America. But even though the surge may be working, as many accouts are reporting, the Iraqi government is still a mess and whether it's sustainable in governing successfully is an entirely another matter.
Yes, but that is another matter.
I know, but the success of the surge by itself is only a tiny victory in the overall war........but I will take it as good news, for now. On that we agree.
Tommy,
I thought the goal was to quell the violence, restore security and that simultaneously the Iraqi government would be moving quickly forward politically. Now I imagine that is difficult for them to do since they are all on vacation. I honestly thought the goal was to do both. It seems that they are yet again revising the stated objectives and once again lowering the bar. It's quite confusing when the goals and the measure of success are forever changing. You know I truly wonder how many members of the Iraqi parliament are actually coming back from vacation. They may be using this time to get their affairs in order and get the heck out of the country.The surge is not just the increase in troops.
I already explained this Tommy. Is your reading comprehension suffering because of your delusions?
Yes, the political solution is another matter, but there will never, ever be a military solution without a political solution.
"Ahh but the military success is good news is it not?"Not if you are a Democrat that wants to cut and run.
It certainly seems like good news to a Republican that is comitted to getting as many Americans killed as possible. The warmonger bloodlust is insatiable.
Solon, Why is your constant inflammatory rant about the Republicans lusting for American men and women to die in war, no worse than when Republicans say the Democrats want the terrorists to win?
If you can't see the equivalence in those outrageous and idiotic statements, you'd better re-think it.
LOL.
Genghiz paves the road, but Solon gets all the scorn for following it.
No, Solon says this all the time and it goes unchallenged. That Republicans want to see our citizens die. That is a deplorable thing to say, no matter what your position on this war is. Of course something so ludicrous can't be backed up, but it sounds offensive enough, so Solon repeats it all the time. Pitiful.
Is it not also deplorable to say that Democrats coddle terrorists or want to see the U.S. "lose?"
I believe that is what I said.
I am guessing Solon goes to the opposite extreme to show the absurdity of the right-wing talking points.
That is genrally what he does. When they bring it to him he takes right back to them.
Oh so, Solon is just being inflammatory, like I presumed?
I'll answer your question with another one: Do you think the Republicans who think that Democrats want the U.S. to "lose" or "cut and run" are being inflammatory? I have seen those lines repeated enough on this site to lead me to think otherwise, but I am curious as to your thoughts, Tommy.
The term "cut and run" is used but only to refer to specific Democrats. There are many patriotic Democrats who don't want to cut and run and who sincerely have the interests of the military at heart. Specific criticism shouldn't be generalized when there is absolutely no original intent to do so.
I am sorry if I misinterpreted your comment about success being bad if you are "a Democrat who wants to cut and run." I guess I did not know who you were referring to and thought you were using it in a general sense. Were you referring to Durbin? If so, how long do you think it would take to "cut and run."
What has Durbin done to make you think he does not have the "best interests" of the military in mind? Do you think those Senators who are advocating extending tours and not allowing troops adequate recovery time after a tour have the "best interests" of the soldiers in mind?
And the Characterization of Republicans wanting to get as many Americans killed as possible refers only to specific warmonger Democrats there are sane less sanguinary Repubicans not so bloodthirsty that they lust for the deaths of our fellow countrymen
That should of course be warmonger Republicans
Yes, a parody of inflammatory comments would most likely be inflammatory. So what? Are you arguing against parody as a method for criticize those who make inflammatory comments?
Of course, I don't actually know if Fried's assumption about Solon is correct. However, I think there's a more sensible response you could offer to Fried.
Yes I am returning serve in the same inflamatory manner as the original flamebait. For some reason you dont CARE when rightwingers make outrageous mischaracterizations only when I RETURN them. Grow up
Thank you, it is EXACTLY the point I try to make
Solon,
Glad I read your intent. Let's see if they answer my questions.
I've only been doing this same thing for a couple of years now. Its not like tommy doesnt know exactly what is going on.
Dont be so simpleminded I do it all the time as a specific answer to morons accusing Democrats of wanting to Cut and run or wanting defeat or a similar baseless mischaracterization. YOU of course never care about the original mischaracterization and only snivel about ME answering in kind to the original provocation so heres the thing. YOU dont get to tell me how to post. I will answer such dishonest mischaracterizations with my OWN dishonest mischaracterization because it makes the point THAT IS WHAT BOTH ARE. I dont care one little bit if you like it or not but if you want any credibility then you really ought to apply the same standards to BOTH of the dishonest mischaracterizations. Its always like this with you though. The rightwinger NEVER says anything outrageous only us lefties when we ANSWER in the same tone. Your double standard is pathetic and I dont care what you think
Tommy, you know the rules. If that's Solon's opinion, then it's his opinion, and you can't do anything about it.
Why don't you just ignore him, if you find him so upsetting?
That's unfair. I was commenting on the topic. Additionally, unlike some people that you mention, my posts are not deleted for personal attacks and abuse on threads.
Geng,
Let me ask you two questions: Do you honestly believe that Democrats in this country want to see the U.S. "lose?"
Also, with the amount of troops we have in Iraq, how quickly could America "cut and run," if we chose to do so?
"Do you honestly believe that Democrats in this country want to see the U.S. 'lose?'"Certainly not. Not ALL Democrats but there's the Murtha/Durbin/Edwards element in the Dem. Party that'll stop at nothing to come to political power, even if this is at the expense of the troops. I think Hillary and Dodd can be excluded from the rabid anti-military/pro-Islamic elements of the Democrat Party. "Also, with the amount of troops we have in Iraq, how quickly could America 'cut and run,' if we chose to do so?"Depends on the strategy that is used as part of withdrawal. There's the Hillary plan again that calls for phased withdrawal and a skeleton force and then there's the Edwards/Murtha/Durbin cut and run crowd that'll do anything to please voters at home.A disclaimer - unlike some who accuse me of being a "blood thirsty warmonger," I was ALWAYS against this war in Iraq. It was ill-planned, ill-conceived, and should have never happened. However, now that the troops are there, Iraq is a mess, and AQ is in full force, continued presence is abslutely necessary till Iraq achieves some measure of stability and peace.
ALL Democrats but there's the Murtha/Durbin/Edwards element in the Dem. Party that'll stop at nothing to come to political power, even if this is at the expense of the troops. I think Hillary and Dodd can be excluded from the rabid anti-military/pro-Islamic elements of the Democrat Party.
You're somewhat confused. The Democrats want to save the troops from a situation they should have never been placed in. It's the republicans who are risking the troops lives to save their ego. They don't care one iota about the troops or the situation they're in.
However, now that the troops are there, Iraq is a mess, and AQ is in full force, continued presence is abslutely necessary till Iraq achieves some measure of stability and peace.
The Iraqis should be making these decisions, not us. And AQ is not in full force in Iraq.
"The Democrats want to save the troops from a situation they should have never been placed in."Stop parsing, Loonz. The Democrats voted FOR this war and were as war-crazed as Bush as they imagined not voting for it would cost them the 2004 elections. To claim that the Democrats "want to save troops" is a joke. Honestly though, I do appreciate the humor your post just provided.
The Democrats voted FOR this war and were as war-crazed as Bush as they imagined not voting for it would cost them the 2004 elections.
Only one person made the decision to invade and it wasn't any Democrat. The Democrats were all collectively telling that buffoon in the House to let the inspectors do their job but he pulled the inspectors anyway and commenced the invasion.
>>I think Hillary and Dodd can be excluded from the rabid anti-military/pro-Islamic elements of the Democrat Party. ... then there's the Edwards/Murtha/Durbin cut and run crowd that'll do anything to please voters at home
I suppose you want to be taken seriously, too. Of course if you are for ending the war right away, you must be "pro-Islamic" (whatever the frick that means) and must just want to pander to voters. Of course you offer zero proof that Murtha and Edwards don't really believe in what they say; you just question their motives (always the weakest argument) and name call.
I guess I could get the same stupidity if I listened to Rush LImbaugh.
"Of course you offer zero proof that Murtha and Edwards don't really believe in what they say; you just question their motives (always the weakest argument) and name call."LOL....Edwards voted for this war and turned tail as soon as the public soured on this misadventure. Similarly, Murtha accused the Haditha Marines of the vilest crimes but hasn't apologized to date despite every chage has been thrown out of court. Is this how you measure sincerity in the Democrat Party?
"Similarly, Murtha accused the Haditha Marines of the vilest crimes but hasn't apologized to date despite every chage has been thrown out of court."
If you listened to what he said during that interview, he was blaming the Bush administration's total abuse of the military that facilitated the Haditha incident.
I remember it well, Loonz. Murtha clearly made the case that Haditha was a symptom of a military that's been overextended, backdoor drafted, inadequately rested, underpaid and poorly equipped.
It's still amazing to me that righty talking heads profess to be the real troop supporters when they don't address these issues and instead make these kinds of BS accusations.
Even when one of our troops confronts Rummy about hillbilly armor, he's immediately accused of being in bed with "al Qaeda-loving liberals" instead of using their forum to shed light on the real issue of vehicle armor.
Yes, LOL. Always such a strong argument. You laid down a bunch of red herrings. Edwards voted for the war; that he wants to end it must mean he is insincere. What a strong argument. And Murtha made some comments about Hidartha, which again, you did not quote.
Please show me evidence that Edwards and Murtha are not sincere, and please explain what the heck you mean that they are pro-Islamist.
Similarly, Murtha accused the Haditha Marines of the vilest crimes but hasn't apologized to date despite every chage has been thrown out of court
Quelle suprise! A military court threw out charges of atrocities against it's own. (And, yes, I know they've prosecuted some, but let's be honest: A few token grunts were thrown to the wolves in order to safeguard the brass from being found out for allowing this stuff to continue on a wide scale.) Let's ask the survivors of Hidartha what they think of this.
Haditha.
(Hidartha?!? Must've been having a Herman Hesse flashback.)
Or maybe you were thinking of Cheney.
God you are a liar. Every charge against the Marines charged in Hidatha have been thrown out of court? That was news to me.
Until I fricken looked it.
"Five Marines still face charges in the November 19, 2005, shooting of two dozen unarmed men, women and children in Haditha, which prosecutors say came in retaliation for the death of a beloved comrade, Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, who was cut in half by a roadside bomb."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070809/us_nm/usa_marine_haditha_dc
You have a point there. They can be criticised for voting to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq. I mean I knew Bush was a liar who couldnt be trusted with anything more than a slinky. They shouldnt have believed his BS either.
AQ is in full force
Simplifying al Qaeda in Iraq to AQ is naive. The two are not the same. Understanding their relationship is important to successfully dealing with AQI.
continued presence is abslutely necessary till Iraq achieves some measure of stability and peace
For how long? 3 years? 30? 300? What if that presence - at least at present levels - can never achieve peace?
So, you think that the crowd you mentioned is cheering for defeat? I could not disagree more. If you think that crowd is using the troops, what about Boehner crying on the House floor? What about McCain saying the marketplace is great and that guy saying its just like Indiana. What is the mission?
No one in this administration has defined victory and the Iraqis want us out. Is it not their country?
What do you think of the senators who consistently vote for war, but do not vote to take care of the troops once they get home? Isn't that worse?
No more unfair than your cut and run comment. In fact is was pretty much the polar opposite and therefore exactly the same in this context. A rude and insulting mischaracterization.
When you said "...a Democrat who wants to cut and run", Genghiz, I assume that you were referring to a liberal democrat like Newt Gingrich who said "We're about to enter the seventh year of this phony war...and we're losing."
I agree with the first half of Newt's statement; not the second.
Wow! Now i know who are the 25 percent who thinks Bush is doing a good job. You frickin think we are winning in Iraq?
If by winning you mean American troops are pinned down in the middle of a civil war with no end in sight, yes, the US is winning.
Let's get with it there Cheesewhiz. "Cut and Run" is SOOOO last year.
Good News to the Terrorists?
Is this the recruiting tool the terrorists have been looking for?
...I don't have high hopes for creating Democracy in Iraq at the barrel of a gun.
AA,
I don't think there is anyone with half a brain who doesn't think that the US has the best, most well trained and well equipped military on the planet. I also don't think anyone with half a brain could dispute that there isn't a single Military objective that our troops could not be successful at.
The problem is we are asking them to do things that they cannot do, like, referee a civil war, develop political strategies, impose democracy, build a nation etc, etc.
So yes, I am very thankful that our military can be successful in their mission, I expect nothing less, I am also fully aware that the people in charge of the rest of the mission are the most incompetent and deceitful group ever to govern, therefore the military's success will be wasted.
Not if it's just used as an excuse to drag out this useless war.
Oops, my propaganda filter wasn't working. That's "useless occupation". Sorry.
Our troops have performed as well as possible in the ridiculous situation their Commander put them into. As Rush Limbaugh was so fond of reminding us when Clinton was Commander in Chief, the Army is designed to kill people and break things. Doing either of those functions does not help the situation in Iraq. They are, essentially, being used as a police force...a task for which they were not trained. As Bill Maher pointed out, the "successes" from the surge are equal to a man not beating his wife while the police are standing on the porch. Our conservative scholars here keep harping that we should "take off the gloves" in Iraq. To do what? Air strikes on apartment buildings? Artillery barrages? Against what targets?
Air strikes on apartment buildings? That's Israel's act.
Redking - those buildings contain terrorist arms dumps and training centers that teach Palestinian children and teens how to bomb Israeli (and fellow Palestinian) school, hospitals, and bakeries. Don't let anti-Semitism cloud your objectivity.
Right. And don't let the judgement of every human rights group in the world that has examined the situation, including Human Rights watch, B'Tsleem (based in Israel), The UN Human Rights commission, Amnesty International, and Doctors without Borders, cloud your judgement. So what that all these groups found Israel guilty of "deliberate killing" and "torture?"
Who cares about these facts when you have inflamatory language on your side and simply can accuse the other side of anti-Semitimism.
"Don't let anti-Semitism cloud your objectivity."
That's a BULL**** accusation.
Condemning the security actions of a nation, is not akin to condemning an entire faith.
But on a lighter note, having read many of your previous posts, seeing you profess about objectivity is the absolute epitome of irony.
Genghiz Con is a GOP talking points parrot. If you put all of his posts on this thread together, you can probably come up with a reasonable approximation of a Rush Limbaugh Show transcript.
I notice that Genghiz Con has adopted the position that we never should have gone into Iraq, but now that we're there, we have to finish what we started. I'm hearing this from a lot of Republicans these days.
Okay, if we go with that scenario, then we should at least turn our attention to those who wrongly put us in that situation, don't you agree? Even if we cannot pull out of Iraq, there's no reason that we can't investigate the lies and cherry-picking of intelligence which got us there. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and probably Bush should be in prison for what they've done. Maybe Congressional Democrats deserve some of the blame for caving in to the idiotic post-9/11 jingoism that shut down the brains of the American public, but it was the Bush administration that skewed the evidence and pushed us into it.