Are Democrats not doing enough to end our involvement in Iraq?

[ProfJohn]

From a Robert Novak piece

The powerful left wing of the House Democratic Caucus is unhappy with Speaker Nancy Pelosi for being too attentive to a handful of moderate members, especially those elected last year from normally Republican districts.

Protesting liberals grumble Pelosi has been too cautious setting policy during six months in the majority, especially regarding the Iraq war. The response is that Democrats will revert to minority status in the House if they stray too far to the left.

A footnote: Some liberal Democratic House members returned after the Memorial Day recess to tell colleagues how they were assailed by normally staunch supporters during town meetings, complaining not nearly enough had been done to end the Iraq intervention.

What exactly do these left wing members want Pelosi to do?
They don?t have the votes to bring us home or cut off the funding, they don?t even have the votes to put in any kind of dead line.
So what will make them happy?

Obviously the only thing that will make them happy is an end to the war, the one thing they can not have.
I can understand the desire to end the war, but these people need to deal with reality.

 

[DaveSimmons]

The reality is that 100+ more American soldiers will die every month until The Decider faces the truth of his failure.

Edit: or until the Republican party decides to care more for American lives than politics and faces the truth for him.

Sadly the odds of either happening are even lower than the Iraqis "standing up so we can stand down."

 

[tomywishbone]

Q: "Are Democrats not doing enough to end our involvement."

A: Enough?. They're doing nothing. They know where the gravy train comes from, and they don't dare lose those ultimate civil service jobs. They're more than happy, to let the peasants die in Iraq, under the guise of "The War on Terror."

bushler and his gang, are laughing harder than ever at all those dead people.

 

[Lemon law]

The reality of the is that the democrats are divided on what to do with Iraq---and the democratic leadership must also pay attention to the concerns of more pragmatic members
on the democratic and republican side that realize that simply cutting and running from Iraq can cause the entire mid-east and a larger world all kinds of instability that will likely prove even more of a disaster than the disaster we now have in Iraq. The other thing to point out is that any responsible leadership must count noses---and even if they feel their plan is correct---its an exercise in futility to push a plan that certainly can't muster 50% support.

The forum trolling aspect of the OP, non Prof John, is to somehow imply that if the democrats can't decide then GWB&co. and their policies are correct. In a better world, the democrats and republicans would be exploring the diplomatic and political solutions that have a chance of solving Iraq now that we know that any military solution to Iraq is beyond even the powers of the USA. And truth be told, its going to take a long term bi-partisan commitment to make any workable plan bear fruit.---and the other truth be told is that the mini-surge plan can't work--and we already have a bi-partisan blueprint from Baker Hamilton GWB&co. refuses to work with.

And truth be told, because our constitutional form of government invest the power of diplomacy with the executive, the failure of GWB&co. to explore diplomatic and political solutions to Iraq means that neither democrats or republicans can come up with any realistic Iraqi plan anyone can agree on. But its a total logical deflection to just blame democratic leadership.---when we need the national bi-partisan consensus GWB&co. prevents.

We all watched from the sidelines as GWB&co screwed the pooch---and now the pooch is pregnant with pit bulls---and now through the magic of political spin---the OP wants to blame just the democrats for not preventing the consequences of the resulting pregnancy. Vintage non-Prof John again.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nice framing from one of the best rightwing shills in the business, Robert Novak. "Normally Republican districts" is the key to his argument, such as it is. His party has simply enjoyed a slight majority of the vote in those districts since 1994- viewed in a longer historical context, that's not "normal", at all...

I'm not particularly happy with the way Dems are currently handling the situation, but I think tommywishbone's characterization is a capitulation to the whole "they're just as bad" song and dance from the likes of Novak.

Unfortunately, it's the kind of thing where it has to be left on the stove to cook awhile longer. Not that the whole stinking mess will become any more palatable over time, but there are too many who cling to the notion that it might to be able to toss it out at the present time.

Every day that the occupation continues to founder is another day where domestic opposition grows against it. Dems just need the patience to let that proceed to an obvious tipping point, which it will, I'm sure, and they don't want to be perceived as "just as bad" when it does...

Having already given up the money to fund the occupation, they're better off to not engage in too much counter productive posturing. Just the way it is, unfortunately.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
The reality is that 100+ more American soldiers will die every month until The Decider faces the truth of his failure.

Edit: or until the Republican party decides to care more for American lives than politics and faces the truth for him.

Sadly the odds of either happening are even lower than the Iraqis "standing up so we can stand down."

The reality is that the Democrats ran on the platform that they would get us out of this mess, they are not. Its nice to see that some of you are so blinded by your partisanship that you will blindly follow the Dems in whatever they do.

 

[tomywishbone]

"The reality is that the Democrats ran on the platform that they would get us out of this mess, they are not. Its nice to see that some of you are so blinded by your partisanship that you will blindly follow the Dems in whatever they do. "


:laugh: A 5 yr old child eating lead paint, knew that promise was a lie. There's is no way out. None. It willl end at 10,000 dead Americans, 1 million dead Iraqis, and 3 trillion dollars burnt.

I love this war, I really do. This war is the highlight of my life. Go bush go!!!:beer:

 

[Lemon law]

To JD50,

Where did this bit of unreality come from when you state---The reality is that the Democrats ran on the platform that they would get us out of this mess, they are not. Its nice to see that some of you are so blinded by your partisanship that you will blindly follow the Dems in whatever they do.

Its time to ask--where did the promise that dems would get us out of Iraq come from?---who specifically made that promise?---and the real answer is no one---which still misses the fact that the election of 11/06 was still a mandate---as the American people only rejected the of GWB&co. and voted out republicans and elected democrats.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To JD50,

Where did this bit of unreality come from when you state---The reality is that the Democrats ran on the platform that they would get us out of this mess, they are not. Its nice to see that some of you are so blinded by your partisanship that you will blindly follow the Dems in whatever they do.

Its time to ask--where did the promise that dems would get us out of Iraq come from?---who specifically made that promise?---and the real answer is no one---which still misses the fact that the election of 11/06 was still a mandate---as the American people only rejected the of GWB&co. and voted out republicans and elected democrats.

Could you please tell us what the Democrat mandate was for?
If no one made the promise to get out of Iraq then clearly that can?t be their mandate.

 

[Lemon law]

I feel the election of 11/06 was somewhat of a free floating anxiety about the direction GWB&co. was taking the country. But I do agree that Iraq is a big part with certain democrats implying that withdrawal would be best. But many people felt GWB&co, was leading the country in the wrong direction---and that caused enough votes to shift resulting in the loss of Republican majorities in both the house and senate.

And thus far the democrats have arrested the decline but have not yet fully stood up to GWB&co. But the latest congressional polls do show a sharp decline in congressional popularity. If the decline in congressional public confidence polling was linked to a rise in GWB&co. polling, it would indeed be good news for the GOP. But if anything GWB&co.
public confidence polls show either a steady state or a slight corresponding decline.

Which then sends a clear signal to congressional dems---and some Republicans---that the way up lies in standing up to the President. And since the Iraqi can is kicked down the road until September, the next battle lines will likely be on budgetary matters, congressional subpoenas that will test the power of the President, and over the immigration bill.
Meanwhile GWB&co. seems to be making every effort to show he is not weak----and must keep Iraq and Afghanistan from exploding---and now must also manage a crisis in gaza
that threatens to really explode under his nose. In many ways GWB&co is riding the tiger of his own making. And the second GWB slips off, the Tiger will gobble him up and everyone knows it.

If nothing goes dramatically wrong for GWB in the next few months----For this summer my read of the tea leaves is that the dems will stand up to GWB on a few crucial issues--and will demonstrate to the American people that they can beat GWB at a test of strength. But September is the limit for the mini-surge plan. And unless dramatic successes can be shown, the GOP will join the dems in passing a veto proof troop withdrawal timetable.

The American public is clearly demanding that congress stand up to the President---and I suspect thats exactly what they will do in the near future. Congress is starting to conclude that working with GWB just does not work.

 

[Termagant]

The Democrats should push for us to withdraw. I have always thought that toppling Saddam was a bad idea, but if we had to do it we should have immediately withdrawn, to allow the Iraqis to create a new government of their liking.

When they inevitably failed it would have been a more clearer demonstration to the rest of the world of the ineptitude of the Arab Third World, more so than the muddy situation currently in Iraq.

 

[First]

Dems weren't voted into office in 11/06 because they were Dems/liberals/left-wing. They were voted in because they were tired of Bush and Republicans, plain and simple. It would be difficult to **** up as bad as that combination has over the last half decade, so the general thinking (from what I've observed) is "Could we do any worse".

 

[palehorse]

the big wake-up call for Americans will be if/when a Democrat wins the WH, and the new Dem Presiden realizes (and publicly admits) that we will still be in Iraq for many years to come!

that will sure be fun to watch...

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
the big wake-up call for Americans will be if/when a Democrat wins the WH, and the new Dem Presiden realizes (and publicly admits) that we will still be in Iraq for many years to come!

that will sure be fun to watch...

I hope you're wrong.

If our president is still living in his fantasy world of "stay the course" and "the surge" by then, there will be another 1,800+ American dead.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: palehorse74
the big wake-up call for Americans will be if/when a Democrat wins the WH, and the new Dem Presiden realizes (and publicly admits) that we will still be in Iraq for many years to come!

that will sure be fun to watch...

I hope you're wrong.

If our president is still living in his fantasy world of "stay the course" and "the surge" by then, there will be another 1,800+ American dead.

trust me, we're not leaving Iraq anytime soon, regardless of which party runs Congress or the WH.

 

[blackangst1]

I know you guys hate people like me and PJ who criticize the left..but...Im trying to figure out what he posted that is factually incorrect?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I know you guys hate people like me and PJ who criticize the left..but...Im trying to figure out what he posted that is factually incorrect?

Who claimed that PJ's opinion wasn't his opinion?

The point is that "these people need to deal with reality" applies much more strongly to the people that created this quagmire, and who now do nothing constructive while our soldiers keep dying in it.

I supported the invasion of Afghanistan. I argued against the invasion of Iraq, but once it was "mission accomplished" I did hope the peace succeeded somehow. It hasn't and it doesn't look like it ever will as long as the Bush administration refuses to admit their failure.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I know you guys hate people like me and PJ who criticize the left..but...Im trying to figure out what he posted that is factually incorrect?

Who claimed that PJ's opinion wasn't his opinion?

The point is that "these people need to deal with reality" applies much more strongly to the people that created this quagmire, and who now do nothing constructive while our soldiers keep dying in it.
I supported the invasion of Afghanistan. I argued against the invasion of Iraq, but once it was "mission accomplished" I did hope the peace succeeded somehow. It hasn't and it doesn't look like it ever will as long as the Bush administration refuses to admit their failure.

This is exactly the point being made: The newly elected Dems promised something would be done...and nothing has...whether Bush&Co admit or not admit to failure has nothing really to do with this post. This post is how the Dems, just like the GOP, failed to deliver.

 

[Jhhnn]

I know you guys hate people like me and PJ who criticize the left..but...Im trying to figure out what he posted that is factually incorrect?

Start with his and Novak's premise that only the so-called "left" wants out of Iraq...

And move on to the notion that nothing's been done. Dems have voiced their disapproval in no uncertain terms which is all that circumstances would allow. Having their funding bill with conditions vetoed, Dems sensed that there was insufficient support to withhold funding completely, which was what they saw as their only other option...

I can't wait to hear the whining from the faithful when the tide of public opinion keeps turning against the occupation and something really does get done.

Right now, Dems can only command 49 senate votes with Johnson still in recovery, and Lieberman having run to the arms of the repubs over the war...

It's really disingenuous to blame them for repub obstructionism, but I've come to expect no better...

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
This is exactly the point being made: The newly elected Dems promised something would be done...and nothing has...whether Bush&Co admit or not admit to failure has nothing really to do with this post. This post is how the Dems, just like the GOP, failed to deliver.

It's my opinion that the Democrats only promised to stop licking GWB's boots by rubberstamping his bad ideas and ignoring his administration's misdeeds. They have succeeded in that.

They were elected to stop blindly supporting Bush administration policies, especially in Iraq. They don't have a strong enough majority to do much more than that as long as Republicans keep blocking any change in "stay the course." And as long as the Commander in Chief is a Republican.

I do agree that the Democrat should have the courage to pass symbolic legislation for the Senate Republicans to filibuster and the CIC to veto.

 

[GrGr]

Who says the Dems want out of Iraq? Hillary wants to keep troops there for a long time. The Dem leadership is fully behind the plan to keep troops there on a permanent basis. They do know that the US cannot keep the current troop levels there indefinitely. No question the left wing of the Democratic party wants to pull out completely. But that is not in the plans of the CoFR, Wall Street and other string pullers. The US leadership of both parties fully embrace the military and political strategy of having US troops crawling all over the globe.

 

[Lemon law]

To Blackaigst1,

Who comes up with the following whopper of a distortion----This is exactly the point being made: The newly elected Dems promised something would be done...and nothing has...whether Bush&Co admit or not admit to failure has nothing really to do with this post. This post is how the Dems, just like the GOP, failed to deliver.

No---wrong on two points---(1) There were about 468 separate House and Senate elections decided on 11/06--and various candidates made various statements about their views. Unlike previous elections, the dems just did better partly because the American people didn't like Republican results. But no one promised anything. But the expectation is still there. (2) The dems may have failed to deliver the fixes to what the collective GOP screwed up---but its far harder to fix something than it is to break something---and it now seems the GOP can only manage to be competent at screwing things up. And worse yet, Republicans obstruct any democratic initiative to fix things. But by September, the early primaries will be far closer and moderate GOP members will have to face the problem of running with or running away from GWB&co. I think you will find CONGRESS will do far better come fall. And thus far the democratic congress has hoped and tried very hard to work with a President who refuses to work with congress. Very soon you will see the dems give up on working with the President---and I predict you will be screaming bloody murder when the President loses quite a few fights prior to this fall. Remember that congress has the power of the purse---and does need to do anything to take GWB's allowance away.

But to some extent the gage will be public opinion surveys---and if BUSH can get some major victories in areas like Iraq---it can change many political dynamics. And if GWB successes stay stuck on zero, look for a far more activist congress and a far lamer GWB&co. A stubborn GWB simply needed to be taught a lesson will likely be the prevailing sentiment.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: blackangst1
This is exactly the point being made: The newly elected Dems promised something would be done...and nothing has...whether Bush&Co admit or not admit to failure has nothing really to do with this post. This post is how the Dems, just like the GOP, failed to deliver.

It's my opinion that the Democrats only promised to stop licking GWB's boots by rubberstamping his bad ideas and ignoring his administration's misdeeds.

They have succeeded in that.

They were elected to stop blindly supporting Bush administration policies, especially in Iraq. They don't have a strong enough majority to do much more than that as long as Republicans keep blocking any change in "stay the course." And as long as the Commander in Chief is a Republican.

I do agree that the Democrat should have the courage to pass symbolic legislation for the Senate Republicans to filibuster and the CIC to veto.

There was no promise made to get the U.S. out of Iraq.

Republicans are talking criminal talk now and I hope it continues to bite them in their a$$.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: GrGr
Who says the Dems want out of Iraq? Hillary wants to keep troops there for a long time. The Dem leadership is fully behind the plan to keep troops there on a permanent basis. They do know that the US cannot keep the current troop levels there indefinitely. No question the left wing of the Democratic party wants to pull out completely. But that is not in the plans of the CoFR, Wall Street and other string pullers. The US leadership of both parties fully embrace the military and political strategy of having US troops crawling all over the globe.

Who would you let be in control of that oil in Iraq?

 

[ProfJohn]

This place is amazing. We are like a bunch of politicians running around saying whatever it is that fits best the moment.

I am 99% sure that after the election a bunch of people on here were running around claiming that the Democrats were elected to ?end? the war, no less. But now I see a bunch of people running around saying that they were only elected to end the rubber stamp policies of congress. (Which is what us on the right were trying to say back in November.)

Big question for the group?
Right now congressional ratings are even lower than Bush?s.
Why is this?
Is it because congress doesn?t stop the war? Or is it because congress had done nothing else but try and stop the war? (Half of it is probably immigration related.)
Also, is the avid anti-war group going to help or hurt its party in the long run? So far every meaningful thing the Democrats have tried to do regarding the war has resulted in defeat for them, is it wise to continue this path?