As Democrats See Iraq Gains, A Shift In Tone

[senseamp]

If we are doing so great in Iraq, and making such great progress, when are we going to be done and leave that beacon of Democracy we've built in the region?
From what I have seen there have been only token proposals from the war's supporters to stem the bleeding of our treasure and lives that is ongoing.
So far it seems like they are measuring progress in terms of reduction of violence, not progress towards a particular measurable political goal that would allow us to leave. Instead, what I am seeing is a complete reluctance by those who advocate continuing expenditures of American life and treasure to not only nail down any specific goals and metrics, but also to avoid any sort of schedule for achieving those goals.
If in my company I went to the CEO and said, hey project is doing great, we don't know what we are making, and we don't have a schedule for when we are going to be done making it, but keep spending millions funding us indefinitely because we are doing some nifty things in the meantime and maybe something good will come of it eventually, the project would be canned before I leave the meeting. But the neocons expect the American taxpayer to keep funding this war indefinitely with no clear goals to accomplish and no timetable to get there.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

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.

Except the invasion was in 2003. 2004 was a little too late to go "Oops!"

 

[First]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

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.

Except the invasion was in 2003. 2004 was a little too late to go "Oops!"

Huh? How does this address anything I just posted?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: senseamp
If we are doing so great in Iraq, and making such great progress, when are we going to be done and leave that beacon of Democracy we've built in the region?
From what I have seen there have been only token proposals from the war's supporters to stem the bleeding of our treasure and lives that is ongoing.
So far it seems like they are measuring progress in terms of reduction of violence, not progress towards a particular measurable political goal that would allow us to leave. Instead, what I am seeing is a complete reluctance by those who advocate continuing expenditures of American life and treasure to not only nail down any specific goals and metrics, but also to avoid any sort of schedule for achieving those goals.
If in my company I went to the CEO and said, hey project is doing great, we don't know what we are making, and we don't have a schedule for when we are going to be done making it, but keep spending millions funding us indefinitely because we are doing some nifty things in the meantime and maybe something good will come of it eventually, the project would be canned before I leave the meeting. But the neocons expect the American taxpayer to keep funding this war indefinitely with no clear goals to accomplish and no timetable to get there.

If things are going so terrible in Iraq why does the anti-war crowd keep refocusing their benchmarks to the next issue they can bitch about?

btw, the next time you're running a project and things aren't going well, go to the CEO and tell him you just want to give up, because things just aren't working out. See how well that flies.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

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.

Except the invasion was in 2003. 2004 was a little too late to go "Oops!"

Huh? How does this address anything I just posted?

Uh, because in the 2003 polls the majority were in favor of the invasion. The decision was already made. To repeat myself - 2004 was a little too late to go "Oops!"

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: senseamp
If we are doing so great in Iraq, and making such great progress, when are we going to be done and leave that beacon of Democracy we've built in the region?
From what I have seen there have been only token proposals from the war's supporters to stem the bleeding of our treasure and lives that is ongoing.
So far it seems like they are measuring progress in terms of reduction of violence, not progress towards a particular measurable political goal that would allow us to leave. Instead, what I am seeing is a complete reluctance by those who advocate continuing expenditures of American life and treasure to not only nail down any specific goals and metrics, but also to avoid any sort of schedule for achieving those goals.
If in my company I went to the CEO and said, hey project is doing great, we don't know what we are making, and we don't have a schedule for when we are going to be done making it, but keep spending millions funding us indefinitely because we are doing some nifty things in the meantime and maybe something good will come of it eventually, the project would be canned before I leave the meeting. But the neocons expect the American taxpayer to keep funding this war indefinitely with no clear goals to accomplish and no timetable to get there.

If things are going so terrible in Iraq why does the anti-war crowd keep refocusing their benchmarks to the next issue they can bitch about?

Because benchmarks aren't there for the sake of benchmarks they are there to measure progress to a goal, which war supporters refuse to nail down. Unlike neocons who see Iraq as a base for bigger Middle East plans (see PNAC) , Democrats don't want to keep our troops in Iraq indefinitely. We want to accomplish what we can accomplish militarily and leave. If our military is there to reduce violence, and the violence is down, good job done, can we leave already? If you want to stay in Iraq no matter what, then you need to be upfront with the American people about that.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

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.

Except the invasion was in 2003. 2004 was a little too late to go "Oops!"

Huh? How does this address anything I just posted?

Uh, because in the 2003 polls the majority were in favor of the invasion. The decision was already made. To repeat myself - 2004 was a little too late to go "Oops!"

Except I never claimed otherwise and this random deflectionary comment has nothing to do with your original post which read" "anti-war crowd love polls of US opinion when they go their way", when in fact polls have been "going their way" since mid-2004. And, since the war is about 4.5 years old, that means anti-war protesters have been able to refer to polls in their favor for nearly 3/4ths of the entire war.

Additionally, it has nothing to do with the reality of the OP, which read that a change in tone was coming, a reality that simply reflects the fact that despite a successful military surge, the American people are still just as dissatisfied with the war as they were before this summer.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: senseamp
If we are doing so great in Iraq, and making such great progress, when are we going to be done and leave that beacon of Democracy we've built in the region?
From what I have seen there have been only token proposals from the war's supporters to stem the bleeding of our treasure and lives that is ongoing.
So far it seems like they are measuring progress in terms of reduction of violence, not progress towards a particular measurable political goal that would allow us to leave. Instead, what I am seeing is a complete reluctance by those who advocate continuing expenditures of American life and treasure to not only nail down any specific goals and metrics, but also to avoid any sort of schedule for achieving those goals.
If in my company I went to the CEO and said, hey project is doing great, we don't know what we are making, and we don't have a schedule for when we are going to be done making it, but keep spending millions funding us indefinitely because we are doing some nifty things in the meantime and maybe something good will come of it eventually, the project would be canned before I leave the meeting. But the neocons expect the American taxpayer to keep funding this war indefinitely with no clear goals to accomplish and no timetable to get there.

If things are going so terrible in Iraq why does the anti-war crowd keep refocusing their benchmarks to the next issue they can bitch about?

Because benchmarks aren't there for the sake of benchmarks they are there to measure progress to a goal, which war supporters refuse to nail down. Unlike neocons who see Iraq as a base for bigger Middle East plans (see PNAC) , Democrats don't want to keep our troops in Iraq indefinitely. We want to accomplish what we can accomplish militarily and leave. If our military is there to reduce violence, and the violence is down, good job done, can we leave already? If you want to stay in Iraq no matter what, then you need to be upfront with the American people about that.

Nobody wants to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely. Besides that, it's not just about accomplishing military goals then leaving. The goal is to have a stable Iraq.

As far as the political goals, see the Krauhammer article I posted earlier in this thread. It pretty much puts the smack down on the "political goals" whinery from the anti-war crowd and exposes the complaint for the goalpost-moving fraud it really is.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

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.

Except the invasion was in 2003. 2004 was a little too late to go "Oops!"

Huh? How does this address anything I just posted?

Uh, because in the 2003 polls the majority were in favor of the invasion. The decision was already made. To repeat myself - 2004 was a little too late to go "Oops!"

Except I never claimed otherwise and this random deflectionary comment has nothing to do with your original post which read" "anti-war crowd love polls of US opinion when they go their way", when in fact polls have been "going their way" since mid-2004. And, since the war is about 4.5 years old, that means anti-war protesters have been able to refer to polls in their favor for nearly 3/4ths of the entire war.

Additionally, it has nothing to do with the reality of the OP, which read that a change in tone was coming, a reality that simply reflects the fact that despite a successful military surge, the American people are still just as dissatisfied with the war as they were before this summer.

So if public opinion changes while we stay in Iraq another 5 years you'll STFU?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

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.

Except the invasion was in 2003. 2004 was a little too late to go "Oops!"

Huh? How does this address anything I just posted?

Uh, because in the 2003 polls the majority were in favor of the invasion. The decision was already made. To repeat myself - 2004 was a little too late to go "Oops!"

Except I never claimed otherwise and this random deflectionary comment has nothing to do with your original post which read" "anti-war crowd love polls of US opinion when they go their way", when in fact polls have been "going their way" since mid-2004. And, since the war is about 4.5 years old, that means anti-war protesters have been able to refer to polls in their favor for nearly 3/4ths of the entire war.

Additionally, it has nothing to do with the reality of the OP, which read that a change in tone was coming, a reality that simply reflects the fact that despite a successful military surge, the American people are still just as dissatisfied with the war as they were before this summer.

So if public opinion changes while we stay in Iraq another 5 years you'll STFU?

You can choose to deflect or answer the post. Your choice.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: senseamp
If we are doing so great in Iraq, and making such great progress, when are we going to be done and leave that beacon of Democracy we've built in the region?
From what I have seen there have been only token proposals from the war's supporters to stem the bleeding of our treasure and lives that is ongoing.
So far it seems like they are measuring progress in terms of reduction of violence, not progress towards a particular measurable political goal that would allow us to leave. Instead, what I am seeing is a complete reluctance by those who advocate continuing expenditures of American life and treasure to not only nail down any specific goals and metrics, but also to avoid any sort of schedule for achieving those goals.
If in my company I went to the CEO and said, hey project is doing great, we don't know what we are making, and we don't have a schedule for when we are going to be done making it, but keep spending millions funding us indefinitely because we are doing some nifty things in the meantime and maybe something good will come of it eventually, the project would be canned before I leave the meeting. But the neocons expect the American taxpayer to keep funding this war indefinitely with no clear goals to accomplish and no timetable to get there.

If things are going so terrible in Iraq why does the anti-war crowd keep refocusing their benchmarks to the next issue they can bitch about?

Because benchmarks aren't there for the sake of benchmarks they are there to measure progress to a goal, which war supporters refuse to nail down. Unlike neocons who see Iraq as a base for bigger Middle East plans (see PNAC) , Democrats don't want to keep our troops in Iraq indefinitely. We want to accomplish what we can accomplish militarily and leave. If our military is there to reduce violence, and the violence is down, good job done, can we leave already? If you want to stay in Iraq no matter what, then you need to be upfront with the American people about that.

Nobody wants to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely. Besides that, it's not just about accomplishing military goals then leaving. The goal is to have a stable Iraq.

As far as the political goals, see the Krauhammer article I posted earlier in this thread. It pretty much puts the smack down on the "political goals" whinery from the anti-war crowd and exposes the complaint for the goalpost-moving fraud it really is.

Krauthammer is a neocon. He will do anything to keep us in Iraq indefinitely. You keep dodging the qoals are that we are trying to achieve in Iraq before we can leave.
"Stable Iraq" is a vague goal, that cannot be measured in terms of progress, which is of course why the neocons love it. Of course it's a far cry from what they sold this country on before we went in, some beacon of Democracy in the middle east.
We had a "stable Iraq" before we went in. So you are telling us we wasted all those lives, drained the US military and treasury to accomplish something that was there before we went in? You are going to tell me we spent trillion+ dollars and thousands of American lives to replace stability under one set of thugs with stability under another set of thugs?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: senseamp
If we are doing so great in Iraq, and making such great progress, when are we going to be done and leave that beacon of Democracy we've built in the region?
From what I have seen there have been only token proposals from the war's supporters to stem the bleeding of our treasure and lives that is ongoing.
So far it seems like they are measuring progress in terms of reduction of violence, not progress towards a particular measurable political goal that would allow us to leave. Instead, what I am seeing is a complete reluctance by those who advocate continuing expenditures of American life and treasure to not only nail down any specific goals and metrics, but also to avoid any sort of schedule for achieving those goals.
If in my company I went to the CEO and said, hey project is doing great, we don't know what we are making, and we don't have a schedule for when we are going to be done making it, but keep spending millions funding us indefinitely because we are doing some nifty things in the meantime and maybe something good will come of it eventually, the project would be canned before I leave the meeting. But the neocons expect the American taxpayer to keep funding this war indefinitely with no clear goals to accomplish and no timetable to get there.

If things are going so terrible in Iraq why does the anti-war crowd keep refocusing their benchmarks to the next issue they can bitch about?

Because benchmarks aren't there for the sake of benchmarks they are there to measure progress to a goal, which war supporters refuse to nail down. Unlike neocons who see Iraq as a base for bigger Middle East plans (see PNAC) , Democrats don't want to keep our troops in Iraq indefinitely. We want to accomplish what we can accomplish militarily and leave. If our military is there to reduce violence, and the violence is down, good job done, can we leave already? If you want to stay in Iraq no matter what, then you need to be upfront with the American people about that.

Nobody wants to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely. Besides that, it's not just about accomplishing military goals then leaving. The goal is to have a stable Iraq.

As far as the political goals, see the Krauhammer article I posted earlier in this thread. It pretty much puts the smack down on the "political goals" whinery from the anti-war crowd and exposes the complaint for the goalpost-moving fraud it really is.

Krauthammer is a neocon. He will do anything to keep us in Iraq indefinitely. You keep dodging the qoals are that we are trying to achieve in Iraq before we can leave.
"Stable Iraq" is a vague goal, that cannot be measured in terms of progress, which is of course why the neocons love it. Of course it's a far cry from what they sold this country on before we went in, some beacon of Democracy in the middle east.
We had a "stable Iraq" before we went in. So you are telling us we wasted all those lives, drained the US military and treasury to accomplish something that was there before we went in? You are going to tell me we spent trillion+ dollars and thousands of American lives to replace stability under one set of thugs with stability under another set of thugs?

That's pathetic and shoddy reasoning. Nobody wants us to be in Iraq indefinitely, even the most ardent neocon. Nor has Karuthammer ever claimed anything of the sort. He merely pointed out the shifting goalposts of the anti-war crowd. Whenever one of their whines disappears they move to another. And another. And issues they considered inconsequential previously suddenly become major issues that they refocus their faux indignance on. He demonstrates how the anti-war crowd aren't really concerned about Iraq at all, they are just concerned about being anti-war and create the excuse of the day for their opposition as they go along. The ploy is transparent and ridiculous and it's obvious they don't want to have to eat crow. Guess what though? It's what's for anti-war dinner where Iraq is concerned. Despite all the pessimism, defeatism, and rhetoric from the anti-war crowd, Iraq is going to come through and they simply can't tolerate being so completely wrong about it. That much is obvious.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

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.

Except the invasion was in 2003. 2004 was a little too late to go "Oops!"

Huh? How does this address anything I just posted?

Uh, because in the 2003 polls the majority were in favor of the invasion. The decision was already made. To repeat myself - 2004 was a little too late to go "Oops!"

Except I never claimed otherwise and this random deflectionary comment has nothing to do with your original post which read" "anti-war crowd love polls of US opinion when they go their way", when in fact polls have been "going their way" since mid-2004. And, since the war is about 4.5 years old, that means anti-war protesters have been able to refer to polls in their favor for nearly 3/4ths of the entire war.

Additionally, it has nothing to do with the reality of the OP, which read that a change in tone was coming, a reality that simply reflects the fact that despite a successful military surge, the American people are still just as dissatisfied with the war as they were before this summer.

So if public opinion changes while we stay in Iraq another 5 years you'll STFU?

You can choose to deflect or answer the post. Your choice.

I didn't deflect at all. If US public opinion changes will yours? Do you base your personal opinion on the will of the majority?

I doubt it, which is why bringing up public opinion in this matter is BS. That's besides the fact that Iraq is our baby and has been since 2003. Complain all you want but when you have a baby you can't un-fuck just because you determined further down the road it was a mistake.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: 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.

I have no problem giving Patraeus is due...I think he's doing as good a job as we can expect in a bad situation, and I hope he gets a chance to see his strategy through. I'm just saying he'd be running a weather station in Alaska if political necessity hadn't forced President Bush to come up with some approach other than holding press conferences talking about how great Iraq was doing and how anyone who said otherwise was an unqualified traitor.

And don't give me that shit about President Bush tweaking the strategy in Iraq up until the 2006 elections. He certainly did a lot of press about it, but at the end of the day, we didn't do a God-damned thing different. We had a bunch of troops running around trying to make sure they and various Iraqi civilians didn't get blown up from day to day...but there was no strategy. From that ridiculous photo-op on the carrier to November 2006, Iraq has been run as a PR conflict, where the only thing that mattered was convincing 50% plus one voters that we were winning in Iraq. It never occurred to those folks that Iraq was an actual war that we had to actually win, up until Patraeus look command, I am firmly convinced that the President thought the main enemy in the Iraqi conflict was the Democrats. Certainly the various focus-group tested bullshit lines from conservative talking heads indicated as much, and the lines from the conservative Internet footsoldiers matched up pretty nicely. I don't remember a single point, EVER, where a Republican said that something wasn't working well and we needed a new approach.

And I don't mean to put the spotlight on you, but you're in that used car salesman club too. Because you know I'm right, you know what everyone was saying up until a few months ago. If it wasn't "stay the course", it sure as hell sounded like it.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: senseamp
If we are doing so great in Iraq, and making such great progress, when are we going to be done and leave that beacon of Democracy we've built in the region?
From what I have seen there have been only token proposals from the war's supporters to stem the bleeding of our treasure and lives that is ongoing.
So far it seems like they are measuring progress in terms of reduction of violence, not progress towards a particular measurable political goal that would allow us to leave. Instead, what I am seeing is a complete reluctance by those who advocate continuing expenditures of American life and treasure to not only nail down any specific goals and metrics, but also to avoid any sort of schedule for achieving those goals.
If in my company I went to the CEO and said, hey project is doing great, we don't know what we are making, and we don't have a schedule for when we are going to be done making it, but keep spending millions funding us indefinitely because we are doing some nifty things in the meantime and maybe something good will come of it eventually, the project would be canned before I leave the meeting. But the neocons expect the American taxpayer to keep funding this war indefinitely with no clear goals to accomplish and no timetable to get there.

If things are going so terrible in Iraq why does the anti-war crowd keep refocusing their benchmarks to the next issue they can bitch about?

Because benchmarks aren't there for the sake of benchmarks they are there to measure progress to a goal, which war supporters refuse to nail down. Unlike neocons who see Iraq as a base for bigger Middle East plans (see PNAC) , Democrats don't want to keep our troops in Iraq indefinitely. We want to accomplish what we can accomplish militarily and leave. If our military is there to reduce violence, and the violence is down, good job done, can we leave already? If you want to stay in Iraq no matter what, then you need to be upfront with the American people about that.

Nobody wants to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely. Besides that, it's not just about accomplishing military goals then leaving. The goal is to have a stable Iraq.

As far as the political goals, see the Krauhammer article I posted earlier in this thread. It pretty much puts the smack down on the "political goals" whinery from the anti-war crowd and exposes the complaint for the goalpost-moving fraud it really is.

Krauthammer is a neocon. He will do anything to keep us in Iraq indefinitely. You keep dodging the qoals are that we are trying to achieve in Iraq before we can leave.
"Stable Iraq" is a vague goal, that cannot be measured in terms of progress, which is of course why the neocons love it. Of course it's a far cry from what they sold this country on before we went in, some beacon of Democracy in the middle east.
We had a "stable Iraq" before we went in. So you are telling us we wasted all those lives, drained the US military and treasury to accomplish something that was there before we went in? You are going to tell me we spent trillion+ dollars and thousands of American lives to replace stability under one set of thugs with stability under another set of thugs?

That's pathetic and shoddy reasoning. Nobody wants us to be in Iraq indefinitely, even the most ardent neocon. Nor has Karuthammer ever claimed anything of the sort. He merely pointed out the shifting goalposts of the anti-war crowd. Whenever one of their whines disappears they move to another. And another. And issues they considered inconsequential previously suddenly become major issues that they refocus their faux indignance on. He demonstrates how the anti-war crowd aren't really concerned about Iraq at all, they are just concerned about being anti-war and create the excuse of the day for their opposition as they go along. The ploy is transparent and ridiculous and it's obvious they don't want to have to eat crow. Guess what though? It's what's for anti-war dinner where Iraq is concerned. Despite all the pessimism, defeatism, and rhetoric from the anti-war crowd, Iraq is going to come through and they simply can't tolerate being so completely wrong about it. That much is obvious.

Please be specific. Which issues do you consider inconsequential that are being focused on?
Krauthammer is one of the guys who was selling this country on Iraq. He was as wrong as wrong can be. Now of course he is spinning, but the people shifting the goal posts have been the neocons. First it was a beacon of democracy for the middle east, then maybe not a beacon, but something resembling a democracy, and now it's simply a "stable Iraq." The goalpost is being lowered by the pro-war crowd, not the anti-war crowd. If Iraq is going to come through, then why do we need to be there? Our job is done, let's get the hell out of there.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

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.

Except the invasion was in 2003. 2004 was a little too late to go "Oops!"

Huh? How does this address anything I just posted?

Uh, because in the 2003 polls the majority were in favor of the invasion. The decision was already made. To repeat myself - 2004 was a little too late to go "Oops!"

Except I never claimed otherwise and this random deflectionary comment has nothing to do with your original post which read" "anti-war crowd love polls of US opinion when they go their way", when in fact polls have been "going their way" since mid-2004. And, since the war is about 4.5 years old, that means anti-war protesters have been able to refer to polls in their favor for nearly 3/4ths of the entire war.

Additionally, it has nothing to do with the reality of the OP, which read that a change in tone was coming, a reality that simply reflects the fact that despite a successful military surge, the American people are still just as dissatisfied with the war as they were before this summer.

So if public opinion changes while we stay in Iraq another 5 years you'll STFU?

You can choose to deflect or answer the post. Your choice.

I didn't deflect at all. If US public opinion changes will yours? Do you base your personal opinion on the will of the majority?

I doubt it, which is why bringing up public opinion in this matter is BS. That's besides the fact that Iraq is our baby and has been since 2003. Complain all you want but when you have a baby you can't un-fuck just because you determined further down the road it was a mistake.

You replied to my original post in this thread, so I assume you read it. My single opinion has nothing to do with my original point; that the rest of America, despite the shift in DC tone, doesn't feel any different toward the war now than they did before the surge. Then you brought up a random point about anti-war protesters using polls to their advantage now but not early on in the war. Which, of course, can be easily explained away considering many didn't know in 03 what we know now; no WMDs, nuclear weapons, et al.

Granted, no one here expects you to face the reality that Iraq was a fuck up and needs to be remedied. You, after all, still believe the U.S. is going to magically turn Iraq into the Muslim equivalent of Israel someday, correct?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

That's pathetic and shoddy reasoning. Nobody wants us to be in Iraq indefinitely, even the most ardent neocon. Nor has Karuthammer ever claimed anything of the sort. He merely pointed out the shifting goalposts of the anti-war crowd. Whenever one of their whines disappears they move to another. And another. And issues they considered inconsequential previously suddenly become major issues that they refocus their faux indignance on. He demonstrates how the anti-war crowd aren't really concerned about Iraq at all, they are just concerned about being anti-war and create the excuse of the day for their opposition as they go along. The ploy is transparent and ridiculous and it's obvious they don't want to have to eat crow. Guess what though? It's what's for anti-war dinner where Iraq is concerned. Despite all the pessimism, defeatism, and rhetoric from the anti-war crowd, Iraq is going to come through and they simply can't tolerate being so completely wrong about it. That much is obvious.

This my friends is called wishful thinking. Never mind that Iraq's levels of violence are still among the highest since the invasion, never mind that the "stable" parts of Iraq have effectively declared their independance from the national government, the fact is that we're winning. We've achieved a small reduction from record levels of violence, and since the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad is near total, there are far fewer people around for sectarian death squads to intimidate and kill. See? Success! The warmongers originally declared success would be a free and democratic Iraq. Now they will settle for "stable". Translation: If Iraq doesn't descend into complete apocalyptic chaos then the invasion was a success and we were right to do it.

What's strange is that there have been regular pronouncements of progress and victory since this whole shitstorm began. At this rate another few years of 'victory' and our army will have totally collapsed.

TLC here will never admit what a catastrophe this has been. He never will. This is the great part of his position... no matter how long we flail around in Iraq, victory will always be on the horizon so long as we stick it out a bit more. The minute sanity prevails however and we decide to leave, the disaster of Iraq will somehow be the fault of those who didn't want to stay around instead of the idiots who launched this war to begin with. So since our choices are either destroy our army and waste thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, or listen to some people try to use the old 'stab in the back' argument from Germany circa 1920 and the US circa 1980, I'll gladly save the lives and cash and do what we've all known was the right thing to do from the start... stop the mess in Iraq.

 

[First]

^ I also think it's the inability of this administration to define success; is success merely Iraq being "stable"? What's stable, less than 100 mass killings a day? Is success a functional gov't and, if so, does "functional" mean running water and electricity for all and a trained army/police? If it's a combination of both, what does the administration think is a reasonable amount of time to spend fighting a war in Iraq to achieve stability and a functional government; 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, etc.?

The real problem is that this administration hasn't set any definable goals; nothing precise, nothing even broad enough to make educated guesses. It's merely highly interpretable and manipulable phrases like "success", "failure", or "emboldening the enemy".

Politically we need the administration to work with Dems in Congress. Republicans will follow suit, and we'll be better off. As is, the country is still in a global nightmare despite the surge being a military success by all accounts. It just isn't a success by reality's account. Nearly every single elected public official in nearly every industrialized Western economy on the planet has suffered for being pro-Iraq. And now with the 2nd largest Western power in Britain pulling out more troops from the South and no one else having any significant presence, how is the U.S. supposed to be taken seriously diplomatically? Stay the course? Because that has led to nothing but disaster, by any standard.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Krauthammer is a neocon.

:laugh:

Sometimes I wonder if you know the difference between a traditional conservative, and a so-called neo-conservative.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: senseamp
Krauthammer is a neocon.

:laugh:

Sometimes I wonder if you know the difference between a traditional conservative, and a so-called neo-conservative.

Traditional conservatives are unelectable, so who cares?
Krauthammer is a neocon, closely tied to PNAC. He has an agenda for the Middle East that he doesn't mind expanding unlimited US resources and lives to try to achieve. He was one of the staunchest supporters of going to war with Iraq. He is no traditional conservative.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: 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.

Thick as a brick?

I never intended to make a comment on the"topic at hand".

I simply declared your posted comments,

"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."


As trolling. They are.


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

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: senseamp
If we are doing so great in Iraq, and making such great progress, when are we going to be done and leave that beacon of Democracy we've built in the region?
From what I have seen there have been only token proposals from the war's supporters to stem the bleeding of our treasure and lives that is ongoing.
So far it seems like they are measuring progress in terms of reduction of violence, not progress towards a particular measurable political goal that would allow us to leave. Instead, what I am seeing is a complete reluctance by those who advocate continuing expenditures of American life and treasure to not only nail down any specific goals and metrics, but also to avoid any sort of schedule for achieving those goals.
If in my company I went to the CEO and said, hey project is doing great, we don't know what we are making, and we don't have a schedule for when we are going to be done making it, but keep spending millions funding us indefinitely because we are doing some nifty things in the meantime and maybe something good will come of it eventually, the project would be canned before I leave the meeting. But the neocons expect the American taxpayer to keep funding this war indefinitely with no clear goals to accomplish and no timetable to get there.

If things are going so terrible in Iraq why does the anti-war crowd keep refocusing their benchmarks to the next issue they can bitch about?

Because benchmarks aren't there for the sake of benchmarks they are there to measure progress to a goal, which war supporters refuse to nail down. Unlike neocons who see Iraq as a base for bigger Middle East plans (see PNAC) , Democrats don't want to keep our troops in Iraq indefinitely. We want to accomplish what we can accomplish militarily and leave. If our military is there to reduce violence, and the violence is down, good job done, can we leave already? If you want to stay in Iraq no matter what, then you need to be upfront with the American people about that.

Nobody wants to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely. Besides that, it's not just about accomplishing military goals then leaving. The goal is to have a stable Iraq.

As far as the political goals, see the Krauhammer article I posted earlier in this thread. It pretty much puts the smack down on the "political goals" whinery from the anti-war crowd and exposes the complaint for the goalpost-moving fraud it really is.

Krauthammer is a neocon. He will do anything to keep us in Iraq indefinitely. You keep dodging the qoals are that we are trying to achieve in Iraq before we can leave.
"Stable Iraq" is a vague goal, that cannot be measured in terms of progress, which is of course why the neocons love it. Of course it's a far cry from what they sold this country on before we went in, some beacon of Democracy in the middle east.
We had a "stable Iraq" before we went in. So you are telling us we wasted all those lives, drained the US military and treasury to accomplish something that was there before we went in? You are going to tell me we spent trillion+ dollars and thousands of American lives to replace stability under one set of thugs with stability under another set of thugs?

That's pathetic and shoddy reasoning. Nobody wants us to be in Iraq indefinitely, even the most ardent neocon. Nor has Karuthammer ever claimed anything of the sort. He merely pointed out the shifting goalposts of the anti-war crowd. Whenever one of their whines disappears they move to another. And another. And issues they considered inconsequential previously suddenly become major issues that they refocus their faux indignance on. He demonstrates how the anti-war crowd aren't really concerned about Iraq at all, they are just concerned about being anti-war and create the excuse of the day for their opposition as they go along. The ploy is transparent and ridiculous and it's obvious they don't want to have to eat crow. Guess what though? It's what's for anti-war dinner where Iraq is concerned. Despite all the pessimism, defeatism, and rhetoric from the anti-war crowd, Iraq is going to come through and they simply can't tolerate being so completely wrong about it. That much is obvious.

Please be specific. Which issues do you consider inconsequential that are being focused on?
Krauthammer is one of the guys who was selling this country on Iraq. He was as wrong as wrong can be. Now of course he is spinning, but the people shifting the goal posts have been the neocons. First it was a beacon of democracy for the middle east, then maybe not a beacon, but something resembling a democracy, and now it's simply a "stable Iraq." The goalpost is being lowered by the pro-war crowd, not the anti-war crowd. If Iraq is going to come through, then why do we need to be there? Our job is done, let's get the hell out of there.

I'm not claiming that the issues are/were inconsequential. I'm saying that the anti-war crowd blew off political considerations like the elections and handing over sovereignty as inconsequential when they happened, claiming they changed nothing. Suddenly political issues have become important as their previous complaint (hammering on dead civilians and military) have fallen by the wayside. It's a means of using an argument of convenience. 'Oh, that doesn't work anymore? OK, we'll change to another argument instead.' What issue will the anti-war people refocus on when the political issues get addressed?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
You replied to my original post in this thread, so I assume you read it. My single opinion has nothing to do with my original point; that the rest of America, despite the shift in DC tone, doesn't feel any different toward the war now than they did before the surge. Then you brought up a random point about anti-war protesters using polls to their advantage now but not early on in the war. Which, of course, can be easily explained away considering many didn't know in 03 what we know now; no WMDs, nuclear weapons, et al.

Granted, no one here expects you to face the reality that Iraq was a fuck up and needs to be remedied. You, after all, still believe the U.S. is going to magically turn Iraq into the Muslim equivalent of Israel someday, correct?

I don't need anybody here to define what is reality for me because reality and the opinion of the majority that infests P&N are often at odds. That's plainly obvious as the tide has turned in Iraq and the people in here deny, deflect, and ignore that fact completely.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

That's pathetic and shoddy reasoning. Nobody wants us to be in Iraq indefinitely, even the most ardent neocon. Nor has Karuthammer ever claimed anything of the sort. He merely pointed out the shifting goalposts of the anti-war crowd. Whenever one of their whines disappears they move to another. And another. And issues they considered inconsequential previously suddenly become major issues that they refocus their faux indignance on. He demonstrates how the anti-war crowd aren't really concerned about Iraq at all, they are just concerned about being anti-war and create the excuse of the day for their opposition as they go along. The ploy is transparent and ridiculous and it's obvious they don't want to have to eat crow. Guess what though? It's what's for anti-war dinner where Iraq is concerned. Despite all the pessimism, defeatism, and rhetoric from the anti-war crowd, Iraq is going to come through and they simply can't tolerate being so completely wrong about it. That much is obvious.

This my friends is called wishful thinking. Never mind that Iraq's levels of violence are still among the highest since the invasion, never mind that the "stable" parts of Iraq have effectively declared their independance from the national government, the fact is that we're winning. We've achieved a small reduction from record levels of violence, and since the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad is near total, there are far fewer people around for sectarian death squads to intimidate and kill. See? Success! The warmongers originally declared success would be a free and democratic Iraq. Now they will settle for "stable". Translation: If Iraq doesn't descend into complete apocalyptic chaos then the invasion was a success and we were right to do it.

What's strange is that there have been regular pronouncements of progress and victory since this whole shitstorm began. At this rate another few years of 'victory' and our army will have totally collapsed.

TLC here will never admit what a catastrophe this has been. He never will. This is the great part of his position... no matter how long we flail around in Iraq, victory will always be on the horizon so long as we stick it out a bit more. The minute sanity prevails however and we decide to leave, the disaster of Iraq will somehow be the fault of those who didn't want to stay around instead of the idiots who launched this war to begin with. So since our choices are either destroy our army and waste thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, or listen to some people try to use the old 'stab in the back' argument from Germany circa 1920 and the US circa 1980, I'll gladly save the lives and cash and do what we've all known was the right thing to do from the start... stop the mess in Iraq.

And you'll never admit that things are improving drastically in Iraq. The difference is that I'm going to be right in the long-run and you're going to end up being wrong.

But carry on with the pessimism. It's what you guys do.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

And you'll never admit that things are improving drastically in Iraq. The difference is that I'm going to be right in the long-run and you're going to end up being wrong.

But carry on with the pessimism. It's what you guys do.

Tell yourself whatever you need to. What I would bet will happen is that you will modify your personal goals for Iraq to closely mirror whatever actually ends up happening there. So... no matter how much of a shithole we end up creating you will convince yourself its what you always wanted and that you 'won'.

It's what you guys do.