As Democrats See Iraq Gains, A Shift In Tone

[Pabster]

Story here.

Looks to me like the standard political game, though it is disgusting to see them using Iraq--and our troops--for their petty partisan games.

Not that long ago Harry Reid opined "We've lost the war."

Perhaps we'll see a new statement from the disgraced leader in the near future.

 

[blackangst1]

lol so typical. I guess we have another what...5 or 9 years to look forward to of NOTHING substantial getting changed.

I wish voters would wake the fuck up and wipe out the senate and start over.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Krauthammer takes them to task:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...av=rss_opinion/columns

Why is top-down national reconciliation as yet unattainable? Because decades of Saddam Hussein's totalitarianism followed by the brutality of the post-invasion insurgency destroyed much of Iraq's political infrastructure, causing Iraqis to revert to the most basic political attachment -- tribe and locality. Gen. David Petraeus's genius has been to adapt American strategy to capitalize on that development, encouraging the emergence of and allying ourselves with tribal and provincial leaders -- without waiting for cosmic national deliverance from the newly constructed and still dysfunctional constitutional apparatus in Baghdad.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq is in disarray, the Sunni insurgency in decline, the Shiite militias quiescent, the capital city reviving. Are we now to reverse course and abandon all this because parliament cannot ratify the reconciliation already occurring on the ground?

Do the critics forget their own arguments about the irrelevance of formal political benchmarks? The transfer of power in 2004. The two elections in 2005. The ratification of the constitution. Those were all supposed to be turning points to pacify the country and bring stability -- all blown to smithereens by the Samarra bombing in February 2006, which precipitated an orgy of sectarian violence and a descent into civil war.

So, just as we have learned this hard lesson of the disconnect between political benchmarks and real stability, the critics now claim the reverse -- that benchmarks are what really count.

This is to fundamentally mistake ends and means. The benchmarks would be a wonderful shortcut to success in Iraq. But it is folly to abandon the pursuit of that success when a different route, more arduous but still doable, is at hand and demonstrably working.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Story here.

Looks to me like the standard political game, though it is disgusting to see them using Iraq--and our troops--for their petty partisan games.

Not that long ago Harry Reid opined "We've lost the war."

Perhaps we'll see a new statement from the disgraced leader in the near future.

Damn, Pabster...did you even READ the article?

Reading comprehension is certainly not your strong suit!

:roll:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: feralkid
Damn, Pabster...did you even READ the article?

Reading comprehension is certainly not your strong suit!

:roll:

Yes, I did. Did you?

I'd like some logical, coherent output from you on the topic at hand.

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: feralkid
Damn, Pabster...did you even READ the article?

Reading comprehension is certainly not your strong suit!

:roll:

Yes, I did. Did you?

I'd like some logical, coherent output from you on the topic at hand.

We'd all like some from you, in case you haven't noticed.

:laugh:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: sierrita
We'd all like some from you, in case you haven't noticed.

:laugh:

My input is already there. Where's yours?

 

[theeedude]

The definition of success has been watered down so much, we've "won" long time ago, time to get the hell out of there.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: feralkid
Damn, Pabster...did you even READ the article?

Reading comprehension is certainly not your strong suit!

:roll:

Yes, I did. Did you?

I'd like some logical, coherent output from you on the topic at hand.

I just gave it too you, Einstein.

How you managed to glean those conclusions from this article is beyond me.

But pretty typical of your trollage on this forum.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
lol so typical. I guess we have another what...5 or 9 years to look forward to of NOTHING substantial getting changed.

I wish voters would wake the fuck up and wipe out the senate and start over.

You might get your wish in 2008, too bad (for you) it's mostly Republican seats up for reelection

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: feralkid
I just gave it too you, Einstein.

:laugh:

I'll let the irony of your troll speak for itself.

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: sierrita
We'd all like some from you, in case you haven't noticed.

:laugh:

My input is already there. Where's yours?

Yes, but it is neither logical or cogent, as usual.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: feralkid
I just gave it too you, Einstein.

:laugh:

I'll let the irony of your troll speak for itself.

No doubt. You've never presented a factual, logical or sane argument yet.
; why start now

 

[First]

The shift in tone is typical but irrelevant: a large majority of the U.S. population still disagrees with the handling of the war, are against prolonged troop presence in Iraq, and worse yet for neocons the American people trust Dems over Repubs by a wide margin. In fact, since the surge, American views toward the war haven't changed at all. Considering the surge was a military success, it might just be that the American people see the surge for what it really was; a temporary solution that band-aided a perpetually unfixable problem.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
The shift in tone is typical but irrelevant: a large majority of the U.S. population still disagrees with the handling of the war, are against prolonged troop presence in Iraq, and worse yet for neocons the American people trust Dems over Repubs by a wide margin. In fact, since the surge, American views toward the war haven't changed at all. Considering the surge was a military success, it might just be that the American people see the surge for what it really was; a temporary solution that band-aided a perpetually unfixable problem.

The anti-war crowd love polls of US opinion when they go their way. When they don't it's all because the American people are idiots.

Imagine that.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
The shift in tone is typical but irrelevant: a large majority of the U.S. population still disagrees with the handling of the war, are against prolonged troop presence in Iraq, and worse yet for neocons the American people trust Dems over Repubs by a wide margin. In fact, since the surge, American views toward the war haven't changed at all. Considering the surge was a military success, it might just be that the American people see the surge for what it really was; a temporary solution that band-aided a perpetually unfixable problem.

The anti-war crowd love polls of US opinion when they go their way. When they don't it's all because the American people are idiots.

Imagine that.

Well according to the polls the vast majority of Americans aren't idiots. BTW, what's the problem with being anti-war? I'd rather be against war than be for it, especially when the war is against our best interests as a country.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Story here.

Looks to me like the standard political game, though it is disgusting to see them using Iraq--and our troops--for their petty partisan games.

Not that long ago Harry Reid opined "We've lost the war."

Perhaps we'll see a new statement from the disgraced leader in the near future.

Well Reid was wrong, we won that war, we are just mirred in a losing battle regarding the rebuilding of that nation.

You know your boy Bush had it right when he was running the first time for President, America has no business being in the business of nation building and the results seem to bear him out.

 

[Rainsford]

Am I the only person who finds it vaguely amusing that Republicans are claiming responsibility for the "success" of a strategy that was essentially forced on them by the presence of real disapproval in the form of the 2006 elections?

Prior to 2006, the ENTIRE strategy for Iraq was to essentially just keep our troops in Iraq until, I don't know, the magic victory fairy showed up and defeated all the bad guys. Or, in the words of the Republicans running the government..."stay the course". Needless to say, that particular strategy was getting old for the American people, as opinion polls increasingly showed. So along come the Democrats, promising something new in Iraq...for a lot of them, that meant withdrawing as fast as possible. But the Republicans stood firm, they were going to "stay the course" if it killed them (well, killed our troops).

Shockingly, this strategy didn't work for the Republicans any better on the domestic front than it did in Iraq, and the Democrats beat the Republicans like a bunch of rented mules in the 2006 congressional election. Suddenly the Democrats had a lot of power and the status quo was no longer going to be rubber stamped by congress. And then, totally out of the blue, President Bush comes up with this brilliant idea that maybe we should try something new in Iraq!

Well this seems like a winner for a lot of people, the Republicans get to save a little face, the Democrats get some change in Iraq without having to resort to yanking all the troops out right away, and the American people can maybe look forward to something other than the endless war promised by the Bush administration. Only one problem, everyone wins...and in politics, everyone CAN'T win. So the Republicans decide that they supported this new idea all along, and the Democrats were just against the old strategy because they hated America. Nevermind that the Republicans themselves essentially admitted the old strategy wasn't working, the NEW truthiness is that the years old objections of the Democrats are based on the months old strategy that the Democrats forced the Republicans into. Essentially, that the "surge" has ALWAYS been the strategy and it has been working just fine from day one. If this seems confusing, it's because you might have this crazy idea that time only flows in ONE direction. If you had done coke with President Bush in the 70s, you'd know that this simply isn't true.

But as much as I admire the Republicans ability to come up with this story and stick to it, I REALLY have to admire the dedication of guys like Pabster. Here they are, handed this enormous bucket of lukewarm bullshit and it's up to them to really sell it. It's like the used car salesman telling you that the 1987 Buick you are test driving is a really reliable machine as it's depositing important looking components on the highway. You can see it in his eyes, he knows he's full of shit...but HE JUST KEEPS GOING. Like the Energizer Bunny of bullshit.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: feralkid
I just gave it too you, Einstein.

:laugh:

I'll let the irony of your troll speak for itself.

No doubt. You've never presented a factual, logical or sane argument yet.
; why start now

His opinion was pretty evident from his post, and it seems more likely to me that you in fact didn't read the article, because what it states is just about in line with his comments. Maybe you should grow up a little and stop trolling, then come back and try again.

 

[GrGr]

What Iraqi "gains" are they talking about?

Violence is up in northern Iraq as the resistance has moved out of the way of the "surge". The "whackamole" game continues just this time the cost is much higher. The cost for maintaining the current level of military presence in Iraq is calculated to be $ 4.5 Trillion dollars over ten years. Let the presidential candidates discuss which domestic social programs are going to be cut to pay for that.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: feralkid
I just gave it too you, Einstein.

:laugh:

I'll let the irony of your troll speak for itself.

No doubt. You've never presented a factual, logical or sane argument yet.
; why start now

His opinion was pretty evident from his post, and it seems more likely to me that you in fact didn't read the article, because what it states is just about in line with his comments. Maybe you should grow up a little and stop trolling, then come back and try again.

Sorry, I disagree.

"Looks to me like the standard political game, though it is disgusting to see them using Iraq--and our troops--for their petty partisan games.

Not that long ago Harry Reid opined "We've lost the war."

Perhaps we'll see a new statement from the disgraced leader in the near future."


I don't understand how anyone who read the article would come to those conclusions, unless they were some sort of partisan hack/troll.

:roll:


I think you need to learn the definition of "trolling"; Pabster posts an article, spews partisan quackery and expects us to respect his "analysis".

That, sir is called "trolling".

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Am I the only person who finds it vaguely amusing that Republicans are claiming responsibility for the "success" of a strategy that was essentially forced on them by the presence of real disapproval in the form of the 2006 elections?

Prior to 2006, the ENTIRE strategy for Iraq was to essentially just keep our troops in Iraq until, I don't know, the magic victory fairy showed up and defeated all the bad guys. Or, in the words of the Republicans running the government..."stay the course". Needless to say, that particular strategy was getting old for the American people, as opinion polls increasingly showed. So along come the Democrats, promising something new in Iraq...for a lot of them, that meant withdrawing as fast as possible. But the Republicans stood firm, they were going to "stay the course" if it killed them (well, killed our troops).

Shockingly, this strategy didn't work for the Republicans any better on the domestic front than it did in Iraq, and the Democrats beat the Republicans like a bunch of rented mules in the 2006 congressional election. Suddenly the Democrats had a lot of power and the status quo was no longer going to be rubber stamped by congress. And then, totally out of the blue, President Bush comes up with this brilliant idea that maybe we should try something new in Iraq!

Well this seems like a winner for a lot of people, the Republicans get to save a little face, the Democrats get some change in Iraq without having to resort to yanking all the troops out right away, and the American people can maybe look forward to something other than the endless war promised by the Bush administration. Only one problem, everyone wins...and in politics, everyone CAN'T win. So the Republicans decide that they supported this new idea all along, and the Democrats were just against the old strategy because they hated America. Nevermind that the Republicans themselves essentially admitted the old strategy wasn't working, the NEW truthiness is that the years old objections of the Democrats are based on the months old strategy that the Democrats forced the Republicans into. Essentially, that the "surge" has ALWAYS been the strategy and it has been working just fine from day one. If this seems confusing, it's because you might have this crazy idea that time only flows in ONE direction. If you had done coke with President Bush in the 70s, you'd know that this simply isn't true.

But as much as I admire the Republicans ability to come up with this story and stick to it, I REALLY have to admire the dedication of guys like Pabster. Here they are, handed this enormous bucket of lukewarm bullshit and it's up to them to really sell it. It's like the used car salesman telling you that the 1987 Buick you are test driving is a really reliable machine as it's depositing important looking components on the highway. You can see it in his eyes, he knows he's full of shit...but HE JUST KEEPS GOING. Like the Energizer Bunny of bullshit.

Bush made changes on a number of occassions regarding the military leadership in Iraq. Those spouting "stay the course" as an epithet seem to disregard that fact. And to even imply the Democrats had anything whatsoever to do with Patraeus's success, particularly considering their idiocy in Congress not a mere 3 months ago, is ridiculous. Bush made the change. Patraeus made it a success. For once in here give credit where credit is due.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Bush made the change. Petraeus made it a success. For once in here give credit where credit is due.

QFT. :thumbsup:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: feralkid
I think you need to learn the definition of "trolling"; Pabster posts an article, spews partisan quackery and expects us to respect his "analysis".

That, sir is called "trolling".

Wrong, as usual.

The commentary I post after an article link is just that - COMMENTARY. Also known as opinion. I don't represent it as fact. The facts are linked in the articles.

You've responded numerous times in this very thread -- and, yet, you have not provided a single sentence to respond to the topic at hand. The troll, sir, is you.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
The shift in tone is typical but irrelevant: a large majority of the U.S. population still disagrees with the handling of the war, are against prolonged troop presence in Iraq, and worse yet for neocons the American people trust Dems over Repubs by a wide margin. In fact, since the surge, American views toward the war haven't changed at all. Considering the surge was a military success, it might just be that the American people see the surge for what it really was; a temporary solution that band-aided a perpetually unfixable problem.

The anti-war crowd love polls of US opinion when they go their way. When they don't it's all because the American people are idiots.

Imagine that.

Except this comment fails to address the poll results posted which, by the way, have been in favor of anti-war protesters since mid-2004.

Originally posted by: Rainsford

But as much as I admire the Republicans ability to come up with this story and stick to it, I REALLY have to admire the dedication of guys like Pabster. Here they are, handed this enormous bucket of lukewarm bullshit and it's up to them to really sell it. It's like the used car salesman telling you that the 1987 Buick you are test driving is a really reliable machine as it's depositing important looking components on the highway. You can see it in his eyes, he knows he's full of shit...but HE JUST KEEPS GOING. Like the Energizer Bunny of bullshit.

This is amusingly dead-on.