Hume: Democrats "often" seem "invested in our losing" in Iraq
SUMMARY: Echoing previous comments by conservative media figures suggesting
that Democrats want the United States to lose the war in Iraq, Fox
News' Brit Hume asserted: "The American people don't like the Iraq war,
they probably never will. But they're not rooting for us to lose; they
don't seem invested in our losing the way the Democrats so often do."
Hume offered no evidence
that
any Democrats
are
"invested in our losing" or "rooting for us to lose" in Iraq.
During the November 18 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, discussing efforts by congressional Democrats to begin the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, Fox News Washington bureau managing editor Brit Hume asserted: "I think there is political peril for them in all of this. The American people don't like the Iraq war, they probably never will. But they're not rooting for us to lose; they don't seem invested in our losing the way the Democrats so often do." Hume continued: "The Democrats are talking about -- the things they say are happening are not and the things they say are not happening are. That's not a good position to be in." Hume offered no evidence that any Democrats are "invested in our losing" or "rooting for us to lose" in Iraq.
Hume's characterization echoes the rhetoric of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-CT) who, in a November 8 speech at Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, claimed: "Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving, or even that progress has enabled us to begin drawing down our troops there."
As Media Matters for America has documented (here, here, and here), other conservative media figures have used similar rhetoric to suggest that Democrats want the United States to lose the war in Iraq. In addition, as Media Matters documented, in August, a number of conservative commentators distorted comments by House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) in an effort to suggest that Democrats want "their country [to] lose a war because otherwise they might lose an election," as Fox News host John Gibson put it.
From a panel discussion featuring Hume, host Chris Wallace, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, National Public Radio (NPR) national political correspondent Mara Liasson, and NPR senior correspondent Juan Williams on the November 18 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID (D-NV) [video clip]: They Army can go until late in February, and that's -- those are very conservative figures. I am confident that if they didn't get another penny they could go for another six months.
WALLACE: That was Senate Majority Leader Reid just before Congress left town for the holidays without approving more money to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And we're back now with Brit, Mara, Charles, and Juan.
So, congressional Democrats are trying again to force the president's hand on Iraq. The House passed but the Senate defeated a $50 billion measure to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but with some strings attached -- linking it to withdrawals of U.S. troops from Iraq. Now, Brit, despite complaints from the Pentagon, the Democrats say they are not going to look at these money bills again until some time next month. When does this actually affect the troops on the front lines, and do you think the Democrats will back off before it does?
HUME: Well, the first question -- the Pentagon makes it sound as if it will happen almost immediately. I don't think there's any doubt that the troops on the front lines will have what they need, but there will be some other disruptions if the Pentagon is to be believed on this, and some of them are serious enough that they could cause even some layoffs of contract personnel and so on. So that's a possibility.
The second thing that needs to be said about this, Chris, is that this whole debate has this aura of unreality about it, at least on the Democratic side, because they keep talking about events in Iraq that do not comport with the reality on the ground over there. You hear it again and again and you hear it in the attitude they have about, you know, they're going to force troop withdrawals -- impervious to the fact that troop withdrawals have already begun. It's happening. That seems to be unknown to them.
And I think there is political peril for them in all of this. The American people don't like the Iraq war, they probably never will. But they're not rooting for us to lose; they don't seem invested in our losing the way the Democrats so often do. The Democrats are talking about -- the things they say are happening are not and the things they say are not happening are. That's not a good position to be in.
WILLIAMS: You're making the case that troop withdrawals are starting now but the troop withdrawals, given that a surge was put in place this year that took the troop levels to a new high. So it's not really much of a withdrawal at all. And what the Democrats are saying is it's time to get this war over with, which is what the America people are saying.
HUME: Well, all that may be so, Juan, but the fact is they seem to be impervious even to what is happening over there. You hear again and again that there's no light at the end of the tunnel, that nothing has changed. Palpably, something has changed very much.
WILLIAMS: Which is the military aspect. But do you believe that politically that we are any further along the way, Brit?
HUME: Oh yeah. Absolutely.
WILLIAMS: Oh yeah. Why's that?
HUME: Well, because, for example, things are happening at ground level and at local levels that no one thought possible, which is one of the reasons why there was so much urgency in the calls for national reconciliation. The feeling was that if you could get national reconciliation, then the people at the lower levels and at the grassroots level, then the country might knock off the insurgency. Well it's happened at the local level, and the insurgency is subsiding dramatically.
WILLIAMS: But there is nothing happening at the local level. In fact, General [Raymond] Odierno said just this week, "You know what, unless we can't get these Shiites who are in power to actually make some progress, to deliver services, to reach some reconciliation, then the surge and all the military progress will be for naught." That's the rationale.
WALLACE: Let me bring something else into this, and that was that there was a story in The Washington Post this week, Mara, in which a number of top military commanders were quoted, including the number two man there, General Odierno, saying they feel now that the biggest threat to the U.S. effort is not Al Qaeda, that they've got Al Qaeda if not on the run certainly on the ropes, but in fact it's the intransigence of the Shiite-led government in Baghdad.
A Strawman and a "real" man...
So, Mr. Hume, are you still cheating on your wife?
Oh, wait, that was true.
Mr Hume. You are a sorry excuse for a reporter....and you know it.
Wow, a well thought out defense.
Tell me this: If Bush turns out to be right and Iraq turns out OK while we get to leave within, let's say, 2 years, who would benefit more politically? The D's or the R's?
If Iraq turns into more chaos and we can't stop it (whether or not we keep troops there), who would benefit more politically? The D's or the R's?
Both sides stand to gain from the war, but I think only one side can. And I think it depends on the outcome. What do you think?
Yeah, I, a Democrat and a soldier, am so invested in losing in Iraq that I did something Brit Hume would never do. I spent a year serving in Iraq.
What a sorry excuse for a journalist.
Were the Republicans "invested in losing" in 1944, or 1952, or 1968? Hume is a disgrace and should apologize. Of course he won't, because only people with an ounce of shame ever apologize for anything, and Hume was clearly born without a conscience, which is required to feel shame. What a worthless little prick.
stuttering jamele90210,
I think the difference is that the republicans supported all those efforts and never did anything to deliberately undermine the war effort?
There was no effort by republicans, unlike present day democrat leaders, to call the French ethnic cleansers during WWII for something that happened during the French-Indian war in the 1700's.
How would you describe the recent efforts of Pelosi to label Turkey as perpetraiting the genocide of people nearly 100 years ago. Now that is really out of the playbook of those really wanting to rally behind the troops!
Proud Conservative, do you not get what Jjamele is saying?
Jjamele's point was that dissent does not equal disloyalty.
He's saying that even Republicans who opposed the policies of Democratic Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson and campaigned against them were still patriotic Americans.
If you think Republicans supported all those efforts, I suggest you start your research by looking up the following key words:
1 -- Bob Dole, 1976, Democrat wars.
2 -- Isolationists, America First, Regnery, McCormick, Lindbergh.
Now, the way the Republicans campaign these days, those Democrats who think US intervention in WW II was necessary would have been perfectly justified in calling Republicans and America Firsters "traitors." Instead, Franklin Roosevelt welcomed them to the war effort and let their previous opposition be a bygone. FDR even appointed Republicans as Secretary of State and Secretary of War.
moon in 7th house, aligned with mars,
Thanks for making my point. Once the WWII started, there was little dissent in the way you see the democrat party acting today. What would happen now if a democrat was appointed to serve in the cabinet? Just look at Liberman as an example of how the democrat party will abandon someone who just a few election cycles ago was their candidate for VP?
This if from the article you asked me to read regardin the America First party:
With the formal declaration of war against Japan following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Committee chose to disband. On December 11 the committee leaders met and voted for dissolution. In the statement they released to the press was the following:
“Our principles were right. Had they been followed, war could have been avoided. No good purpose can now be served by considering what might have been, had our objectives been attained...”
Conservative commentator Pat Buchanan has frequently praised America First and often uses its name as a slogan. "The achievements of that organization are monumental," writes Buchanan, "By keeping America out of World War II until Hitler attacked Stalin in June of 1941, Soviet Russia, not America, bore the brunt of the fighting, bleeding and dying to defeat Nazi Germany."
There is no such thing as a Democrat party ProudMORON, since you are so ignorant you dont even know the NAME of the largest political party in the US its no wonder you are stupid enough to conflate WW2 with the war in Iraq. Germany declared WAR ON US. When did Iraq declare war on us? Oh thats right IT NEVER HAPPENED. Japan attacked us when did Iraq attacked us? If after Pearl Harbor we had invaded Mexico you would have a point. We didnt. You dont. Many you are dumb. Then again what can we expect from someone too stupid to even know the name of the Democratic party?
Of course, "deliberately undermin[ing] the war effort" can only be defined as attempting to hold the Bush Administration accountable for a long chain of horrendously boneheaded decisions that lead to the quagmire that Bush and Cheney themselves predicted.
Does this count?
Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN): “This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem.” [New York Times, 5/4/99]
Or what Sen Trent Lott (R-Miss) said during Bill Clinton's military actions in Kosovo:
"We can support the troops without supporting the President."
the fact is that it was the republicans who opposed helping the allies in europe before we entered ww2. roosevelt passed the "lend lease" program to assist them but it only passed because of large democratic majorities in congress. republicans opposed it.
I think the difference is Republicans are ALWAYS invested in getting as many Americans killed as they possibly can in any war. They LOVE death and seeing Americans DIE. Also Turkey DID commit genocide against the Armenians about a hundred years ago. Its a plain historical fact.
"I think the difference is that the republicans supported all those efforts and never did anything to deliberately undermine the war effort?" PC
And I think the difference is that the liberal leadership didn't act like sleazy Republicans and call their fellow Americans traitors, cowards or defeatists when it suited their scorched earth political agenda.
Face the music. As long as there have been Republicans in America, there have been egg-sucking, peevish brats calling their countrymen disloyal to some imagined ultraconservative uber-patriotic standard.
Republicans are a killing joke. They have vandalized the Constition to the point that the sections that talk about those inalienable human rights and a citizen's right to privacy are barely legible.
They usurp executive power on behalf of the Decider's lust. They rationalize torture. They glorify in war for profit. They worship at the alter of a fundamentalist market that treats people as commodity instead of members of communities.
Republicans scoff at We the People. While We the People want an end to the occupation that's breaking our armed forces, ending marriages and dividing communities the Republicans obstruct the peoples progress. They impede the path to global stability and call We the People who disagree with them traitors.
Shameless prigs. They have maliciously subverted all that is good about our country and remain mystified that We the People reject their blood soaked vision of America.
Hume, Americans are Democrats.
Your DUMB comment is as horrible if a Democrat would say, " The Republans want to spill the blood of our soldiers to win the battle of the oilfields because the oilmen need more money."
Please, the days of the Humes, the Rushs', the Hannitys', etc. are just about over. They think they populace is still under the fear of that MUSHROOM cloud the liars used to scare people. Now, it scares 25% of the people...mainly Master Bush Baiters.
I believe that a moratorium should be placed on this marathon election period until after the holidays...and I'm including the 4th of July.
And Mr. Hume, if your cheated on your wife, shame on you. But we would like details from your little side cheater.
PrinceofWheels, I'm pretty sure that Democrats are Americans too.I've been hearing this more often lately, the framing of sides of an issue as "Democrats"(or "the Left) vs. Americans.
When I hear it, i have to think "that's not even good propaganda, that's underestimating even the most gullible".
And just when I think they've gone too far, somebody posts here to confirm that it worked on them.
"The American people don't like the Iraq war, they probably never will. But they're not rooting for us to lose; they don't seem invested in our losing the way the Democrats so often do."
The American People and Democrats are two mutually exclusive groups.And some of our conservative friends are buying it.And we wonder why they invented that stoopid Godwin's Law.
Excellent point. The whole statement was framed to pit Democrats against "americans."
A group of us Americans/Democrats are standing along the highway every Friday with "out of Iraq" "No Iran" Peace signs, and guess who most often stops to thank us for being out there? Vets.
Hume is no more a reporter than I am. He's a blatant propagandist, along with Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. As well as a hypocrite, but that's not surprising.
Hume often seems invested in the continued deaths of Americans soldiers and Iraqi civilians. You will forgive me if I do not treat this war-mongerer and his dishonest "views" with anything close to respect. Hume deserves no respect. He deserves our scorn and ridicule.
sloptrap,
How do those views differ from what bowelmovement.org said about General Petraeus?
I know no such website. Also, it is spelled, Slothrap. I am sure it was simply carelessness on your part.
Hume deserves no respect. He has repeatedly lied about the war and about those he disagree with. As I said, he seems to be invested in the deaths of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. Hume is anti-American soldier and, I would add, anti-American. It is time someone called him on that.
Slothrop. Carelessness on my part. It must be spreading.
I'm sure he's just messing with you. No doubt he's familiar with all of Pynchon's work.
One doubts that he is familiar with Pynchon's work. I don't take him to be much of a reader. Personally, I very much liked his new book Against the Day.
ProudMoron. Your ignorance is stinking up the site again.
I wonder which of our recurring trolls has returned under the name ProudNeanderthal? Any guesses?
Pride is one of the seven deadly sins...are you betraying your conservative nature? Petraeus lied, allowed himself to be used as a political puppet and was asked a question about Betraying the American public?
Hume betrays us every day by lying and distorting misinformation and then trying to pass it off and fair and balanced reporting.
I would like to see a law added that any media outlet calling itself a news organization would have to LEGALLY report the truth in a truly unbiased manner and would have to FACT CHECK their reports...it does not violate free speech, it just demands a higher standard of free speech for news outlets. If they violate the law, they would then have to rename their programs "entertainment" shows and place a disclaimer repeatedly throughout the broadcast that the information broadcast is opinion, and may not be the truth or factually accurate.
Hell, I would like to see that disclaimer now on Fox shows with Hume, O'Reilly, Hannity, anything with traitor Ollie North, Gibson, Cnn's Lou Dobbs, anthing with Coulter, Savage, Limbaugh et al.
Well I for one just can't wait for us to lose this war. When that finally happens, I'm going to invest heavily into making that day a national holliday. We can have a parade with floats showing images of some of the battles we lost. Then, much like the Christmas parade when the kids go bonkers over Santa, the last float will have an image of George W. Bush looking under his desk for weapon's of mass distruction.
</end sarcasm>
Hume, and the rest of these F**king idiots are simply unbelievable. He said it as though it actually were a fact.
theodorkic of york,
What is your definition of winning or even not losing the war in Iraq?
Oh, that's nice. Hume blasts Democrats, saying that we WANT to lose in Iraq, the same war Bush has already lost. And you ask me to define winning. That's just great. Why don't you play Humes whipping boy and define losing.
How's this: Winning is to bring our troops home ASAP alive. Stop willfully getting them killed for George W. Bush's amusement.
They can't even define what winning in Iraq would be. Why? Because the no bid contracts are a steady source of huge income stolen from others who actually worked to earn it.
Now, quit straying from your IQ level, and go pull your crap on sombody else.
The answer, Mr. ProudlyIdiotic, is that we WON THE WAR and LOST THE OCCUPATION.
Why?
Because this administration loves the chaos of war. In the chaos, they can privatize and corporatize the military, and in such, steal our $$$.
Theodorkic,
Here's one attempt to give a different flavor to your idea of a lost war.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/70990
As far as winning, I would define it as assisting in the creation of a country, that can defend itself from enemies within and without. This country would resemble in some fashion, a representative form of government. Recall that Japan was as extreme country , very far removed from the ideals of a civil society. They mistreated and beheaded captured soldiers, killed non-combatants, mistreated and terrorized civilian populations and honored suicide/homcides as means of obtaining recognition in the afterlife. Thankfully, that war ended before more horrors could have been waged on American soldiers or its own citizens. Within a decade, Japan, through an occupation directed by the military, had been transformed from maniacal population to one a part of the world community. Military victory from combat and political direction given after the fight is won. Sound familiar?
Now that I have explained the effort, militarily and diplomatically to win a war, tell me how the democrat party is not undermining such an effort in Iraq please.
ProudMoron except for your name jape that was a thoughtful post. The problem is DOING what you call victory is NOT something that can be done with the military. Those are POLITICAL objectives. We have NO credibility among the Iraqis who see us as occupiers, for good reason that is what we are, so we cannot HELP with those objectives for as long as we are occupying them. Japan and Germany were a different dynamic. There was a world war. They lost, the accepted that. They werent killing our soldiers wholesale trying to drive us out. There was never any question about us setting up a puppet government. The Japanese and German people were already civilized countries. Their warcrimes arent evidence they werent. Anymore than OURS in Vietnam or Iraq are evidence WE arent. We were helping rebuild Europe and Japan and they could SEE that. There isnt much rebuilding going on in Iraq other than our permanent military bases that do even MORE to keep the Iraqis from trusting us. We have to come home for the things you call victory to happen. Any government that doesnt call for us to leave while 82% of the Iraqis want us gone will be seen as illigitimate. IF we want to accomplish the things you call victory the first step is LEAVING.
"Theodorkic,"--Proud conservative
I think you meant TheRick, or just Rick would be fine. If I personally attacked your screen name, I would understand (and deserve) this childish retaliation.
"As far as winning, I would define it as assisting in the creation of a country, that can defend itself from enemies within and without. This country would resemble in some fashion, a representative form of government."--Proud conservative
Although I agree that this may be the best form of government, I have to ask. Who the hell do we think we are to decide what kind of gov't Iraq should have?
"Now that I have explained the effort, militarily and diplomatically to win a war, tell me how the democrat party is not undermining such an effort in Iraq please."--Proud conservative
You still have failed to mention anything about how the DemocratIC party is heavily invested in the U.S. losing. You failed to show any evidence of how the DemocratIC party is undermining your Iraq quagmire. All Hume did was throw out a dishonest bomb about Democrats, slipping it into the conversation as if it were factual. And, your attack on me asks me to defend myself (and Democrats) against something you've failed to prove.
Please allow me to use Hume's and your logic with this example statement: It's come to light that many right wingers are engaging in sex with underage boys.
Now, please prove this to be false.
ProudMoron learn the meaning of the word satire. You still wont be bright enough to understand it but when you see the word written you MIGHT get that the statement wasnt meant to be taken seriously.
So General Hume, What does constitute 'VICTORY' in Iraq?
The dog-eyed charlatan at FOX NEWS would have US all believe that the DEMS are vested in losing the Iraq war. So by extrapolation if 87% of Americans want this 'Iraqi thingie' to end, THEN a super-majority of Americans must be DEMS. How about all those Independents and any REPUBS defined as those left with half-a brain who are demanding an end to US participation as General William Odom summed up, "The Iraq invasion is 'the WORST foreign Policy Blunder in US History".
But hey, WE all know that FAUX NEWS is permeated with CHICKENHAWKS who have no problemo seeing US Servicemen and women shredded to bits even as they make the lame connection that DEMS want US to lose.
WE have already lost!!!!! How so, For invading a sovereign nation in full defiance of International Law with attendant war crimes which for some reason only enlisted personnel get charged with. This administration has pulled off the heist of the Century with some 470 BILLION dollars and counting with estimates that the eventual costs for this illicit and illegal venture will exceed some 2 TRILLION$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$./
WE are remaking the Mid-East safe for Democracy even as General Musharraf of Pakistan, a staunch US ally claims dictatorial powers because of all those terrorists.
Americans are 'A OK' with their civil liberties being torn asunder even as both parties are in a race to the bottom to see who can be the first to declare that ' that old scrap of paper which has withstood the ravages of wars, depressions, and men of evil intent........struggles to confront what the founding fathers undoubtedly knew would eventually happen......... The emergence of corruptible men and partisan groups ready to unleash the worst in the human heart and mind, claiming for themselves power not CONSTITUTIONALLY granted with the resulting scrapping of liberties fought and died for by our descendants spanning dome 230 years.
One of those crusty old gentleman WHO understood a thing or two about liberty and the human condition stated " Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Benjamin Franklin
Lose the war??????? At the Declaration in the Judgment of the International War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1946 American Chief Prosecutor Justice Robert Jackson enunciated: “To initiate a war of aggression is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
http://www.currentconcerns.ch/index.php?id=61
Lose the War? WE lost the day WE became an aggressor nation. Any continuance of this farce only serves to further cement the illegalities, and violations which have stained our honor AND made once proud men of conscience abrogate their oath of office and sworn and solemn duty to Preserve, Protect and Defend the CONSTITUTION..... against all enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC!!!
NavyGuy, Good piece but feel free to speak your mind.
POW,
Actually, I was restraining my true sentiments.
You should run for pres Navy guy...or at least be on a real cable news network./
I thought I saw a banner that said Mission Accomplished and then I heard our liar in chief proclaim the war over.
Iraq is unwinnable militarily...period.
Outstanding piece Navy Guy!!
LAZ00053
Thank you kindly , I try to call-em as I see 'em!!
1. WHAT would you call 'winning'. Could it be the 'Mission Accomplished' sign?
3. Where is the stable Iraq? Where is the 'democratic' government? Where is Iraq at meeting the benchmarks?
Simple answers:
1. They have no idea what 'winning' means. The military was suppose to remove a dictator which they did along time ago so we have already won the war. They are willing to have more and more Americans and Iraqis die rather than admit they made too many mistakes after removing Saddam. They had no idea what to do with Iraq once Saddam was gone and they STILL don't know. Their advisers were people who's objective was their best interest, not Iraq's.
3 & 4 No serious benchmarks can or will be achieved. There is no 'democratic government' and there never will be. The majority population is more aligned with Iran and they know it.
We have torn apart this country and spent billions of American taxpayer money in the process. We, as Americans are more hated around the world than ever before. This administration are simply made up of weasels trying to get out of office without taking responsibility for the hurrendous mistakes this war has caused. Republicans are leaving Congress not, willing to run again cause they fear being held just as responsible for going along with this failed policy.
FACE FACTS, if the Democratic party had done what Republicans have done to this country over the last 6 years Hume and Republicans would be screaming from the rooftops.
Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Check:
"The American people don't like the Iraq war, they probably never will. But they're not rooting for us to lose; they don't seem invested in our losing the way the Democrats so often do."
"Invested"? Actually, I think that the Democrat Party has pretty much cornered the market.
It's a real 'bull market' for the Dems...
JusticeTravesty,
The Democrats made no investment when they retook Congress. It was a grant from the Bush Administration, in the form of prosecuting a war as stupidly as humanly possible.
TRUTHY, Once again, I am dazzled by your brilliance and truthyness. You are RIGHT as usual. Still wasting your time here? You should have loftier goals such as teaching at the Limbaugh school for lower education. It would be the RIGHT thing to do.
Looking forward to more of your wit and genuine truthyness on whatever misinformation arises from the arses of the RIGHT. I guess you will be here for a long long time.
Since you are too STUPID to even know the NAME of the largest political party in the US, I am not suprised how you cheer cornering the market on the policy of getting as many Americans killed as you possibly can. I mean you are bone ignorant
But what of Liberman's comments?
And there is no denial on Hume's part of the need, the great need, for more political solutions. But how can that happen if we do what the democrat party leaders have made it a priority to do....have the military leave because of de-funding the cost of the war?
I have yet to hear a democrat party leader talk of winning the war on terror, beyond platitudes, so as to not offend the far left who financially support them.
Funny stuff, considering how mind numbingly disingenuous you are. Spare me your dishonest questions. And they are dishonest questions. You index that quite obviously.
"I have yet to hear a democrat party leader talk of winning the war on terror, beyond platitudes"
Funny how this statement also applies to republican party leaders. Why end the "war on terror" when it's been such a $$$ windfall for all their cronies.
PC obviously thinks it's oakie dokey to have our brave service people killed for Bush and Cheney's business deal. A real patriot, that one. He must have stock invested in some oil futures.
I'm not a Democrat, but I have to admit, when my broker was suggesting putting everything into KellogBrownRoot and Blackwater, I insisted on "Amalgamated White Flags" stock and "Go, Vague Imaginary Evildoer Enemies!" bumper stickers.
It's just embarrassing that BS like this doesn't even wake up all Americans to what is wrong with our media.Can 28% of our fellow Americans really be that thick?
"... But how can [political solutions] happen if we ....have the military leave?"
That's like asking how you can deal with getting sober when there's no more booze in the house.
If the Democratic Party wants us to lose the war, then I guess we can assume that the Republic Party wants:
1) more casualties.
2) to throw tax dollars down a rat hole (Don't we still need to fix New Orleans? Why does the Republic Party hate America?)
3) everyone to wear a US flag lapel pin or your choice of water-boarding or 6 months in jail, forced to listen the best of GWB.
4) to invade (insert country here) because it poses a threat to our national security.
You get the idea (then again maybe not). Humes comments are pulled straight from his rear-end and are intended to inflame rather than inform...you expected journalism?
Fixed News idea of "analysis" is always good for a chuckle.Just for your reference, it is the Democratic party. You and your fellow bloviators sound like idiots when you call it the "democrat" party. Please get it right.
That is the tell that they are being dishonest.
Could it be because terror is a tactic, not a government, party, or entity which can be defeated militarily?
By being an aggressor nation in a part of the world considered a powder-keg can never be an answer. Especially when the invaded country is a secular country ruled by a strongman who was able to stay in power due to support from our government in the 1980s.
Iraq is no longer a war, but an occupation. We will never be defeated militarily. We will also never win an occupation against a people, who although they hate their own leaders, hate occupiers even more.
A majority of the population in Iraq feels that it's right for Iraqi's to fight and kill Americans.
Even if it were a small percentage against us, it could drag on for decades. Our military isn't prepared to stay that long.
Are you?
If so, when will you and yours be shipping out?
ProudMoron, since you are so STUPID you dont even know the name of the largest political party in America I cant take anything you post seriously.
You want to win the war on terror? Here's how. Capture Bin Laden and destroy all of the training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Round up the taliban leaders and put them in prison. Get out of Iraq and stop their recruiting tool. Divulge ourselves of oil period so at least we are not funding out enemies.
Invest in our infrastructure here in this country and in our children's education, particularly math and science. Cut off all aid to Saudi Arabia until they dismantle their madrassas, stop imprisoning and lashing women who were raped and to start correcting their human rights abuses.
Begin the diplomatic process with countries like Syria and yes even Iran and Indonesia and Malaysia (we have relations with these countries but they are strained).
Stop allowing dictators to operate and oppress their people with our tacit support and approval..like Mushareff, the warlords in Afghan. whose illicit drug sales also fund their activities..pick a number. Remove the threat we pose to the world with our new agressor tactics.
Send a message to the world that if you do attack us, our people or our posessions we wil hunt you down and bring you to justice and then if it happens, we actually carry through on the threat.
Charge those guilty of war crimes from our own country, this would include Haliburton, Cheny, Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Blackwater, tommy franks etc etc etc. This will show the world that we mean what we say and we do not talk out of both sides of our mouth - in your case it's your arse - but i digress.
Expand intelligence sharing with friendly nations of Europe, Asia and go after the homegrown terrorists in their countires and in ours. But do it legally, without breaking the rule of law and without shredding our constitution.
The only thing we have to fear are those who are telling us we need to be afraid. You will never truly beat back terrorism, and threats of death or jail will never truly deter those intent on delivering death, but we do not need to cower in fear, bankrupt our morals and our country's treasury in the interim.
Oh and we can win if we all Wake the F*&^ up to what this administration is trying to pull on we the people.
My GOD your ignorance is palpable. Still too stupid to even know the NAME of the largest political party in America I see. Everything that can be achieved militarily is done. Iraq has to fix its OWN political problems and we dont have the credibility with them to help with that while we are occupying them. The DemocratIC leaders understand this. The ReNAMBLAcans are so fixated on their agenda of getting as many Americans killed as they possibly can they cant see anything else. Its all about getting Americans KILLED for the ReNAMBLAcans.
Oh! Ok....I guess we just won't take into account when Clyburn said that progress in Iraq would be bad for the Dems. You're right that doesn't sound at all like the dems are invested in defeat. Not to mention that anytime a dem comes out in support of the war or to point out that violence is down and that the iraqi people have begun to turn against the insurgents they are ostricized by the party and even a target for removal (see, Lieberman, Joe). Clearly dems are all for victory....JFK would be proud
---" even a target for removal (see, Lieberman, Joe)"----
Lieberman LOST a Democratic primary and subsequently *QUIT* the party. He wasn't "targeted for removal".
Your assertion about Clyburn is old tired propaganda about a taken out of context quotation. We have been over it many times. When will you wingnuts GET that Americans are tired of your LUST for getting as many Americans killed as possible. Also Lieberman lost not just because he supported a war that most of the Democrats in Conneticutt oppose, in the same way most AMERICANS oppose it, but also he felt in necessary to INSULT that majority who opposed the war. Lieberman has no RIGHT or expectation for people to vote for him. If the people of Conneticutt decided to vote for someone else because they didnt like the color of his TIE what business is it of yours? Why do you hate democracy?
And all the time, Brit Hume seems invested in lies and propaganda.
How is hume lying by taking Clyburn's words at face value?
Try clicking on the links in the item. Clyburn also said:"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."
How about taking that at face value as well?
Wow, double speak from a politician....that must be the first time that's ever happened. Have you watched any of the dem debates? How many sides has hillary taken on the illegal immigrant license issue? Clyburn slipped and said what is in the hearts of the majority of the "party before victory" dems. I guess in the name of fairness I'll take both of his comments as his true feelings, so while none of the dems want defeat they clearly understand that it's good fro their party, in other words they are invested in it.
Wow, that kind of idiotic "logic" would be funny if it were not for the fact that people are dying because of the propaganda and lies that right wing nut jobs have been spewing.
I could care less what is in Hume's heart (blood, muscle). What I do care about is the fact that his rhetoric is profoundly anti-American and anti-American soldier. That through his rhetoric he seems invested in the continued deaths of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. His heart? Who cares what is in his heart. I don't need metaphors and idiotic logic, nor do I need naive views of human agency and intention. What I prefer is to call war-mongerers on their war-mongering. To call them on their disdain for human life and human decency. Hume fits that bill by his words.
"I guess in the name of fairness I'll take both of his comments as his true feelings, so while none of the dems want defeat they clearly understand that it's good fro their party, in other words they are invested in it."
Then so what? You're not placing any fault here, you realize. Bush wanted this war, he got it, that was a political risk on his part. It's a situation of the administration's design alone.
It's as if your brother was seriously ill, and you realize that if he dies you stand to gain a much larger inheritance in the future. You don't want him to die, but somehow there's something wrong with the very understanding of the monetary situation.
Similarly, the crux of your "invested" criticism is that Dems understand the political situation at hand. What a damning declaration you have made there!
----"none of the dems want defeat they clearly understand that it's good fro their party, in other words they are invested in it."----
Same as fire fighters. None of them want fires, but they clearly understand that fires are good for their livelihoods, so in other words they are invested in fires.
In the same regard, as 9/11 gave Rudy Giuliani the reputation he now enjoys, he must be very grateful for the events of that day that have made him "America's Mayor".
Taking it out of context you moronically think you have a gotcha he made it clear what he was talking about we have already been over this. You guys are just SO maniacally focused on getting as many Americans killed as you possibly can that you cant think straight
Sebastion, I suggest that you read slowly and carefully the comments that have preceded yours. Navy guy and Pearline laid it out. We're not playing a game here. If you are, perhaps you should spend some time visiting wounded veterans.
-----HUME: "Well, because, for example, things are happening at ground level and at local levels that no one thought possible"-----
Hume is so rite. As the flight-suited Bush said so presciently back in 2003, 'Major combat operations have ended'. And those operations are ending yet even more majorly now than ever thought possible.
Here's the thing that should be a topic on the talk shows but won't be...Even if the claims of "progress" in Iraq are accurate, it does not excuse the absolute boneheadedness of the previous 5 years. It's like slapping a drunk driver on the back when he gets his car towed out of the ditch that he drove it into.
That's exactly right. My issue with this is that it's poor policy whether it eventually calms down or not. The legality is sketchy at best, and the effectiveness is highly questionable. If there are no consequences then we have no reason not to do it again and again.
Exactly. The recent claims of "success" in Iraq lead me to believe that their revised (yet again) goal is a forcefully pacified, displaced and fractured Iraqi populace. And this is better for them than Saddam's Iraq because......what.....they got to hold pretend elections?
Imagine the wringing of hands and the outcry from the Conservative Flying Monkey Liars if Brian Williams or Tom Brokaw said something like, "Bush lied to get us into Iraq" or "Dick Cheney is really running the country" or "invading Iraq was a monumental blunder".
Exactly. Now I don't agree with the timing or bias of his comments, but when Kanye West angrily called our president out saying, "Bush don't like black folks" the white media just about went into an epilieptic seizure. Limbaugh and the rest of the conservative "care bears" make those comments seem like a compliment and yet they are continually allowed to spin the news as they see fit.
The American people don't like the Iraq war, they probably never will. But they're not rooting for us to lose; they don't seem invested in our losing the way the Democrats so often do.
Talk about teeing it up and hittin' it long. Heck that even qualifies for a hole-in-one. Sorry Media Matters but complaining about the reporting isn't going to change the truth. Liberman may be listed as an Indipendant but is definately still a Democrat - an embarassed one at that.
"Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving, or even that progress has enabled us to begin drawing down our troops there."
Yeah, sure, WD40...I can also imagine people in the White House high-fiving each other as the Twin Towers collapsed. "Finally", they chortled, "we can invade Iraq and steal their oil! Break out the champagne!"
You doubt it?
It was ignorant, insulting propaganda. If that is what you consider hitting it long you are a disgrace. Democrats ARE Americans just because they ARENT invested in getting as many Americans killed as possible doesnt mean they dont have the countries best interests at heart. And NO Liebarman is NOT a Democrat. You cannot BE a Democratic member of Congress when you LOSE the Democratic primary. He LOST his right to call himself a Democrat when he LOST the primary. That is simple.
Exactly!
Not to mention that the Republican candidate for Senator in Connecticut received no backing from his own party. The Republican party worked to see that the Independent, Lieberman won the election.
---"Liberman may be listed as an Indipendant"---
There is no "may be" about it. He IS listed that way. Lieberman QUIT the Democratic Party to form his own party, Connecticut for Lieberman.
Lieberman is still SO much of a liberal that he got support from that arch Democrat, Newt Gingrich.
Lieberman QUIT the Democratic Party to form his own party, Connecticut for Lieberman.
I had an idea for a political ad. Joe Lieberman walks into a restaurant wearing a T-shirt that reads, "Connecticut for Lieberman."
The greeter says, "Party of one, sir?"
To all respondents above - nice try but no substance. Democrats are indeed Americans too which is why it is so puzzling why they speak the way they do. Remember from a few weeks ago - Good news in Iraq = Bad news for Dems? And like it or not - Liberman is indeed still a Democrat but because he has openly gone off the anit-war reservation you guys throw him overboard.
Why don't you stop complaining here and start talking to your Democrat congress presons. If they are not so "invested in defeat" tell them to stop speaking and voting like they do.
It's 'democratic', you dummy.
Puzzling? You find dissent and alternative views to be 'puzzling'? Oh, I get it. You want everyone to just blindly rally behind the President and his bulls**t policies, right? No questions whatsoever.
Dissent is OK. This is not dissent - this is lunacy from the left..
STARK: They sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where you gonna get that money? You gonna tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war or children, but you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we could get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement
It is 'lunacy' according to YOU and YOUR way of thinking ONLY. Some of us see it differently - THAT is 'dissent'.
I happen to agree with Pete Stark's assessment. Now you can attach any label you wish but that doesn't change anything. It will not 'shame' me into 'modifying' my thinking to suit what YOU want.
YOU might think that Pete Stark was 'disrespectful' to the President but, seriously, who really gives a damn anyway - aside from those 20%ers?
I certainly do not.
No need to try and shame you into anything - you have done that on your own!
At least I can think for myself... apparently unlike you. At least there is no shame in being an independent thinker. I'd rather be that way than be just another 'joe' who blindly follows the pack.
To say there must be no criticism of the President that we must support him right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile but morally treasonable to the American public. I say you should STOP being unpatriotic servile and morally treasonous.
After perusing many comments here, I have not noticed anyone remarking that Hume's comments were meant for the Democratic Party leaders in Congress and the Democratic Party Presidential Candidates.
Wasn't there a thread a few days ago that said the Dems have tried 40 times with various proposals to end the war and their efforts had failed 40 times. (The big misinformation was that one out of 39 did pass.. but was vetoed by Bush.)
I think Hume could have qualified his words to be more specific, so many of you have a good point. However it has been clear that many Democratic Party leaders have staked out a claim that the war was lost so keeping troops there was not productive. Many of the candidates have also made that claim that they should be President because they will "bring the troops home".
The unspoken corollary to that pledge is the likelyhood of civil war, possible invasion by Iran and/or Turkey, or anti-American factions gaining control of the country. I may have missed it, but I never see anyone but Lieberman, talk about the downside to withdrawing.
It is hard arguing that the scenario I described won't happen, given the circumstances. The Republicans make the most out of this by stating the obvious.
I know it makes many here upset to hear that, but the Democratic Party leaders seem to have put the party in that position. People here can rail against this, but it does not change the reality that removing the troops before stability has returned to Iraq will virtually assure the defeat of the government and the U.S. in Iraq.
I take it you don't understand that there will NEVER be a MILITARY solution in Iraq? NEVER.
Our troops could be there for a HUNDRED years and it would still be the same old s**t each day, each, week, each month, and each year. Perhaps THAT is what you want. What are YOU getting out of this 'war without end'? Are you invested in this financially perhaps?
No. I'm not invested financially in Iraq.
I am not sure what you mean by there will never be a military solution in Iraq.
I realize there needs to be a political solution as well as a military solution. Our disagreement might be that I believe by maintaining a strong military presence and helping the Iraqis defeat the the terrorism and sectarian violence the Iraqi's will be able to work toward a political solution.
Many on the right have noted the change in emphasis by the Democratic Party leaders to the argument you have presented. Up to recently, (my paraphrasing,) it has been "we can't win militarily". Now it is "there will never be a political solution." So, to many on the right (including Hume,) it looks like the Democrats keep investing themselves in defeat by making the first argument and now the second one.
The only political solution there can be will have to come from the Iraqis themselves. We cannot do it for them - just like we cannot expect a military solution to this either.
Either way... lose-lose for the US. Don't like it? Too bad... we will never 'win' in Iraq despite what the armchair-grabbing 'rah-rah' squad belts out each and every day. TAKE NOTE that my assessment does NOT mean I WANT the US to lose... something for you to understand before you launch the worn-out 'you hate America and the troops' trash.
I deal in reality and the reality is that we will NEVER win in Iraq. Period.
Your defeatist attitude is exactly what Hume was referring in the topic line of this thread.
Nope. Wrong word. Not 'defeatist'.
Realist.
And your HIVEMING BRAINWASHED talking points are exactly what WE are talking about.
I'm not sure if you're just a troll or just too conservative to realize other people with differing views live on this planet. No matter, you're blind. You speak of this war as if it's still winable. I don't care if I'm called a dissenter, or unamerican by the likes of you conservatives. In my circle of friends we call your kind unamerican. It is unamerican to go to war on a false premise of weapons that are not there. It is unamerican to send troops to fight in a neverending quagmire. It is unamerican to to keep a nation in a hysteria with the terror alert continually raised for about four years. It is unamerican to pay privatized employees more money than our soldiers laying their lives on the line. Finally troll, it is unamerican to call someone else unamerican for having a differing opinion when a differing opinion is what the founding fathers encouraged.
August Heat,
I'm not sure if your comment is directed at me or someone else. However you bring up some interesting points. Feel free to ignore my reply if you like.
I think we both accept that there are people with differening views on this planet. Many take the time to express their views here. I don't see your point.
As far as blindness goes, to simply label anyone who views the outcome of the war in Iraq other than failure as blind, really does not advance your position. We may disagree, but that does not mean we are blind.
You said, "I don't care if I'm called a dissenter, or unamerican by the likes of you conservatives."
Ok. I'm not sure where that is coming from. Did someone call you either a dissenter or unamerican? However, as long as you are ok with it, so am I. :-)
Having said you don't care, you in turn remark that supporters of the administration's position on the war are unamerican. Fine by me. It is your opinion.One last reflection on your note. My guess is that you have a misunderstanding of the word "troll". It seems to me that your first comment was not genuine regarding whomever you are refering to as either a "troll" or "too conservative". Your condescension in the end by calling the poster a troll makes it clear that you believed it all along.
One can disagree without being a troll. I hope we can agree on that.
ps. One sentence of mine looks on my browser to be in very small font. I don't know why that occurred.
For those to blind to see the small print, ere is what I wrote as the sixth paragraph:
"Having said you don't care, you in turn remark that supporters of the administration's position on the war are unamerican. Fine by me. it is your opinion."
"you guys throw [Lieberman] overboard.'
It really doesn't matter how many times you tell the wingnut that Lieberman wasn't kicked-out but quit the party, or how many facts or links you give them to support the fact that he's not a Democrat.
Once Limbaugh, Hannity & Co. tell them something, they are like carrier pigeons.
The above moron, WC4ME, is only just another exhibit --# 2,349-- in the ongoing wingnut pantheon of hiveminders.
The rightwing WORSHIPS power so to them its inconcievable that voters think someone NEW ought to represent them. They seem to think voters are OBLIGATED to vote for whomever is in power. That obligation exists only in thier simplistic minds. Lieberman not only supported the war most of them opposed he felt he ought to insult those who opposed it. He got what happens to politicians who attack their base.
I support the mission but not the troops.
Seems to me the Publicans are for dragging out his war until the Democrats take over, so any loss can be blamed on them.
Did bush ever find a WMD behind the ottoman?
Hume could really write a doctoral dissertation on the subject of "The Investment in Our Losing in Iraq", an investment measured in trillions of dollars and decades upon decades--approaching 2 million Iraqis and tens of thousands of American lives, an ecological meltdown put on hold by GM's pulling the EV rechargeable car production with their usual lead-pipe-synch chicanery.
Sure it's a huge investment on astronomical plundering of everything. And we know where the Democrats stand. Hume has only eaten his shirt before the television audience, as talking heads are programmed to routinely.
..you don't need salt or pepper when you're an unconscious media fuseplug going through the yiddah-yaddah endless motions.
It is so large an investment it has branched out into the multimarketing of domestic terrorisms like 9-11, and the turning of a political front into an insurgent menace: Civil War in America the way Big Business likes it and needs it to intimidate and punish with frequent reprisals--an investment in making war on Americans at home in order to condition fearful silence, political obedience from Democrats, and complicity on Capitol Hill in our ruin.
Here's how the Trotskys of a previous generation viewed military victory....by declaring defeat of an occupation of Germany, before it was started!!
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol12/no01/jeffers.htm
Now compare this to today's news and see how the trotskys in today's democrat party look at victory...
http://www.newsweek.com/id/70990
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/npcremarks.html
ProudConservative,
You might consider changing your 'pen name' PAL since it is obvious that you don't have a clue what 'CONSERVATISM truly denotes. Your inane attempt to label the Democratic response to this debacle we call the Iraq War as reminiscent of TROTSKY -like responses is so vacuous that perhaps an education of 'Who are the Trotskyites of today is warranted.
So PC , Are you ready? The Neoconservative faction who inhabit the Bush White House consisting of senior policy makers from such NeoConservative Think Tanks, (Now there's an oxymoron for ya) such as the American Enterprise Institute, The Endowment for Democracy, The Heritage Foundation, PNAC and a host of other alphabet -soup acronyms are all' Neoconservative'.
Many of them had their political beginnings in the office of former Washington state Democratic Senator Henry 'Scoop' Jackson and were Leftist idealogues who migrated to the Right wing of the Republican party during the Reagan Presidency. Richard Pearle, Paul Wolfowitz. Elliot Abrams, Douglas Feith et al comprise this core of leftist revolutionaries, many of which were involved in the Iran-Contra Treason. Colin Powell referred to them as the crazies in the basement. Former President George Walker Bush ignored their advice in Gulf War 1. Yes, They wanted to remove Saddam way back then but Bush SR realized that such an action would bog us down in an internecine, tribal war and a meatgrinder to boot....... Sound familar??
These Neoconservative chameleons believe in advancing US power with the threat of overwhelming military force without any regard to the international consequences simply because we can.They use such terms as World-Wide Democratic Revolution, Creative Destructionism, all from the Playbook of Soviet Comrade 'Leon Trotsky'.
This is also evidenced by their adherence to Leo Strauss, Political Science Professor at the University of Chicago who taught that Political Regimes are forced to 'LIE' since the masses are less than worthy to handle the truth. Elites like the Philosopher-Kings of Plato's Republic ought to rule since they are 'Enlightened'. Irving Kristol, Father of William Kristol, and Norman Podhoretz all figure here.
DEMS as Trotskyites. Wow, What a hoot!! The Bush Foreign Policy team , all Neoconservative -Trotskyites handed former Secretary of State , Colin Powell his head since he challenged these cretins..... Evidently, there's strength in numbers,, Payback is a bitch.
Please respond.... I'd liked to see the SPIN on your reply!!!!
army gal,
Wow, that was the best misinterpretation of a wikpedia column that I have ever witnessed! Bravo!
Where can I begin....First off, did you read the site I linked to about trotsky and marxism? If you had, you may have avoided a terrible case of typewriter's cramp.
Secondly, 'Scoop' Jackson was a democrat, not a left wing radical as they are defined of today. Back then a democrat and the democratic party was anti-communist in its dna. Now the democrat party is, shall we say, less hostile to socialistic tendencies???
Thirdly, Trotsky, was a Marist. He and Lenin established the USSR to create the front lines of a permanent revolution of the proletariat against the evil forces of the bourgeois and capitalism. The workers must control the means of production and land, not only in the USSR but also anywhere capitalism existed. In fact, Trotsky hated the idea of a staggered revolution where temporarily capitalism would co-exist with socialism. He wanted to 'avoid the middleman' in so many ways and jump right to a pure socialist state. To have successful capitalist countries around just gave the workers ideas about having acceptable lifestyles themselves. Those pesky individual rights needed to go into the toilet as well, we couldn't have them expressing themselves freely or be exposed to a free and unobstructed press. Because those workers didn't have the intellectual capabilty of understanding by themselves, an elite group of leaders would really control things the correct way. Sound familiar. I refer, sometimes anyway, to the democrat party as trotskys because of the above. I think much of the platform for the democrat party recently, expouses much of what trotsky, lenin and marx would relish as well.
As far as the 'neocon' label, it is a nice way of attempting to minimize conservatism's ideals, less government, lower taxes, individual freedoms and rights, individual responsibility, etc., because those are anathema to what today's democrat party holds dear. Neocons were a part of the reaction to the revolution of the 60's political swing to the left of america. They indeed did bring people like Jackson and Goldwater and those that followed into the conservative fold. However, when you look at the comments of many when googling neocon, alot of words like zionists, jews, and Israel are discussed heavily in those sights. Alot of conspiracy theorists out their whose feelings about neocon seems a bit anti-sementic.
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/180903neocons.html
Maybe you could respond to clear that up for me.
So this goes back to the orignial question, how are democrats able to celebrate anything positive about the war in Iraq? How are they shouting from the mountaintops about the information in the newsweek article I provided the link for above or the news in today's ny times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/world/middleeast/20surge.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Please respond.... I'd liked to see the SPIN in your reply!!!!
I rest my case. You must be halfway to China by now. Spare me the tripe about anti-semitic inferences.......... It doesn't work in the real world.
Since you are a Google Meister, here's one for ya.
Google, 'Paul Craig Roberts' former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration
Here's a freebie
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts10152004.html
So army gal....You're one of those who believe that 9/11 was an inside job?
So ProudMoron do you even KNOW what you believe before the hivemind master tells you what it is?
army gal,
It would also be appreciated that you show me where the democrat party could respond appropriately to any good news from Iraq.....
Unless of course you have important information on where those people are hidden that didn't die when they hit the pentagon.
PC,
Get a grip,
See a therapist, talk to a friend OR just realize that reality is transparent. All you got to do is look for it, that is if you got the inquisitiveness, tenacity and courage to face it....... WHICH I doubt you have since it appears a fantasy world is more attune to your perspective.
Go back to reading Harry Potter!!!!!
Since you are so IGNORANT you dont even know the name of the largest political party in the US. Why would I bother to take any analysis you make seriously? Analysis is a higher brain function. You are obviously too stupid to accomplish it so your analysis is worthless.
Democrats are invested in our losing in Iraq. And you know it. You can deny, deny, deny all you want. With an election coming up, the Democrats are hoping for the worst news possible from Iraq so that they can benefit politically.
What I know is the Republicans are invested in getting as many Americans killed as they possibly can and EVERYONE knows it. You guys LOVE to see Americans killed. Its party time at hotwings house when Americans are DYING. You guys are invested in waiting till the grownups end this debacle then you can start saying SEE? We were just about to win in Iraq, in just one more week all the insurrgents were going to lay down their weapons and start building McDonalds and KFCs. You are so ignorant its sad.
If Bush turns out to be right and Iraq turns out OK while we get to leave within, let's say, 2 years, who would benefit more politically? The D's or the R's?
If Iraq turns into more chaos and we can't stop it (whether or not we keep troops there), who would benefit more politically? The D's or the R's?
Both sides stand to gain from the war, but I think only one side. And I think it depends on the outcome. What do you think?
The whole quandry is a bit incoherent but let me try. First of all IF, doesnt mean very much there just isnt any evidence whatsoever Bush has been right about ANYTHING concerning Iraq. I mean IF the Sun goes supernova none of it will matter right? So lets talk about the tangibles. Not what IF. Everything that the military can accomplish is accomplished. There is no way to WIN occupations when the occupied want you gone. The Iraqis want us gone. Until we leave no Iraqi government will be taken seriously. All the problems left are political problems. We cannot help them solve them for as long as we are seen as occupiers and they are suspicious of our motives. Its time to leave Iraq so the Iraqis can solve their own problems which they wont be able to solve while we are there.
OK, I'll assume you concede my point that a bad outcome of the war benefits Democrats politically.
Let me try to make a few things clear. I am not a supporter of all that we are trying to do in Iraq. I don't think we should force a democracy on another country in most cases. Democracy is not necessarily a good government as it depends largely on the citizens knowing what is good for the country. Example: the Palestinian Democracy elected a terrorist group that wants to kill Jews.
I do not think, however, that pulling troops out of Iraq is going to make everyone love us and leave us alone. Can you tell me what it is that you think will be accomplished by pulling the troops out immediately, as the fringe left and Ron Paul want to do?
You can assume anything you want. I am NOT conceding ANYTHING. A bad outcome of the war is BAD for Republicans. THAT is good politically for Dems. What you ALWAYS seem to miss is that things arent that simple. If I rob a bank that might be good for me financially and have devastating negative effects overall. Also if the rightwing gets to push an ignorant narrative about Dems losing the war when we withdraw it COULD end up being BAD for Dems. I mean you are STILl repeating the STUPID, unsupported by reality meme, that we were just about to win in Vietnam. Its just dumb but it serves a propaganda purpose that can be used against Dems. Anyway you look at it this is all irrelevant. You want to change the argument from REALITY to superficial tactical gain and loss. It is a worthless discussion for anything practical, that is other than demonization. What will be accomplished when we leave I have already told you more than once. It will allow the Iraqis to solve their political problems. Problems they cannot begin to solve as long as we occupy them. No government will be seen by the Iraqi people as legitimate, all their decisions will be suspect to the Iraqi people, until we leave. The perception will always be that the governments are puppet regimes. IF they pass a privitization oil bill the people will see that as Baghdad doing Bush's bidding which is why they STILL havent passed one. They are NOT in any way soveriegn yet. The President of Iraq called for Blackwater to leave Iraq and Bush told him to piss off. That gave the Iraqi people one more reason to believe the Baghdad government is illigitimate.
You haven't been paying attention. Bush and Cheney have a business deal going. They want the Iraqis to sign a hydrocarbon law that lets international companies come in and divvy up their oil. We are getting our kids killed for a business deal. They want to stay to steal the oil. It seems to me it would have been cheaper to pay for the oil than this war. But there are war profiteers galore, all Republican cronies. They are already getting all of your tax dollars to line their pockets. You are just such a sucker. I guess you enjoy making ultra rich people even richer and ruining our country in the meantime. All of you who support this war need to start getting a real clue. You are the most treasonous bunch of reprobates I have ever had the disgust to come across. Oh and wait for the bill from China to come due. Good times!
Sure it would be cheaper for US to just pay for the oil but THAT doesnt put any rubles in Exxon or Mobiles pockets.
You make an excellent point, Solon. Why if you're going to do war profiteering correctly, you must do just what Bush/Cheney have done. Creat chaos and steal them blind. Throw taxpayer money down a hole and tell us it's for our own good. Then denigrate anyone who dares call this fiasco for what it is.