Skip to comments.Demsí 'Real Big Problem'
Posted on 08/03/2007 9:18:21 AM PDT by bnelson44
The Iraq debate that weve been watching this year has been about two bets.
After false starts and misplaced hopes in 2004, and 2005, and 2006, George W. Bush is betting his surge strategy will facilitate the political progress that could bring a semblance of stability to Iraq.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are betting the surge will fail. Its as simple as that. If Bush wins his bet, Iraq will be a better place, the Middle East will be a better place, and America will be a safer place.
But Reid and Pelosi lose if Bush wins. Given the position they have staked out for themselves, the best possible outcome is for Gen. David Petraeus to give a downbeat report on the surge when he comes before Congress in September. That would give tremendous momentum to those who want the quickest possible U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
Its the dilemma of being in the opposition in wartime. By betting so much of their political capital on the issue, Reid and Pelosi have become invested in U.S. failure. A U.S. success would throw a wrench in their plans.
That sounds harsh. But just read what Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told The Washington Post.
This week the paper reported that 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 now, the Post continued, there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive.
And that, Clyburn told the paper, would be a real big problem for us.
Clyburns comments are the flip side of what Reid said in April when he declared, Were going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Sen. [Charles] Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding.
Schumer (D-N.Y.) also said, Look at the poll numbers of Republican senators, and the war in Iraq is a lead weight attached to their ankle. As a result, Schumer predicted, some Republicans face extinction while Democrats pick up more seats. American success in Iraq could mess all of that up.
Its a terrible position for Democrats to be in, one they could have avoided if they had given the surge time to succeed or fail. But they put all their chips on failure before it even began.
Thats why we have seen such frenzied criticism of what is probably the most debated op-ed of the year, this weeks article in The New York Times entitled A War We Just Might Win, by Michael OHanlon and Kenneth Pollack.
The authors, both with the Brookings Institution, were early proponents of the war and later critics of Bushs handling of it. Now, they write, We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms, and they see the possibility of a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
They might be wrong; in the fifth year of this war, anyone who is not deeply skeptical about reports of progress just isnt being realistic. And even if the surge is working, war supporters can be rightly furious at Bush for not doing it years ago. But at least they arent betting on havent staked their hopes on American failure.
Who would want to do that?
***A U.S. success would throw a wrench in their plans.***
I’d rather throw a wrench somewhere else.
Who would want to do that?
Power crazed, traitorous, ideologues, that's who
What a great way to process a war. When our young men and women are fighting and dieing for this country and half of our Congress is against them for being there, does not say much for this country.
When will the NIE be published that acurately reflects the Opposition to the war and dissent in the U.S. Congress against the President and his policies are the cause of our enemy being emboldened...
Oh never mind I’m sure that it has been and I’m sure that it was leaked to the NYT but since it doesn’t fit the template it was never published.
This is true, but it's also just the tip of the iceberg. We always assume the lefties aren't thinking long term- that they can't see past the next election to the existential danger this country faces from Islamofascism.
But I just don't think this is true. They DO think long term, and they understand that victory doesn't just loose elections for them, it creates a strong, pro-American, pro-independent national identity that is polar opposite of the socialistic, open-borders world government they so desire.
These elite liberal hatriotics had better pray that Iraq doesn't become a rich and free standing nation. A rich and free Iraq might hire a lot of mercs to capture and bring these war criminals to trial in Iraq for War Crimes against innocent Iraqis.
The US will go either one way or the other. And the Left very much wants to lord it over the peasants.
I disagree. Perception is more important that reality - even if the situation in Iraq improves dramatically, the perception that it is a Bush misadventure that has been handled ineptly is about as fixed as I have ever seen it.
GOPers seem unable to cope with this dynamic. Denial ain’t a river in Egypt. As a political matter, Iraq is all done even if it ends up working out.
Be carefull, you are scaring Bill O’Reilly.
Nancy Pelosi condemned the new record highs of the stock market as "just another example of Bush policies helping the rich get richer". "First Bush cut taxes for the rich and the economy has rebounded with new record low unemployment rates, which only means wealthy employers are getting even wealthier at the expense of the underpaid working class".
She went on to say "Despite the billions of dollars being spent in Iraq our economy is still strong and government tax revenues are at all time highs. What this really means is that business is exploiting the war effort and working Americans, just to put money in their own pockets".
When questioned about recent stock market highs she responded "Only the rich benefit from these record highs. Working Americans, welfare recipients, the unemp loyed and minorities are not sharing in these obscene record highs". "There is no question these windfall profits and income created by the Bush administration need to be taxed at 100% rate and those dollars redistributed to the poor and working class". "Profits from the stock market do not reward the hard work of our working class who, by their hard work, are responsible for generating these corporate profits that create stock market profits for the rich. We in congress will need to address this issue to either tax these profits or to control the stock market to prevent this unearned income to flow to the rich."
When asked about the fact that over 80% of all Americans have investments in mutual funds, retirement funds, 401K's, and the stock market she replied "That may be true, but probably only 5% account for 90% of all these investment dollars. That's just more "trickle down" economics claiming that if a corporation i s successful that everyone from the CEO to the floor sweeper benefit from higher wages and job security which is ridiculous". "How much of this 'trickle down' ever get to the unemployed and minorities in our county? None, and that's the tragedy of these stock market highs."
"We democrats are going to address this issue after the election when we take control of the congress.We will return to the 60% to 80% tax rates on the rich and we will be able to take at least 30% of all current lower Federal Income Tax tax payers off the roles and increase government income substantially. We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest."
When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied ; ; "We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long ways to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as "Americans"."
There is a book (now available in paperback ):
Rich Lowry, Editor National Review
David Horowitz is synonymous with pyrotechnics. A historian and polemicist of the first order, he is paid the ultimate compliment --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
Davis Hanson, Author, Ripples of Battle
An original look at those who want us to fail in the Middle East, both at home and abroad. The --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
See all Editorial Reviews
Fascinating Analysis of Leftist Goals, August 13, 2006
Reviewer: N. Sincerity - See all my reviews
A former 1960s radical, Horowitz is well-acquainted with the Leftist mindset. In this book, he strives to explain the modern alliance between left wing progressivists and radical Islamofascists. He argues that this alliance is based on a common desire to destroy Western capitalism. Leftist sympathy with Islamofascist ideas makes no sense from an intellectual point of view, given that countries ruled by radical Islamists are among the most racist, sexist, theocratic states in the world today. However, Leftists have recognized that they can benefit politically from destructive terrorist attacks on the Western world. A West under attack can be made to turn on its leaders in fear and desperation (as they did in Spain after the Madrid train bombings). Only once people reject current government structures can the Left execute its anti-capitalist revolution and build a new reality that mirrors the Leftist view of utopia.
The complete and utter idealogical hypocrisy of the Islamofascist-Leftist alliance is distressing, but as Horowitz reminds us,
“George W. Bush is betting his surge strategy will facilitate the political progress that could bring a semblance of stability to Iraq.”
So, what happens if the surge succeeds but in the meantime the government dissolves?
If the surge succeeds and the gov in Iraq collapses, then it would be seen as a strong failure on the part of the admin and the USA.
Actually, since Iraq is a parliamentary democracy, and Maliki is not someone we really want as PM, if the government of Iraq collapses, it would be a good thing. We could have new elections and possibly a less sectarian government in place.
Doesn’t matter - Americans have already decided this is a disaster. Trying to explain to them that the government collapse is in fact a good thing won’t go far.
As the Russians say, "Tuffski Sh*tski".