Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[yesman065]

Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War

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."

Amazing to me that a positive report - a report that things are going well, that our military was achieving objectives, that our troops were succeeding would be "a big problem." WTF?

[glatt]

Is it really amazing?

Edit: Sad maybe, but amazing?

[yesman065]

I get beat up on for saying that the democratic party (NOT EVERY ONE) but the leadership - whatever doesn't support our troops. This d-bag comes right out and says that it would be "a big problem" if there was a positive report given by our commander in chief. Sad and really effed up. I don't like ANY of them anymore and I'm afraid if I do like one its just cuz he's a better liar than the rest!

[glatt]

But you understand he's talking about the political standing of his party, not about the troops, right?

The Democrats have put pretty much all their eggs into the anti-war basket. If the war starts going well, it will put the Democrats into the position of either flip flopping on the issue or sticking to their position and looking stupid. They lose politically either way.

What they should do, is embrace any positive news because that's what any normal person would do, and then from a political point of view, they should take credit for it. They could argue that their victory in November is what pressured the Administration to change its war tactics. And they would be right.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by glatt

But you understand he's talking about the political standing of his party, not about the troops, right?

Yup

Originally Posted by glatt

The Democrats have put pretty much all their eggs into the anti-war basket. If the war starts going well, it will put the Democrats into the position of either flip flopping on the issue or sticking to their position and looking stupid. They lose politically either way.

And therein lieds the rub.

Originally Posted by glatt

What they should do, is embrace any positive news because that's what any normal person would do, and then from a political point of view, they should take credit for it. They could argue that their victory in November is what pressured the Administration to change its war tactics. And they would be right.

I think you're right - they should act like any normal person and rejoice at positive news. I'd even be willing to let them take credit that they are responsible for the change in tactics.

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Amazing to me that a positive report - a report that things are going well, that our military was achieving objectives, that our troops were succeeding would be "a big problem." WTF?

That is the point. You selectively posted an isolated event. Demonstrated but again is that "Mission Accomplished" was being lost at every level. And yet our glorious president repeatedly said we were winning. Even this minor good news only confirms how often our leader was a liar.

Citing success in tactical objective while ignoring the entire picture is also called propaganda.

Meanwhile also know who O'Hanlon and Pollack are. Pollack was 'person non-grata' by George Jr because he wrote about needing a force that exceeded 150,000 and then over 100,000 for five or ten years minimum. The political agenda said America does not do nation building.

O'Hanlon got same treatment because he wrote in his 2002 book that Saddam paniced; his regime destabilized when Clinton executed Desert Fox in 1998. Saddam was so destablilzed as to be a threat to no one. Clinton had almost completely solved the problem created by Cheney, Wolfovich, Rumsfeld, et al. O'Hanlon also stated that containment was working. Facts are wrong when they contradict a political agenda? That too is part of the story that was ignored.

Who does not support the troops? Those who believed a lying president. Those who denied we were losing "Mission Accomplished" at every level. Finally troops have one limited success. Those who have contempt for the troops repeatedly ignore or deny that bigger picture. Contempt even promoted pre-emption while disparaging containment.

Well at least someone finally did something for the troops. The mental midget was so publically disparaged that troops finally got a competant general and got relieve from political agendas. We did that in PA by voting against the wacko extremist Senator Santorum.

What is postive? The mental midget is slowly coming around to what the Iraq Study Group, et al (including this poster) have long been saying. Unfortunately he is doing it so slow as to protect his legacy at the expense of American troops. Notice many who claim to support the troops really have contempt for those troops. That political agenda is contempt for the American soldier.

Meanwhile, notice what is happening as a result of "Mission Accomplished"? When are we going after bin Laden? Does one worry about saying things only positive - or confront reality in full perspective and without emotion? Those who instead deal with reality are only those who support the troops.

Never rejoice due to postive news. That only creates an attitude based in silly emotion. Take news as news. Add that news to the big picture. A picture that also asks, "When do we go after bin Laden?"

Those who only rejoice in good news are doing propaganda; intentionally ignoring THE most important fact. We make no effort to go after bin Laden. We have one little accomplishment. Some tactical victories that all acknowledge will turn into losses if the strategic objective for "Mission Accomplished" remains ignored.

What does that good news say? Our leaders have been lying to us - an indisputible fact. A strategic objective is not being achieved. Ten or more years in Iraq - so that the war will not be lost during George Jr's watch. George Jr does zero to demand a strategic success - which is also in that 'good' news - when one looks at the big picture.

[Undertoad]

In other words --

If everything goes well now, it doesn't excuse the fact that it was a massive mistake -- in fact things have to go *exceedingly* well for that to be the case, to justify the cost in lives and dollars.

Anti-war, pro-surge would be the correct choice in such a case. (Obama.)

Pro-war, anti-surge would be the incorrect choice in such a case. (Hillary.)

[xoxoxoBruce]

At this point I don't think exceedingly well can ever make up for the fumbling that's been going on in the past four years... for the unnecessary hardship on the Iraqis or our allies, for the cost to the US in men, money and international good will.

Even if Iraq becomes our bestest buddy, this war will cause hate toward the US with their neighbors and throughout the muslim world. I suppose that would happen even if the war had been run right and Iraq was stabilized in the first year, but I think it would have had less impact on muslims, removed from that area, without the years and years of war news.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

At this point I don't think exceedingly well can ever make up for the fumbling that's been going on in the past four years... for the unnecessary hardship on the Iraqis or our allies, for the cost to the US in men, money and international good will.

Even if Iraq becomes our bestest buddy, this war will cause hate toward the US with their neighbors and throughout the muslim world. I suppose that would happen even if the war had been run right and Iraq was stabilized in the first year, but I think it would have had less impact on muslims, removed from that area, without the years and years of war news.

At best we have been treading water for a few years now.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Even if Iraq becomes our bestest buddy, this war will cause hate toward the US with their neighbors and throughout the muslim world.

That dam busted years ago - long before 9/11/2001 - I would guess. Then again the way the conflict has gone and reported certainly didn't help.

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

That dam busted years ago - long before 9/11/2001 - I would guess.

Quite the other way around. Respect and admiration for the US by 2000 was probably at an all time high. World wide, American approval ratings were abut 70%. This was especially true in the Middle East when America was supporting the Oslo Accords. Even Syria was secretly a strong US ally. Libya was actively courting a new and friendly relationship with the US. The Dayton Accords set another foundation of repect for how the US ends massacres and overt military conflicts - doing so to protect a mostly Muslim population. Kuwait even renamed a major street after George Sr. Sudan had even changed enough to drive bin Laden out of their country (although by that time, Sudan had all but soaked bin Laden for most of bin Laden's financial net worth).

One of America's strongest allies in the entire world was Turkey.

What has changed since 11 September - when the entire world could not be more closely allied with the US? Well even Turkey has some of the lowest American approval ratings compared to the world. We have even destroyed that relationship with one of our closest allies - Turkey. Even Israel has become concerned. American fubars are so massive that Hamas and Hezbollah have both become popular and stronger. American stupidity even for demanding Palestinian elections was obvioius to all in the region. But America even forced that stupid demand. Pakistan is sitting on a pin head - could easily go either way in a very short time - with just one successful assassination attempt.

This idea that Americans were unpopular among Muslim nations is simply bogus propaganda promoted Limbaugh and other radicals. As that group of 50 ambassadors and generals stated in an open letter so many years ago, George Jr has mostly destroyed relationships with nations that took them 50 years to build.

Richard Holbrook and Charlie Rose discussed this recently. Normally presidents start in office with a domestic agenda. Only years later do they take up international agendas. But the next president will have some of the most challenging international relation problems this nation has ever seen. Two wars; both going badly. First time in history, an international trade conference has failed with blame at America and France. Even American relationships with Mexico and Canada are at all time lows. America was once a nation to respect, to set world agendas, to lead the world in solving new problems, and (if an enemy) to fear. Even American enemies have so less to fear. Could America execute another Dayton Accords or create a bloodless coup in Haiti today? Doubtful. American diplomacy is completely paralyzed by political agenda such as American demands to terminate family planning programs in other nations. American military might is so bogged down as to be a diminished threat even to enemies. We don't even have a Rapid Reaction force - once considered absolutely essential to American security. Even that is bogged down in "Mission Accomplished".

Welcome to the new world order - one the father was not expecting and that the son created. One in which even the Oslo Accords were undermined by America after 2000.

[yesman065]

Great - maybe I'll just go shoot myself - geez tw you gotta be either a droid or the most ddepressing person on the face of the planet. One little offhand remark and you write a chapter on how the sky is falling.

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Great - maybe I'll just go shoot myself - geez tw you gotta be either a droid or the most ddepressing person on the face of the planet. One little offhand remark and you write a chapter on how the sky is falling.

Why are you posting emotions? If you think that a sky is falling, then fine. What are your supporting facts to make that conclusion. Your post again reeks of wacko extremist fear of Arabs.

Why do you even entertain such emotions? Why do you let such emotions proclaim that the Arab world mostly hated Americans? That is what Rush Limbaugh needs all to assume so that he can promote propaganda - the hate and fear that Cheney so promotes.

A benchmark identifies many brainwashed by extremism. They believe myths that enemies are out there everywhere hating us and just waiting for oppurtunities to kill us all. Reality - enemies were few to near zero. Reality - most dangerous enemies were really us - ie Timothy McVeigh. The world was not full of hate for America as Limbaugh, Cheney, et al claim. And yet that unjustified assumption results in "That dam busted years ago - long before 9/11/2001 - I would guess." That guess is based in their wacko extremist 'hate and fear' propaganda.

Appreciate the problem that we created because so many Americans foolishly believe wacko propaganda that Arabs mostly hated Americans. It just was not true AND it becomes justificaton for so much hate and fear even of Muslim Americans.

With so much hate and fear, then extremists said Saddam had WMDs to attack America. A lie that they knew only from their feelings; not from facts. Meanwhile Saddam was doing anything he could to be an American friend without destroying his own regime. Somehow that reality got lost in all this 'Arabs hate us' propaganda. Such racist assumptions should be challenged by a long list of contrary facts.

Yesman065 - you posted your bias. You have assumed facts not in evidence - this widespread Arab hatred of America that exists before 11 September. That did not exist except where extremists such as Limbaugh were preaching outright lies and hate. Shame on you for entertaining their racism and then getting emotional again because your emotions were proven wrong by fact, after fact, after fact ...

Get over it. There are not all these people hiding everywhere waiting to kill us all. That fear is the same wacko propaganda that even justified "Mission Accomplished".

We have one enemy. When do we go after bin Laden? How can you see so much hate in the Arab world and yet not ask this damning question often. When do we go after bin Laden? Notice those who promote fear and hate of Arabs never ask that question.

Your simple comment was dripping with 'hate and fear' of Arabs.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by tw

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah WMD blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah TOP MANAGEMENT blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Why do you even entertain such emotions? blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah long before blah blah blah Limbaugh, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Cheney blah blah blah blah big dic blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah You have assumed blah blah blah blah blah blah blah "Mission Accomplished" blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah contempt for the troops blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Never rejoice due to postive news. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah the same wacko propaganda blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah so obvious to all blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah George Jr. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah When do we go after bin Laden? blah blah big dic blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah "Mission Accomplished" blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Never rejoice blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah When do we go after bin Laden? blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah TOP MANAGEMENT blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah wacko propaganda blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah 85% of all problems are traceable to TOP MANAGEMENT blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah FREAKIN BLAH

[Ibby]

you forgot 'big dic'.