House Majority Whip: Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
The Democrats have put themselves in a horrible position ala Iraq. Any signs of good news out of Iraq is bad news for them.

I?ll let the article speak for itself to prevent the partisan bomb throwers on P&N from turning this thread into an attack on me.
link
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

Clyburn's comments came as House and Senate Democrats try to figure out their next steps in the legislative battle. Clyburn said he could foresee a circumstance in which House Democrats approve a measure without a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces, which has been the consistent goal of the party throughout the months-long debate. But he said he could just as easily see Democrats continue to include a timetable.

Clyburn also address the reasons behind declining approval ratings for Congress, which spiked earlier in the year when Democrats took over the House and Senate. The most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll showed just 37 percent approving of the performance of Congress.

"Remember right after the election it went very high on approval,?" he said. "Then all of a sudden people saw that we were not yielding the kind of result that they wanted to yield."

He said most Americans still do not know some of the domestic legislation that has been approved. Fewer understand that, despite Democratic majorities in both houses, that it takes 60 votes to pass anything legislation in the Senate.

Clyburn noted that while overall approval ratings of Congress are low, people still rate Democrats higher than Republicans. "People feel good about the Democratic Party, they just don't feel real good about the Congress itself."
A positive report on Iraq would be "a real big problem for us." Unbelievable.

Locked-DAPUNISHER
 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Why are you surprised again? A lot of Democrats, and a lot of people on these boards for that matter, would rather us lose the war so they could say "I told you so" rather than win the war and look like idiots. Of course, anybody would deny that fact, but it's pretty obvious, and proven in your story. Politics over principals.
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,673
482
126
The report doesn't have to be honest or non-political. That's clearly been proven in recent history. An honest report is usually followed by the general being retired and replaced shortly thereafter, in this administration.

Basically what he seems to be saying is that if Petraeus gives an upbeat report that isn't accurate, it's going to make ending, winding down, or changing the course of the war a lot more difficult.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,134
223
106
Sigh.... Yeah, whatever keep on the beaten path... keep wasting lives, time and money. Such joy.... No one wants to "lose" a war. But, this isn't one of those wars you win. Oh I forgot, PJ, wants you to believe that 90% want to keep the war going... PJ wants you to believe that we have a mountain of an endless supply of money to spend on this so called "WAR"... And apparently we have an endless supply of people willing to fight....


Hmmmm, isn't it strange that oil is on the rise but gas continues to fall.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: jrenz
Why are you surprised again? A lot of Democrats, and a lot of people on these boards for that matter, would rather us lose the war so they could say "I told you so" rather than win the war and look like idiots. Of course, anybody would deny that fact, but it's pretty obvious, and proven in your story. Politics over principals.

:cookie:
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Originally posted by: ericlp
Sigh.... Yeah, whatever keep on the beaten path... keep wasting lives, time and money. Such joy.... No one wants to "lose" a war. But, this isn't one of those wars you win. Oh I forgot, PJ, wants you to believe that 90% want to keep the war going... PJ wants you to believe that we have a mountain of an endless supply of money to spend on this so called "WAR"... And apparently we have an endless supply of people willing to fight....


Hmmmm, isn't it strange that oil is on the rise but gas continues to fall.

No...

What PJ is pointing out is that the Ds subsist on bad news. They campaign negatively. Rich vs Poor, Failure in Iraq, Poor Economy... Their message is always 'look what the Rs are messing up now, look at how BAD things are... vote for me.' Positive news is always bad for Ds.

I am not a fan of this war. The day I heard we were going into Iraq I actually said "Oh Crap! Why? There goes the budget." So don't go lumping me into the war happy crowd. His point goes beyond the war.

 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,134
223
106
Lets see, the stock market is tanking, house market is bursting, banks are in trouble, oil is at an all time high and we are currently 9Trillion in debt...

Hey but we are doing great in Iraq.... Is that better terminology for you? I'm not trying to clump anyone into the war monger group as I know more the 70% disapprove of us being in Iraq so it shows a few things but one is the people have no say in this country anymore.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Originally posted by: ericlp
Lets see, the stock market is tanking, house market is bursting, banks are in trouble, oil is at an all time high and we are currently 9Trillion in debt...

Hey but we are doing great in Iraq.... Is that better terminology for you? I'm not trying to clump anyone into the war monger group as I know more the 70% disapprove of us being in Iraq so it shows a few things but one is the people have no say in this country anymore.

The stock market is experiencing a bit of profit taking after hitting an all-time high and you say it's tanking? :laugh:

The US doesn't control the price of oil although it is troublesome to see it approach $80/bbl.

The housing market isn't as hot as it was... but it's hardly bursting. It's off of record highs but it's hardly where it was in the 80's. Now, the foreclosure issue is becoming worrisome... but there are those who are convinced that the foreclosure market will triple the number of millionaires in this country over the next five years.

How are banks in trouble? The secondary mortgage market is in HUGE trouble... is that what you are referring to?

 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I'll agree that Dems need to wait for the report. OTOH, That doesn't mean the report will be spin-free, or that the Admin wasn't forced into changing their losing strategy because of Dem and public pressure.

If the surge works, then we'll be in a position to follow thru on the troop withdrawals that were vetoed by Bush earlier this year, right?

And if all of that is true, why'd it take 4 years to figure it out?
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Bad news everyone is split, good news they're all split, so who cares. I'm sure it will be quite negative anyway.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
The myth implicit here is that a US defeat in Iraq is good for the dems and and any good news in Iraq is bad for the dems.

The problem is that the nation is drifting almost rudderless and we do not have a long term strategy of Iraq. As we discover, it was ever so easy to get in and screw the pooch, its far much harder to get out without risking the deaths of a whole kennel of pooches.

And after 4.25 unbroken years of things slowly getting worse in Iraq, we are getting some
indications that a VERY FEW positive things are happening in Iraq. The problem is we do not yet know if this is just random chance, or that the Sunnis are somewhat changing tactics and will soon be a worse threat, or if indeed the new Patraeus strategy is working.
And the other side myth implicit in optimism is that the Paraeus strategy, because its assumed correct, will work by historical inevitability. When in fact an event such as the Iraqi government falling, or a Kurdish succession , or that this that or the other thing happening could totally doom the Patraeus plan even if it ends up being a workable plan.

But the point is now we don't know. And the point is that IF we still don't know on September 15, we still will be where we are today, drifting rudderless, and its 100% certain the neocons and non-Prof John will be again be saying we will have dramatic progress to show you if you give us just two more months. Which is also what happened in Vietnam.

And the end stage in Vietnam was that we finally gave up in disgust---after hearing light at the end of the tunnel for the 90 millionth time---and rather irresponsibly allowed the murder of a whole Kennel of pooches when Nixon adopted the half baked McGovern peace plan, relabeled it peace with honor, and we sailed home saying yipee we won . But the murdered dogs were of the Asian left field breed and no one really cared. But the Kennel we may be murdering is of the central oil field polygot breed, and everyone cares about those dogs.

The giant mistake we are making now is in strategic thinking.---or to put it another way, in planning a trip to the future. And like any road trip you and I make to get from point A
to point B, it involves a route. And to put it one way, I might plan to go through Montana,
but if a major snow storm blocks that route, there is nothing wrong with re planning my route and instead trying a snow less Southern route through New Mexico.

But that is how the debate is being framed. We either go through using ONLY the direct route GWB charted out four years ago, now matter how high the snowdrifts we are stuck mired in Montana, and never mind the fact that we are simply spinning our wheels. In only two more months the tooth fairy will come to extracts us. And we can then get to point B, all them pooches we put at risk will be saved, and everyone but terrorists will live happily ever after. The only problem with that plan is it simply won't happen until at least the third coming of Jesus Christ.

Or we go through Montana, spend some time mired in the snow drift, then give up in disgust and drive back to point A. Which is supposedly the dimocrat plan. And all them pooches the republarats put at risk will die miserable deaths, the USA will get the blame, and the terrorists will promptly take over the world. The problem is that this is far too likely to be what happens as a default.

And those are two totally piss poor options. And now we have to confront the fact that if we don't like either option, its time to realize its only our own inflexibility that makes only those two options possible.

If nothing else we need to be planning some alternate routes NOW---yes NOW---and then when good or bad news later comes in we can alter course.

And that there are an almost infinite range of options to look at. As a somewhat partisan democrat I blame GWB for insisting his way is the only way, but the congress also is not helping.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Topic Title: House Majority Whip: Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War

Topic Summary: Good news for the country is bad news for the Democrats

Did he find the WMD we were told by your hero is there and reason we attacked because Saddam was going to launch that WMD at us here?
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Read the comment in a fuller context minus the partsian spin:

On its website, the Washington Post reports House Majority Whip James Clyburn said "a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq" by Gen. David Petraeus "likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war." Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, "said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting [their] next steps." Clyburn noted that Petraeus "carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats," and "without their support...Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal."


http://www.usnews.com/usnews/p...in/bulletin_070731.htm

Balt hit the nail on the head:

Originally posted by: Balt
The report doesn't have to be honest or non-political. That's clearly been proven in recent history. An honest report is usually followed by the general being retired and replaced shortly thereafter, in this administration.

Basically what he seems to be saying is that if Petraeus gives an upbeat report that isn't accurate, it's going to make ending, winding down, or changing the course of the war a lot more difficult.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
So, a guy who is only there at the whim of the Administration is expected to give a rosy report? Wow, that's great! I am sure Shinseki and the half dozen other officers would be proud to hear that somebody in charge of their troops would rather tow the party line than stand up for their soldiers.

Naturally, the dittoheads here would rather keep killing soldiers and wasting 2bn/day than to answer the honest questions and present factual information.

Glad to hear you guys have some independant thought processes.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: ericlp
Sigh.... Yeah, whatever keep on the beaten path... keep wasting lives, time and money. Such joy.... No one wants to "lose" a war. But, this isn't one of those wars you win. Oh I forgot, PJ, wants you to believe that 90% want to keep the war going... PJ wants you to believe that we have a mountain of an endless supply of money to spend on this so called "WAR"... And apparently we have an endless supply of people willing to fight....


Hmmmm, isn't it strange that oil is on the rise but gas continues to fall.

No...

What PJ is pointing out is that the Ds subsist on bad news. They campaign negatively. Rich vs Poor, Failure in Iraq, Poor Economy... Their message is always 'look what the Rs are messing up now, look at how BAD things are... vote for me.' Positive news is always bad for Ds.

I am not a fan of this war. The day I heard we were going into Iraq I actually said "Oh Crap! Why? There goes the budget." So don't go lumping me into the war happy crowd. His point goes beyond the war.

How do you actually go through life being so one-sidedly (I made a new word!!!) blind? There is no way to defend PJ's point without abandoning all sense of logic and common sense.

If you don't think that the opposition party in any country's political makeup is exploitive of the other side's missteps and constantly pointing out their flaws.....you have your head so far up your ass you are probably looking at your tonsils.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
So, a guy who is only there at the whim of the Administration is expected to give a rosy report? Wow, that's great! I am sure Shinseki and the half dozen other officers would be proud to hear that somebody in charge of their troops would rather tow the party line than stand up for their soldiers.

Naturally, the dittoheads here would rather keep killing soldiers and wasting 2bn/day than to answer the honest questions and present factual information.

Glad to hear you guys have some independant thought processes.

The 2bn is being spent per month....not per day. Just thought that you might want to be dispelling "factual information" also. ;)
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
The central theme of this entire thread from non-Prof John is contained in the following sentence---"The Democrats have put themselves in a horrible position ala Iraq."

Sorry, this is a horrible way to put it.-----------and we need to say as its said below.

GWB&co has put this nation and the entire world in a very horrible position regarding Iraq. And GWB&co has made it almost impossible for any political party or entity to figure any clear way out of what GWB has gotten us into. And the democrats are not willing to cut funding in the vain hope that GWB finally has a working plan. Should GWB fail to deliver what they promise soon, the dems will cut funding to stop GWB in Iraq. IF GWB can deliver some demonstrated positive results in Iraq, the dems may decide to not force a withdrawal.

Now fixed for you non Prof John
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Well, I think that Clyburn is just stating the obvious. And many have long asserted that the Dems are "invested" in Iraq remaining negative with no improvement. So, good progress (if that were to happen, and there are signs it may. Even anti-war media types are noting the signs progress) may be problematic for them.

Certainly the hard left anti-war types will be bitterly disappointed (as they are now) if withdrawl is not passed in Sept.

But, while there may be a defection among the Blue Dog Dems, what will this report do to the general concensus among the electorate? If the "war" remains unpopular I question whether this possibility will affect the Presidential election.

It's not hard to see the battle lines forming. Many Dems have been denouncing the "surge" even before it was fully implemented. Some here even imply the military will give a dishonest report. All trying to "get out in front" of the report and dis-credit it beforehand in the case it turns out to be positive.

What if we have a valid positive report, yet the Dems pooh-pooh it to the point no one has any faith in it? What if we then go on to withdrawl and the feared consequences arise? What if people then, with the benefit of hindsight, look back and decide progress was being made and that path was preferable to the aftermath of withdrawl? Would a Dem President win a second term?

After a very long time it seems the Dems have finally regained the trust of people regarding issues of national security and such, would such a twist of fate cause them to loose it?

IMO, the politization of war is a harbinger of our downfall. In any war we now have two opponents: the one on the field of war and the other being half of our own government (and their political supporters). It's like we fight with one hand tied behind our back, and that hand is able to strike us. We will never muster full strength.

Fern
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
I think the Republicans are dreading a positive report from Petraeus in september.
They fully realize that the situation is virtually the same as before the surge, and there is really no hope short of staying in Iraq 20 years or more.
So the worst thing would be Petraeus giving a positive report and removing the usage of his report as cover for changing their policies on Iraq.
The Republicans are dreading going into the 2008 election cycle with the Iraqi violence continuing unabated, the government in a state of collapse and the prospects for any improvement nil.
Watch for the Republicans to initiate an independent report with the Dems if Petraeus tries to paint a rosy picture. The Repubs will be desperate then.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
The surge will never work, mainly because it involves so few troops. 32 thousand isn't going to do anything. You need 300,000 +, at least ,to keep peace and wait the 10 years needed for Iraq to calm down. Do we want to stay there 10 years with 300,000 troops? Is America commited enough?

I seriously think that America is not commited enough. Personally, I would be for a bigger troops surge, but its not my life thats going to be risked if the surge does happen. Its the lives of the soldiers. Bush should have known this before going to war. When I heard that Bush went into Iraq with less than 200,000 troops, I knew it was going to be a failure.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Actually, the Iraqi occupation costs are ~$2B/wk, $100B/yr...

No big deal, right? it's only ~20% of the total annual debt increase brought on by repub fiscal responsibiity...

From Fern-

"IMO, the politization of war is a harbinger of our downfall. In any war we now have two opponents: the one on the field of war and the other being half of our own government (and their political supporters). It's like we fight with one hand tied behind our back, and that hand is able to strike us. We will never muster full strength. "

Hogwash. We'd get whatever was required against a legitimate enemy in a conflict where we weren't the aggressor, hadn't attacked pre-emptively over a pack of lies and distortions... hadn't stumbled over our own ideological dicks during occupation and reconstruction...

This isn't a war of necessity, at all, but rather one of choice, a longshot gamble taken against the best advice of our military's commanders. Shinseki wanted 350K troops, remember? If we didn't have them, then we shouldn't have initiated the whole thing, particularly not with the phony justifications employed...

As it is, troop strength will need to be reduced next spring, anyway, unless the admin is willing to extend duty tours further or sacrifice manpower somewhere else...
 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: techs
I think the Republicans are dreading a positive report from Petraeus in september.
They fully realize that the situation is virtually the same as before the surge, and there is really no hope short of staying in Iraq 20 years or more.
So the worst thing would be Petraeus giving a positive report and removing the usage of his report as cover for changing their policies on Iraq.
The Republicans are dreading going into the 2008 election cycle with the Iraqi violence continuing unabated, the government in a state of collapse and the prospects for any improvement nil.
Watch for the Republicans to initiate an independent report with the Dems if Petraeus tries to paint a rosy picture. The Repubs will be desperate then.


Amazing.

I have seen some lame attempts at spin by partisan hacks but this one is got to be the lamest yet.

Most likely if Patraeus comes back with a good report Democrats will initiate an investigation; on top of their 300+ since November. The Democrats are also dreading going into 2008 and not having gotten the troops out. They made the promise and they haven't delivered.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: techs
I think the Republicans are dreading a positive report from Petraeus in september.
They fully realize that the situation is virtually the same as before the surge, and there is really no hope short of staying in Iraq 20 years or more.
So the worst thing would be Petraeus giving a positive report and removing the usage of his report as cover for changing their policies on Iraq.
The Republicans are dreading going into the 2008 election cycle with the Iraqi violence continuing unabated, the government in a state of collapse and the prospects for any improvement nil.
Watch for the Republicans to initiate an independent report with the Dems if Petraeus tries to paint a rosy picture. The Repubs will be desperate then.


Amazing.

I have seen some lame attempts at spin by partisan hacks but this one is got to be the lamest yet.

Most likely if Patraeus comes back with a good report Democrats will initiate an investigation; on top of their 300+ since November. The Democrats are also dreading going into 2008 and not having gotten the troops out. They made the promise and they haven't delivered.
Guess who's blocking them? Partisanship by the Republican senators.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Looks like a massive mental imbalance at the GOP. Their plan for 2008 is to advocate staying in Iraq and also attack Democrats for not withdrawing from Iraq at the same time? If so, I say go right ahead. You'll have 8 more years of Clinton.
Also September 2007 is a long time away from November 2008.
Positive Patraeus report may be next in line with other positive reports, such as:
-They'll welcome us with flowers.
-We'll only need 150K troops
-Mission Accomplished
-Going to find WMD's
-Last throes of the insurgency
and pretty much every other administration statement on Iraq to date.
No matter what Patraeus reports, it's time to leave Iraq. If things are going well, great, why do they need us there? If things are going poorly, time to cut losses and leave.