Especially pointless wars like Iraq that never had any real chance of success.

 

Apparently you were in attendance at that Democratic "strategy" session referred to in post #1.

Especially pointless wars like Iraq that never had any real chance of success.

 

Haven't you heard the terrible news? The troop surge is working.

While I agree with your distaste for uniform blanket statements blaming entire groups for the words and actions of a few... it just so happens that these few are the leaders of the democratic party. It is clear that they are attempting to spin any possible good news from Iraq as "...too little too late. The war has already been lost and anybody with any sense would recognize this."

 

I won't defend someone saying that good news for the U.S. in Iraq equals bad news, but you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel if you think the surge is having the hoped-for effect. True, the daily body count from sectarian killings may be down, but the real purpose of the surge strategy was to allow the Iraqi government the time and security to forge political agreements that would allow the country to move forward. What have they done with that? I'll answer that for you. They've squandered it. They're on vacation now, by the way (Tony Snow had the audacity to defend the Iraqi hiatus by pointing out how hot it gets in Baghdad in August!). None of the political objectives set out for the Iraqi government earlier this year (when the President's surge fantasy was hatched) have been met. So while our soldiers are (once again) performing brilliantly in this ill-conceived mission to hold together the smoldering pile of crap known as Iraq, zero progress is being made by those morons that will allow us to disengage.

 

I don't indict all democrats, but I will contend that these democrat leaders are on the wrong side of history. In fact, some of these characters would have been tarred and feathered for similar treasonous statements aiding and abetting the enemy during the Revolutionary War... if not hanged.

 

And where is your ire over the distortions and manipulations on the part of the White House that got us into this quagmire (to use 1994 Dick Cheney's word) in the first place? Back in the Revolutionary War days, would there not have been dire consequences for "leaders" who so obviously took the country down the wrong path?

 

Their comments with our troops in harm's way are shameful. Their willingness to declare the war lost and insist that we pull the plug instantly to ensure that loss in their lust for power is beyond disgusting.

 

You know what I think is disgusting? Cowardly republicans who continue to prop up this miserable, failed policy because they have too much invested in it. Rather than acknowledge what everyone knows (and deep down, what they know themselves)--that we can't control the direction Iraq is heading--they continue to spout nauseating platitudes about supporting the troops. Bull! If they really supported the troops, they wouldn't expect them to endure ever-longer deployments trying to referee a civil war.

 

Dick Cheney laid out all the problems with invading Iraq in 1994, and yet some seem to think this war is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Unbelievable.

 

I'm sorry guys but while I too am upset with some of the above statements I don't think it gives anyone the right to take the next step further and indict all people who might be Democrats or liberals or opponents of the war.

 

It gets just as old listening to people somehow spin media coverage and all who oppose the war as people who are wanting the US to fail. Sorry guys but those aren't anymore true than the idea that all who support the current war strategy are for death and destruction.

 

Sorry Hatz, but this is a QUOTE from the number 2 Democratic leader in the House: "House Whip James Clyburn recently said if the surge were successful, it would be 'a real problem for us'.

 

That sounds to me like he & his party ("us") are not aligned with success in Iraq.

 

If you do not agree with his statement, I suggest that you try to elect Democratic leaders that will more accurately represent your views....

Haven't you heard the terrible news? The troop surge is working.

 

By what measure is it working? Do you mean to say that the Iraqis are ready to take over and govern themselves? Let me guess, we just need a little more time? Maybe, if we keep the surge going over there for another year, they can accomplish absolutely zero political reconciliation some more.

 

Supporters of the Iraq war and this president are a little like problem gamblers.

Apparently you were in attendance at that Democratic "strategy" session referred to in post #1.

 

I'm a registered Republican. Just haven't been drinking the Kool Aid, I guess.

The statement that has been attributed to Clyburn is somewhat misleading.

 

For one thing, he also said this in the interview:

 

"None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq. If we are going to get in position to yield a good result, I think Democrats want to see that."

 

One part of his quote that was left out dealt with the impact the positive report would have on the Blue Dogs ie they would be less likely to call for a withdrawal.

 

Obviously, this Senator along with many others are now on the side of withdrawal. Having the Blue Dogs be swayed (rightly or wrongly) by a positive report would hamper that cause.

 

In no way do I believe that Senator Clyburn is hoping for failure in Iraq as evidenced by the first quote.

 

Once again, one side used a portion of the interview, left out a few parts, and used it for their own purposes. Hardly a new tactic - one that both sides of the aisle have perfected.

 

One more example of how ugly and how partisan our politics have become.

The statement that has been attributed to Clyburn is somewhat misleading.

 

For one thing, he also said this in the interview:

 

"None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq. If we are going to get in position to yield a good result, I think Democrats want to see that."

 

One part of his quote that was left out dealt with the impact the positive report would have on the Blue Dogs ie they would be less likely to call for a withdrawal.

 

Obviously, this Senator along with many others are now on the side of withdrawal. Having the Blue Dogs be swayed (rightly or wrongly) by a positive report would hamper that cause.

 

In no way do I believe that Senator Clyburn is hoping for failure in Iraq as evidenced by the first quote.

 

Once again, one side used a portion of the interview, left out a few parts, and used it for their own purposes. Hardly a new tactic - one that both sides of the aisle have perfected.

 

One more example of how ugly and how partisan our politics have become.

 

Have to disagree. It's easy for some to say the Dems want a good result, but provide one link where a Dem offers a solution to even attempt a good result. I haven't heard one Dem offer anything other than surrender. Not trying very hard (as in not at all) for a good result.

Have to disagree. It's easy for some to say the Dems want a good result, but provide one link where a Dem offers a solution to even attempt a good result. I haven't heard one Dem offer anything other than surrender. Not trying very hard (as in not at all) for a good result.

 

I'm not debating resolutions.

 

All I'm pointing out is that the quote attributed to Sen. Clyburn was misleading and incomplete.

:

 

"None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq. If we are going to get in position to yield a good result, I think Democrats want to see that."

 

 

In no way do I believe that Senator Clyburn is hoping for failure in Iraq as evidenced by the first quote.

 

 

This is what I disagree with...I don't believe the Democrats when they say none of them want to see a bad result. In his own quote, what is he willing to do to "get in position to yield a good result"? Not only is he not willing to do anything to get in a position to yield a good result, he is against anyone who is trying to get in position to yield a good result. Again, the Dems only solution is surrender, which is the worst possible result. They either want a bad result (very likely) or just believe we can't get a good result (unlikely). I don't have any use for either of those scenarios...

I watched the movie 13 Days recently and during the whole thing I couldn't help but think, "How would the Cuban Missile Crisis have turned out in today's society?"

 

With the way the media is, and the way it is used by both Democrats and Republicans to further their own agendas and their political well-being, would Kennedy and his inner circle have been able to take the some course they did. They managed to keep a lot of things out of the press and keep a lot of things quiet to buy them time...could they do it today?

 

Another example, when the U.S. had a pilot get shot down and Kennedy chose not to respond with an attack, how would that go over today? I could just see the right wing guys blasting him for being weak and unpatriotic and not defending our country, when in reality, what he did may have kept us from a full-scale nuclear war and prevented the United States from suffering a nuclear attack on it's own soil. So, which was ultimately the best for our country?

 

Obviously, it was a movie so it's probably not 100% true, but I suspect there is much truth in it. It's just really frustrating that everyone in Washington is only concerned with furthering their own political agenda rather than trying to work together for the good of the country.

 

 

I'm pretty conservative, but those are my worst fears, I really don't think you'll find to many people that legitimately would say that, unless maybe they're that far to the right and retired military. Atleast not in this day and age.

I watched the movie 13 Days recently and during the whole thing I couldn't help but think, "How would the Cuban Missile Crisis have turned out in today's society?"

 

With the way the media is, and the way it is used by both Democrats and Republicans to further their own agendas and their political well-being, would Kennedy and his inner circle have been able to take the some course they did. They managed to keep a lot of things out of the press and keep a lot of things quiet to buy them time...could they do it today?

 

Another example, when the U.S. had a pilot get shot down and Kennedy chose not to respond with an attack, how would that go over today? I could just see the right wing guys blasting him for being weak and unpatriotic and not defending our country, when in reality, what he did may have kept us from a full-scale nuclear war and prevented the United States from suffering a nuclear attack on it's own soil. So, which was ultimately the best for our country?

 

Obviously, it was a movie so it's probably not 100% true, but I suspect there is much truth in it. It's just really frustrating that everyone in Washington is only concerned with furthering their own political agenda rather than trying to work together for the good of the country.

 

I know a History professor at NKU that is very adamant in his belief that the Cuban Missile Crisis was played up by the Kennedys as an October suprise to thwart the Republicans in the midst of a mid term election of which the Democrats were percieved as being weak on national security...

 

Is this true? I'm not sure. Is it worth discussuion? Definitely.

This is what I disagree with...I don't believe the Democrats when they say none of them want to see a bad result. In his own quote, what is he willing to do to "get in position to yield a good result"? Not only is he not willing to do anything to get in a position to yield a good result, he is against anyone who is trying to get in position to yield a good result. Again, the Dems only solution is surrender, which is the worst possible result. They either want a bad result (very likely) or just believe we can't get a good result (unlikely). I don't have any use for either of those scenarios...

 

 

I refuse to believe that ANY of our elected representatives actually WANT to see a bad result. Politics are ugly. They're not THAT ugly.

I'm sorry guys but while I too am upset with some of the above statements I don't think it gives anyone the right to take the next step further and indict all people who might be Democrats or liberals or opponents of the war.

 

It gets just as old listening to people somehow spin media coverage and all who oppose the war as people who are wanting the US to fail. Sorry guys but those aren't anymore true than the idea that all who support the current war strategy are for death and destruction.

 

Amen, Hatz!:thumb:

Some of the replies in this thread condemning Democrats for wanting a bad result are just downright insane!

 

NO ONE wants a bad result in Iraq, nor for our troops. You're picking and manipulating, and labeling based on misleading information. You try to point the finger at Democrats or Liberals as being media puppets.

 

Face it. There have been, are, and will continue to be, people who OPPOSE what's happened in Iraq, why we went there, the course of action throughout the time there, and the indecision of the future plans. That doesn't make one unpatriotic.

 

I love it when people decide that disagreement with this insanity indicates a lack of patriotism on the part of the person disagreeing.