0
rushmc

Democrats Fear Positive Iraq Report

Recommended Posts

Found on NewMax but from AP

The Dems are already starting damage control, just in case. How, by stating the White House will be writting the report not the Generals. HOWEVER, the requirement given to the White House by Congress states the "White House" shall deliever a report to congress.....


Anyway. enjoy


Monday, Aug. 20, 2007 2:58 p.m. EDT
Democrats Fear Positive Iraq Report


Democrats are warily anticipating a September report on the Iraq war, realizing that opponents will use any upbeat assessment to portray them as defeatists just as glimmers of hope appear.

While many of their party colleagues find the notion fanciful, they acknowledge that top Republicans hope the report will show just enough progress in Iraq to persuade millions of Americans to be patient about troop withdrawals and less critical of how the war is being run.

Democratic candidates for president and Congress, the GOP argument goes, would then be stuck with their Iraq-is-lost stance, appearing irresolute and beholden to liberal activists just as things are looking better.

Many Democratic strategists consider it highly unlikely that a Bush administration report could convince voters the war is improving in a meaningful way. Polling data suggest most Americans are unlikely to change their views about the war based on a new report from the administration.


Still, some Democrats worry that credible reports of even slight improvements in the military situation in Iraq could hurt their party's momentum, built largely on public disenchantment with President Bush and his handling of the war. The administration is writing the September update while consulting with Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker. Both men will testify before Congress.

In late July, House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., said an upbeat assessment from Petraeus would carry significant weight with his party's most conservative members. They would "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 told The Washington Post.

Republicans pounced on the remark, claiming Democrats see any progress in Iraq as a political setback. They also trumpeted a July 30 op-ed article in the New York Times by two Brookings Institution military scholars just back from Iraq.

"We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms," wrote Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack. "We were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily 'victory' but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with."

Some Democratic lawmakers have drawn similar conclusions, putting new strains on party solidarity. Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., recently returned from Iraq and said he no longer supports a hard deadline for troop withdrawals.



"I have come to believe that calls for premature withdrawal may make it more difficult for Iraqis to solve their problems," Baird told The Columbian newspaper. The Democratic Party leadership "may be in a different place than I am right now," he said.
Bush's allies hope more good news will come from next month's administration report to Congress, even though no one expects a thoroughly optimistic assessment. U.S. military leaders have said some Iraqi regions _ such as the area around Mosul in the north and Al Anbar province in the west _ may be stable enough to let U.S. troops redeploy elsewhere.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, responding in writing to a reporter's question, said: "Democratic leaders made a political calculation in January and it is proving to be dead wrong."

"Ignoring American successes in favor of advocating failure is not leadership," he said.

With few exceptions, top national Democrats have called the war a mistake. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said in April he believed that "this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything." Reid was referring to the roughly 30,000 troops and support personnel sent to Iraq this spring.

Of the party's major presidential contenders, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois has opposed the war from the start; former Sen. John Edwards has apologized for his 2002 vote to authorize the war; and Sen. Hillary R. Clinton says Americans want "a leader who will end the war in Iraq."

Yet all three have cautioned against a hasty withdrawal of U.S. troops that could lead to greater sectarian violence in Iraq.

Several conservative commentators, anticipating the September report, say Democrats have climbed out too far on a dangerous limb. "Democrats, who have been pandering to their anti-war base, will increasingly see that they have... 'a problem,"' William Kristol wrote this month in the Weekly Standard, alluding to Clyburn's remarks.

Not true, says Steve Elmendorf, a former Democratic congressional aide who now lobbies in Washington. "At the end of the day," he said in an interview, "the report gets filtered through the White House and Bush apparatus, and they don't have any credibility," he said.

A recent CNN-Opinion Research Corp. poll found Americans almost evenly split when asked if the U.S. military is making progress in ending violence in Iraq. But by 53 percent to 43 percent, most said they do not trust the top U.S. commander there, Petraeus, to report what is truly happening when he briefs the president and Congress.

Moreover, 72 percent of all respondents said a positive report would not affect their view of the war, while 28 percent said it would make them likelier to support it. Most polls show six in 10 Americans still oppose Bush's handling of the war, think the war is going badly and favor cutting troop strength in Iraq.

Among them is Carol Cross, a political independent who lives in West Fargo, N.D. The war "seems like it's spinning its wheels, it's going nowhere," she said in a phone interview after answering poll questions.

An upbeat report from Petraeus and the administration would not change her mind, said Cross, who is retired. "I think it's time for them to come home," she said, "no matter what."


© 2007 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then, add this to the debate

http://www.theolympian.com/news/story/192500.html

Baird sees need for longer U.S. role in Iraq

Brad Shannon
The Olympian

U.S. Rep. Brian Baird said Thursday that his recent trip to Iraq convinced him the military needs more time in the region, and that a hasty pullout would cause chaos that helps Iran and harms U.S. security.

"I believe that the decision to invade Iraq and the post-invasion management of that country were among the largest foreign-policy mistakes in the history of our nation. I voted against them, and I still think they were the right votes," Baird said in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C.

"But we're on the ground now. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people and a strategic interest in making this work."

Baird, a five-term Democrat, voted against President Bush ordering the Iraq invasion — at a time when he was in a minority in Congress and at risk of alienating voters. He returned late Tuesday from a trip that included stops in Israel, Jordan and Iraq, where he met troops, U.S. advisers and Iraqis, whose stories have convinced him that U.S. troops must stay longer.

With Congress poised next month to look at U.S. progress in Iraq and a vote looming on U.S. funding for the war, Baird said he's inclined to seek a continued U.S. presence in Iraq beyond what many impatient Americans want. He also expects Gen. David Petraeus, who oversees U.S. troops in Iraq, to seek a redeployment of forces. "People may be upset. I wish I didn't have to say this," Baird said. He added that the United States needs to continue with its military troops surge "at least into early next year, then engage in a gradual redeployment. … I know it's going to cost hundreds of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars."

It was Baird's fifth trip to the Middle East, and he conceded that what he has learned has put him again in an unpopular position with some voters. He no longer thinks partitioning Iraq into Sunni, Shiite and Kurd sections is possible, for instance; no one he spoke to in Israel, Jordan, Palestinian cities or Iraq liked the idea, he added.

Activists rallied Thursday at the state Capitol, saying they want Baird, who represents the 3rd Congressional District, which includes Olympia, to vote for withdrawing U.S. troops. But Baird said he believes that to the extent Iraqis think the United States would withdraw before bringing security to a functioning Iraqi government, "that might contribute to the infighting and instability of the government."

He also said the United States tore up Iraq with its invasion in 2003, dismantling civil government and industries and tossing a half-million people out of work, but that three years of U.S. help is not enough to let Iraq rebuild.

Baird said he would not say this if he didn't believe two things:

• "One, I think we're making real progress."

• "Secondly, I think the consequences of pulling back precipitously would be potentially catastrophic for the Iraqi people themselves, to whom we have a tremendous responsibility … and in the long run chaotic for the region as a whole and for our own security."

Cheryl Crist of Olympia, who lost the Democratic primary against Baird in 2004 running on an anti-war platform, said the military presence in Iraq is adding to the problem.

"We do owe them something — reparations and help," Crist said of the U.S. obligation to Iraqis. "But we are not good at delivering that through the military."
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The Dems are already starting damage control, just in case.
>How, by stating the White House will be writting the report not the
>Generals.

So the democrats are lying by saying that the report will be written by the White House. Hang em, those liars!

>HOWEVER, the requirement given to the White House by Congress states
>the "White House" shall deliever a report to congress.....

So the democrats are telling the truth by saying that the report will be written by the White House. Hang em, those stating-the-obvious buffoons!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>The Dems are already starting damage control, just in case.
>How, by stating the White House will be writting the report not the
>Generals.

So the democrats are lying by saying that the report will be written by the White House. Hang em, those liars!Wow, where did I say they were liars Bill?

>HOWEVER, the requirement given to the White House by Congress states
>the "White House" shall deliever a report to congress.....

So the democrats are telling the truth by saying that the report will be written by the White House. Hang em, those stating-the-obvious buffoons!

So Bill, they are complaining and making a big deal that the "White House" will be writing the report instead of the "Generals." But the requirment given to the WH was, that it (the WH) would submit a report to the Congress on the progress. So, why are they complaining that the WH is doing what THEY asked them (the WH) to do?? What is your take?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Found on NewMax but from AP



Why bother clarifying this anymore? It's stating the obvious -- you've made it abundantly clear that you parrot talking points you glean from your oh-so-objective sources.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, you poor 2 party people...you fail to understand that both dmes and reps will support the war outside the game..if hillary gets it she will. they are both the slaves of AIPAC, and untill all the arabs are dead it wont stop.
If you are a dem and hate the war you wpould be smart to change your ticket to R and vote for Ron Paul in Primary...he is allready getting heat because he is the guy formerly under the liberatatian ticket that is for SEND TROOPS HOME, end ALL foreign aid and send the mestizos home and put our boys on the border to keep em from coming back. Gosh I guess that sounds like a guy thats not going to get bought off. Now mexicans can make their own country give them opportunity, and Isrealis can lose their lives instead of ours to genocide the arabs..what a beautiful world!
www.911missinglinks.com the definitive truth of 9/11..the who and why, not how

You can handle the TRUTH www.theforbiddentruth.net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Found on NewMax but from AP



Why bother clarifying this anymore? It's stating the obvious -- you've made it abundantly clear that you parrot talking points you glean from your oh-so-objective sources.


The AP is one of my "objective" sources???

You did see this was from the AP....................right?:S
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>The Dems are already starting damage control, just in case.
>How, by stating the White House will be writting the report not the
>Generals.

So the democrats are lying by saying that the report will be written by the White House. Hang em, those liars!

>HOWEVER, the requirement given to the White House by Congress states
>the "White House" shall deliever a report to congress.....

So the democrats are telling the truth by saying that the report will be written by the White House. Hang em, those stating-the-obvious buffoons!



Oh look. Billvon misunderstood an obvious, simple point, again.

Troll, troll, troll away,

Gently down the thread...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

>The Dems are already starting damage control, just in case.
>How, by stating the White House will be writting the report not the
>Generals.

So the democrats are lying by saying that the report will be written by the White House. Hang em, those liars!

>HOWEVER, the requirement given to the White House by Congress states
>the "White House" shall deliever a report to congress.....

So the democrats are telling the truth by saying that the report will be written by the White House. Hang em, those stating-the-obvious buffoons!



Oh look. Billvon misunderstood an obvious, simple point, again.

Troll, troll, troll away,

Gently down the thread...



Effective communication places a burden on the sender to be say what he or she means, not on the recipient to interpret ambiguous statements. Bill's inerpretation was perfectly reasonable. Get back under your bridge.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Effective communication places a burden on the sender to be say what he or she means, not on the recipient to interpret ambiguous statements. Bill's inerpretation was perfectly reasonable. Get back under your bridge.



Yeah, yeah, yeah :S

It is the responsibility of the writer to effectively convey his/her point.

But when the writer falls a little short, most people earnestly try to discern the intended point. I say most because some seem intent on trying to miss the point. Perhaps they're insecure in acknowledging the point. Perhaps they just enjoy being an asshole. I'm sure there are other motivations. I'm guessing they all stem from a degree of small-mindedness.

I could be way off base. That's just how it looks to me.

It is interesting to see the same people, who at times illustrate a high intellect, resort to such a low brow tactic over and over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Oh, you poor 2 party people...you fail to understand that both dmes and reps will support the war outside the game..if hillary gets it she will. they are both the slaves of AIPAC, and untill all the arabs are dead it wont stop.



I'm not a two-party person. And I'll take what you said even a step further to say that the conventional candidates of both parties are simply two sides of the same coin and are slaves to organizations like The Council on Foreign Relations and Bilderberg.

I agree with your statements about Ron Paul, I support him as well. Sad thing is that the press is already marginalizing him. If by some remote chance he gets his party's nomination, he'd be putting himself in danger because he's an outsider.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It is the responsibility of the writer to effectively convey his/her point.

But when the writer falls a little short, most people earnestly try to discern the intended point. I say most because some seem intent on trying to miss the point.



It's intentional and it is the same people every time. And there's a list of them on both sides of every thread.

But whining about it doesn't do any good.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

It is the responsibility of the writer to effectively convey his/her point.

But when the writer falls a little short, most people earnestly try to discern the intended point. I say most because some seem intent on trying to miss the point.



It's intentional and it is the same people every time. And there's a list of them on both sides of every thread.

But whining about it doesn't do any good.



In order to get the right answer, you have first to ask the right question.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Wow, where did I say they were liars Bill?

You didn't. Your phrasing suggested they were lying. My apologies if that's not what you meant.

>So, why are they complaining that the WH is doing what THEY asked them
>(the WH) to do?? What is your take?

I don't know why either party is doing what they are doing, but I suspect the democrats are trying to point out that the report will be written by the administration and not by the people in the field, since it's been billed as "the Petraeus report." Someone who reads the report and thinks it was written by Petraeus will be misled unless they understand that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah... that report will be stellar! http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13818670

Quote

A bipartisan majority (68 percent) now say that the United States should redeploy troops from Iraq in the next 18 months, though most oppose an immediate withdrawal. Surprisingly, more conservatives (25 percent) called for an immediate pullout than liberals or moderates.

Overall, nearly all of the experts (91 percent) say that the world is becoming more dangerous for Americans and report that the country is not winning the war on terror (84 percent).


Remster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Found on NewMax but from AP

The Dems are already starting damage control, just in case. How, by stating the White House will be writting the report not the Generals. HOWEVER, the requirement given to the White House by Congress states the "White House" shall deliever a report to congress.....




"I would ask members of Congress to give the general a chance to come back and to give us a full assessment of whether this is succeeding or not. And it's at that point in time that I will consult with members of Congress and make a decision about the way forward.", President George W. Bush, July 12, 2007

"I'm going to wait for David to come back -- David Petraeus to come back and give us the report on what he sees.
President George W. Bush, July 12, 2007
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Found on NewMax but from AP

The Dems are already starting damage control, just in case. How, by stating the White House will be writting the report not the Generals. HOWEVER, the requirement given to the White House by Congress states the "White House" shall deliever a report to congress.....




"I would ask members of Congress to give the general a chance to come back and to give us a full assessment of whether this is succeeding or not. And it's at that point in time that I will consult with members of Congress and make a decision about the way forward.", President George W. Bush, July 12, 2007

"I'm going to wait for David to come back -- David Petraeus to come back and give us the report on what he sees.
President George W. Bush, July 12, 2007



Ya! So? The WH is to report what he says.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The WH is to report what he says.

Not quite. The White House will report on what lots of people say.

---------
From LAT:

Despite Bush’s repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.
------------

Given that, I don't see how it will be any different than any of the other reports/predictions/promises we've gotten from the white house throughout the years. Who can forget those oldies but goodies like "we're turning the corner in Iraq!" "The insurgency is in its last throes" ? We will no doubt hear a variation on these themes, as we have from the beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Found on NewMax but from AP

The Dems are already starting damage control, just in case. How, by stating the White House will be writting the report not the Generals. HOWEVER, the requirement given to the White House by Congress states the "White House" shall deliever a report to congress.....




"I would ask members of Congress to give the general a chance to come back and to give us a full assessment of whether this is succeeding or not. And it's at that point in time that I will consult with members of Congress and make a decision about the way forward.", President George W. Bush, July 12, 2007

"I'm going to wait for David to come back -- David Petraeus to come back and give us the report on what he sees.
President George W. Bush, July 12, 2007



Ya! So? The WH is to report filter and spin what he says.



Fixed it for you.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Found on NewMax but from AP



Why bother clarifying this anymore? It's stating the obvious -- you've made it abundantly clear that you parrot talking points you glean from your oh-so-objective sources.



It's good practice to provide a source citation. But since many people will rightfully ignore newsmax, noting that it from the AP is key to establishing some sense of legitimacy to the article.

so what's the problem? Got no real countpoint?

Personally, I think the Democrats are afraid of getting whipped by false reports of success that will stop being true right after the election. I remember way back in 1984, just weeks after the Nov election, the Long Beach Press Telegram ran a headline "Recovery Over." As fondly as many people recall the economics of the Reagan era, the first term was a dumper. He ended it at the same point he started when taking over for Carter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, this is great. Kallend and you have already condemed the report. That is exactly to the point of the post to begin with.:)
Now, If the report is very negative what will the two of you do?:D

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I agree with your statements about Ron Paul, I support him as well. Sad thing is that the press is already marginalizing him. If by some remote chance he gets his party's nomination, he'd be putting himself in danger because he's an outsider.


Well ofcourse...hes too radical for them. The media is going to slaughter him because the jewish media is against anyone who want to stop foriegn aid to all countries, and being that Israel gets 1/3 rd or it, Eisner and co. will make sure to degrade him as much as possible ,they will have a hard time as his record is as white as snow. This man is Americas man, and wouldnt have to worry about danger , their are many of us who would gladly volunteer to protect him. This is the only man who goes forth with no fear of offending anyone by wanting to put our Iraqi troops on the border
www.911missinglinks.com the definitive truth of 9/11..the who and why, not how

You can handle the TRUTH www.theforbiddentruth.net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>Kallend and you have already condemed the report.

I haven't even seen the report, so I can't condemn or laud it. What about you?



I am watching you and the Dems lay the groundword to condem a report before it even comes out.

You know, kind of like the Dems do before every election in case they loose when they make the case for posible voter fraud.

:)
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0