[quote]gDol wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I wanted to call out all the defeatists.
That includes gdol, bradley, lixy, tme.
From: Breitbart News Network
I have to post some of this:
WASHINGTON (AP) - One senator said U.S. troops are routing out al-Qaida in parts of Iraq. Another insisted President Bush’s plan to increase troops has caused tactical momentum.
One even went so far on Wednesday as to say the argument could be made that U.S. troops are winning.
These are not Bush-backing GOP die-hards, but Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin, Bob Casey and Jack Reed. Even Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, said progress was being made by soldiers.
The suggestions by them and other Democrats in recent days that at least a portion of Bush’s strategy in Iraq is working is somewhat surprising, considering the bitter exchanges on Capitol Hill between the Democratic majority and Republicans and Bush. Democrats have long said Bush’s policies have been nothing more than a complete failure.
The Democrats’ choice to acknowledge the military’s progress in Iraq signals support for the troops, a message that voters want to hear. But they still heap criticism on Bush and his Iraq strategy, which promises to be a prominent issue in next year’s presidential election.
All of Washington is waiting for the September assessment from Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker about the Bush administration strategy. Bush has called the plan a “surge” because it poured thousands more troops into the country.
A key component of the January plan was that there be political progress in Iraq. Last week, the chief lawmaking body in Iraq went into recess until September without accomplishing much of what U.S. leaders had hoped they would.
Levin, while saying military progress was being made, said the troop build-up could not be considered a success because its purpose was to make way for political reconciliation, and that hasn’t happened.
“The only hope is if they take the responsibility onto themselves and we end the open-ended military commitment,” Levin, of Michigan, said Sunday on CNN’s “Late Edition.”
Reed, a Rhode Island senator who visited Iraq last month, said there’s been tactical momentum, but it “has yet to translate itself into real political momentum, which is the key, I think, to progress.”
Durbin, an Illinois senator who is traveling this week with Pennsylvania Sen. Casey, told CNN on Wednesday that “naturally” troops are routing out al-Qaida in parts of Iraq, but then explained there’s no evidence of the government in the areas.
In a conference call with reporters, Casey said one could make a good argument that U.S. troops have won the war, then accused Iraqi politicians and the Bush administration of not matching the intensity of the troops.
“The troops have met every assignment, they’ve beaten the odds time and again, they’ve done everything we’ve asked them to,” Casey said
This makes me incredibly happy.
Let’s get the defeatists squirming.
JeffR
Jeffrey,
I’m going to try to simplify this for you, because you seem to operate on a child’s level (cheerleading for a team and not knowing the meaning of the word “nuance”) when it comes to politics.
Realism does not equal defeatism. Boundless optimism, based on minimal evidence, has been the cardinal sin of this administration, and has gotten us into the shitty position we’re in. Being realistic about Iraq is not the same thing as being defeatist, and grasping for any shred of evidence that we’re “winning” (I’d love to see your definition of that word here) is not a good way to operate.
I’m not even really in favor of a withdrawal from Iraq in the near future, but I think it’s probably inevitable, due to both military overstretch and the desires of the American people.
As usual, this thread has fallen back on ad hominem attacks and Republicans v. Democrats cheerleading, instead of trying to objectively determine whether we “just might win” in Iraq. Coincidentally, I see that you didn’t bother addressing either of the last two links I posted, which have at least as much substance as O’Hanlon and Pollack’s editorial.
You seem to be missing the point: Iraq will only be “won,” in the sense of some basic stability, through political reconciliation. All the American troops and firepower in the world won’t bring peace if the Iraqis, and their political leadership, don’t want it.
The surge, and all of its successes on the ground, are a sideshow compared to the political situation inside Iraq. Luckily, we’re finally talking to Iran, which may make some headway on the issue.
I don’t know whether we’ve lost in Iraq yet, but mindless cheerleading and focus on tactical victories doesn’t prove anything besides the ignorance of the poster.
[/quote]
gdol,
First, I’ve asked you to stretch your brain to come up with something more creative than “Jeffry is dumb.”
It doesn’t seem that difficult to come up with something more cutting, creative, or relevant.
Second, the majority of dems credit their 2006 Congressional wins to their flip-flopping on the Iraq War. They campaigned on losing the Iraq War.
If you cannot understand the importance of them now acknowledging the strategy that they MALIGNED is working, then I can’t help you.
Third, one of your standard attacks has been that the Administration was overly optimistic and not realistic. However, when you see the surge working, it clearly illustrates the fallacy of your argument. Remember that the surge was planned and implemented at the absolute nadir of people’s support for the war.
Patreus, Gates, and the surge are three tangible things we can point to that says this Administration is not only serious about winning, but, are willing to change their strategy to fit conditions on the ground.
Fourth, you acknowledging the iranian talks as positive, is another illustration that the Administration can and has looked at the situation and instituted strategic and tactical changes in order to win.
Fifth, any WIN must start with security. It is an absolute. Politicians (be they Iraqi or American) need space and time to wiggle, jostle, bite, slime, sleaze, and solve problems. So for you to downplay the progress with stability while highlighting political divisions, is another clear illustration of your desperate desire for Iraq to fail. It shows your bias as clearly as you voting a straight democratic ticket in 2006.
Sixth, if you want to regain a measure of credibility as a poster, you might think about declaring yourself a liberal democrat. OR, start a new thread that gives W. the credit he deserves for the breakthroughs in north korea.
JeffR