Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Who Decided to Lose Iraq? Not the Voters
North Star Writers ^ | May 7, 2007 | Dan Calabrese

Posted on 05/07/2007 9:11:46 AM PDT by jazusamo

May 7, 2007

Since it’s not typical in U.S. history for one of the two major political parties to pursue America’s defeat in a war, you know that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi must have a good explanation for where they got this idea.

They do. They say they got it from you.

This serves as the Democrats’ comeback when President Bush refuses to accept a withdrawal timetable, arguing that success in Iraq is paramount to long-term Middle East peace and U.S. national security.

But . . . but . . . he needs to listen to what the voters said!

Oh. The voters said something to the effect that Bush should blow off U.S. national security? Funny. I don’t remember that. But you have to learn to think like a Democrat. Here goes the logic:

We Democrats are bashing Bush about the war. The more unpopular the war becomes, the more we bash. We got elected. Ergo, the voters must want America to give up on Iraq and leave.

Thus, according to Reid, when Bush refuses to retreat and surrender, he is obstinately ignoring the wishes of the voters.

A few problems with all this:

First, where is it written that Iraq alone turned the election? There were many reasons the Republicans lost control of Congress, most of which can be summed up as: They deserved to lose. Not so much because of Iraq, but because they didn’t get spending under control, didn’t fix Social Security, didn’t permanently cut income taxes or repeal the estate tax. When you deserve to lose, you usually lose, regardless of who is running against you.

To the extent that Iraq was an issue in the war, where does Reid get off suggesting that the voters were calling for retreat from Iraq when they put the Democrats in charge? This is certainly not what the Democrats said they were going to do during the campaign, when they continually denied they wanted to abandon Iraq. They made an issue of Bush’s management of the war, which was a perfectly legitimate case to make, but they complained long and loud whenever Republicans accused them of wanting to “cut and run.”

So how is it that, in order to win, you deny you want to cut and run, and then when you do win, you claim the voters put you there for the purpose of cutting and running?

The listen-to-the-voters argument is fatuous anyway. Bush makes his case on the basis of strategic security and foreign policy concerns. You know, the reasons you set policy? Democrats can hardly make the case that America’s interests are served by giving up and losing in Iraq, so they don’t even try. They merely claim a mandate from the voters that anyone who remembers history – as in, six months ago – can easily see is nonexistent. But even if the voters had sent a clear message to give up, would that automatically make it the right thing to do?

Losing a war is no small matter. Just because voters seem to want it, or polls suggest they want it, is not sufficient reason to wave the white flag without some serious assessment of the consequences. Where is this assessment? The voters being tired of the war doesn’t qualify. A supposed “mounting death toll” (do death tolls ever decrease?), which is still infinitesimal compared to almost every other war in this nation’s history, doesn’t do it either.

Democrats won last year because their opponents had no record of achievement, were resorting to desperation issues (bashing immigrants, etc.) and were facing the sixth year of an eight-year administration, when the president’s party almost always gets clobbered.

No one told the Democrats to lose Iraq. It was entirely their idea – born, perhaps, of a misreading of opinion polls. But theirs nonetheless. And they’ve come up against a serious president who embraces a set of principles about America’s national security priorities – and isn’t impressed by the Democrats’ entirely political position to the contrary.

Elections matter. But contrary to what you were led to believe six months ago, the 2004 presidential election still matters an awful lot. Reid and Pelosi may wield the gavels on Capitol Hill, but Bush still decides America’s role in the world. That means America still seeks victory, which shouldn’t perplex anyone. The fact it perplexes Reid and Pelosi says everything about them.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: cutandrun; defeatocrats; dhimmicrats; iraqwar; pelosi; reid
Reid and Pelosi may wield the gavels on Capitol Hill, but Bush still decides America’s role in the world.

Dan Calabrese is so right but Reid and Pelosi haven't a clue, and that's scary.

1 posted on 05/07/2007 9:11:47 AM PDT by jazusamo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

The only vote that I know of on the war was the race involving Senator Lieberman. We now who won that one.


2 posted on 05/07/2007 9:14:33 AM PDT by Parley Baer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
"Who Decided to Lose Iraq? Not the Voters"

The voters put Reid and Pelosi into power, again and again and again. I guess we get what we deserve.

3 posted on 05/07/2007 9:17:32 AM PDT by CeasarsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Parley Baer

Good point and notice that none of the dems want to talk about his being elected as an Independent.


4 posted on 05/07/2007 9:18:04 AM PDT by jazusamo (http://warchronicle.com/TheyAreNotKillers/DefendOurMarines.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

I’m still waiting for Dingy Harry Reid to tell us who won, since he’s convinced we lost.


5 posted on 05/07/2007 9:19:33 AM PDT by Badeye (Hiding the kooks in the biker bar won't help, Sally)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CeasarsGhost

The voters of one state and one congressional district put Reid and Pelosi in office, that’s not representative of our country.

All the voters put President Bush in office.


6 posted on 05/07/2007 9:22:13 AM PDT by jazusamo (http://warchronicle.com/TheyAreNotKillers/DefendOurMarines.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

I think it’s crazy how the Dems, through the MSM are the ones that started “telling” us that it’s hopeless, we’re losing, the war is illegal, blah, blah, blah... -pounding this into us daily. THEN they turn around and declare that “The people have spoken! We’re only following what the people are saying!”

How any of them can sleep at night is beyond me.


7 posted on 05/07/2007 9:24:01 AM PDT by KingRonnie9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

A good summary! Remarkably clear and concise.

The “new” demo’s in the house ALL ran against repubbie’s by claiming defense-issues (many being chosen from former military delibeately to present that facade!) and NOT by demanding immediate surrender to the terrorists.


8 posted on 05/07/2007 9:28:44 AM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
"First, where is it written that Iraq alone turned the election?"

It is the only issue on which Democrats ran.

Americans voted for defeat. Really.

The military gets it. A wounded vet I met says the most important thing to do now is get out quickly, since the military effort does not have the support of the people. He doesn't want to lose any more buddies to a war the Democrats are committed to losing, and were voted into office for the purpose of losing.

It is wrong to lose a war on purpose. But it is a political fact that the voters want us to leave Iraq. The defeatist party was elected. Let them defund the troops and we'll all suffer the consequences. Get on with it.

9 posted on 05/07/2007 9:30:28 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie (the Prophet said, ‘If (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ - HADITH Sahih Bukhari [4:52:260])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

“Reid and Pelosi may wield the gavels on Capitol Hill, but Bush still decides America’s role in the world. That means America still seeks victory, which shouldn’t perplex anyone. The fact it perplexes Reid and Pelosi says everything about them.”

Bears repeating.


10 posted on 05/07/2007 9:31:59 AM PDT by PreciousLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
The “new” demo’s in the house ALL ran against repubbie’s by claiming defense-issues

Exactly! And after the 110th Congress convened most of them started their tap dance. Look at the pork in the emergency funding bill to get it passed and Pelosi was out in the open with it...Really brazen.

11 posted on 05/07/2007 9:34:08 AM PDT by jazusamo (http://warchronicle.com/TheyAreNotKillers/DefendOurMarines.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
So how is it that, in order to win, you deny you want to cut and run, and then when you do win, you claim the voters put you there for the purpose of cutting and running?

Reid correctly discerned that the voters were not smart enough to see though the Democratic lies and therefore needed the MSM and the Dems to make decisions for "the voters".

12 posted on 05/07/2007 9:41:49 AM PDT by oldbrowser (We, not the president are responsible for our souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty
"“Reid and Pelosi may wield the gavels on Capitol Hill, but Bush still decides America’s role in the world."

But the role of both parties, as well as the MSM, has become secondary to that of King David (Petraeus) and our military forces. If the new military tactics work you will be hard pressed to find a MSM outlet or "war is lost" politician who won't claim that their negative input actually led to success.

13 posted on 05/07/2007 9:44:59 AM PDT by LZ_Bayonet (Meanwhile, there has been no progress on fixing Social Security!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Calabrese is like Novak. They couldn’t foresee that the Democrats would take a paper-thin majority and run with it. A confident Republican leadership in the Senate would not let them get away with it but we can see what we have when Trent Lott is back in as #2.


14 posted on 05/07/2007 9:46:13 AM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LZ_Bayonet

Which is why they are desperate to see that he fails. Hisd force is bearly sufficient to execute his plan and the enemy is psychologically pumped to resist because of what the Dems are doing.


15 posted on 05/07/2007 9:48:33 AM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Poll these questions:

Should America loose the war in Iraq?

Should America win the war in Iraq?

Has America lost the war in Iraq?

Ain't gonna happen. No such poll will be taken(or at least reported) by the DB/MS media.

That's because "America loves a winner and will not tolerate a loser"- George C. Scott as General George S. Patton

16 posted on 05/07/2007 9:53:19 AM PDT by Phlap (REDNECK@LIBARTS.EDU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KingRonnie9

How any of them can sleep at night is beyond me.

If you don’t have a conscience, it’s nighty, night America for the Dems.


17 posted on 05/07/2007 10:04:12 AM PDT by Bitsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Phlap

You’re exactly right, it ain’t gonna happen. It would not fit into the agenda of the enemedia in supporting the dems cut and run policy.


18 posted on 05/07/2007 10:06:15 AM PDT by jazusamo (http://warchronicle.com/TheyAreNotKillers/DefendOurMarines.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

I’m hoping that Mitch McConnell will take a firm stand. He has shown some promise but has a ways to go, IMO.


19 posted on 05/07/2007 10:08:40 AM PDT by jazusamo (http://warchronicle.com/TheyAreNotKillers/DefendOurMarines.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

bttt


20 posted on 05/07/2007 10:11:16 AM PDT by Christian4Bush (Dennis Miller said it best “Liberals always feel your pain. Unless of course, they caused it.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
>Who Decided to Lose Iraq?

Well, Saddam is dead.
The Baathists have been removed.
Whatever happens

from this point forward,
there's no reason not to say
we've already won.

21 posted on 05/07/2007 10:12:29 AM PDT by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brad Cloven
It is the only issue on which Democrats ran.

The only issue the democrats ran on was Mark Foley.

22 posted on 05/07/2007 10:13:39 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

“To the extent that Iraq was an issue in the war, where does Reid get off suggesting that the voters were calling for retreat from Iraq when they put the Democrats in charge? This is certainly not what the Democrats said they were going to do during the campaign, when they continually denied they wanted to abandon Iraq.”

Anyone paying attention could have read between the lines.


23 posted on 05/07/2007 10:15:20 AM PDT by Democratshavenobrains
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

They are scared. If Iraq does not show progress, they are afraid that the Dims will win 60 seats in the next election.


24 posted on 05/07/2007 10:24:18 AM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Brad Cloven

“A wounded vet I met says the most important thing to do now is get out quickly”...” But it is a political fact that the voters want us to leave Iraq.”

Oh. Then by all means lets get out Brad!

Sorry Brad, but I don’t believe your “political fact”, as I am a voter, and I am also a veteran, but not a wounded one. But does “wounded vet” status trump my opinion? John McCain is a “wounded vet” and a former POW, so does his opinion trump your wounded vet? Neither of the two of us want out of Iraq. Maybe you could restate your opion to read “it’s a fact that the voters, less one or two, want us to leave Iraq”. At least then you you would be more accurate in your statement (democrat!).


25 posted on 05/07/2007 10:47:13 AM PDT by deathrace2000 ("I regret that I have but one life to give for my country", Nathan Hale before execution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Howlin; Congressman Billybob; Brad Cloven
But it is a political fact that the voters want us to leave Iraq. The defeatist party was elected. Let them defund the troops and we’ll all suffer the consequences. Get on with it.

SO HE SAID, WASHING HIS HANDS IN THE BLOOD OF THE PEOPLE HE CONDEMNED TO DEATH, OF THE BLOOD HE CAUSED TO BE SHED......

What if the rest of us - NOT a 51-49 vote margin of the Senate socialists, DON'T believe in washing our hands in blood again?

26 posted on 05/07/2007 12:09:24 PM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

The democrat congress is the only group that has decided to lose in Iraq. This is very different from saying mistakes have been made.


27 posted on 05/07/2007 12:27:47 PM PDT by Fred (Democrat Party - "The Nadir of Nihilism")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred

Amen! Post of the day. Making mistakes is a far cry from surrender.


28 posted on 05/07/2007 12:38:02 PM PDT by jazusamo (http://warchronicle.com/TheyAreNotKillers/DefendOurMarines.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson