Harry Reid. Following in Tom Dashole's footsteps.
Posted on 08/09/2007 6:15:48 AM PDT by IrishMike
You know that things are going better in Iraq when even the Democrats begin to acknowledge it. 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. Al-Qaeda is on the run in many of their former strongholds thanks to sustained and brilliantly executed counter-terrorism operations carried out by American troops and the assistance of formerly hostile Sunni tribesman. And there has been political progress with those same Sunnis as many of the leading tribes and their Sheiks have agreed to lay down their arms and work within the political structure.
What all this adds up to is a heap of political trouble for the Democrats who have staked their electoral fortunes on the probability of failure in Iraq by the Bush Administration. That scenario may well play out in the long term. No one can say at this point. But in the near term, it appears that many Democrats are hedging their bets by recognizing they may well have to give General Petreaus more time to employ his tactics across a broader segment of Iraq.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Ooops!
They’ve started to acknowledge the inevitable since the NYT editorial by those two reporters (can’t remember their names)last week but have moved the goalposts. Now, for the Dems, it’s no longer a question of military progress. It’s all about the political failure of the Maliki govt.
Opinion piece in the New York Times by two scholars at the Brookings Institution who are known for advising Democrats, Kenneth Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon.
That op-ed argued that continuing the surge into next year could leave Iraq in far better shape than if the surge was ended prematurely because of votes in Congress.
I’m just waiting for them to cite the November elections as the catalyst for the surge and start taking credit for it.
No doubt Hillary will be the first to jump on that band wagon.
I’m just waiting for one Democrat to mention that restoring to marshes the home of the Marsh Arabs, that was turned into desert under Saddam, was a good thing. I thought the Democrats were supposed to be the anti-Global Warming party and all...
Do you have a link to that article? I missed it first time round.
The Dems did the same with South Vietnam. Demonizing, ridiculing and denigrating the Government and people there to tell us it’s not worth the effort.
Prepare for the next weeks and months ahead... the Dems will applaude our troops and emphasize their bravery and achievements, while saying it’s not worth because the Iraqis are a failure, their Government is in shambles etc.
This will play way better with the American public than bashing the troops Murtha-style.
Expose the Dems and their dirty tactics.
I’m just waiting for them to cite the November elections as the catalyst for the surge and start taking credit for it.
.
.
.
.
‘The surge is working because the American people have spoken’ interesting new twist.
That's exactly what I was thinking! They and their shills in the MSM will spin it so that they "forced" Bush into a "surge of force"..............
Bingo. It will happen sometime after the primaries. They have to pander the far left for just a little while longer, then they can cite the changes as being a result of the November elections and use it as “proof” that they can get things done.
The midget at dailykos isn’t pleased this morning....which makes me very happy...
Possible outcome is AQ is marginalized, Iran gets their ass kicked and we achieve a better stability than we could have imagined.
The Dems just don’t want to be seen as bashing the troops. They are going to continue their push to withdraw and blame it on those vacationing Iraqis... just as soon as they get back from their vacations.
Good news for America = Bad news for Democrats
They won’t like it one bit if any Dem dares to defy them.
That would be nice.
“We’re winning. RE-DEPLOY! RE-DEPLOY!” Harry ‘No Hope’ Reid
Unless the Iraqi parliament can pass some of the laws they’ve ignored for the past 6 months the Dem line will play very well. It doesn’t seem likely the Iraqi’s will accomplish anything politically either. One of the largest Sunni factions withdrew from the govt before the Aug recess.
The administration needs to (and probably already are) put a full court press on the Parliament to accomplish something and fast if they want to silence critics in the US.
I read something like this last night. Now the question is, have we stuck it out past the end of “never”?
I mean just weeks ago the Dems were saying we’d never win. I guess “never” has come and gone...
We’re winning. Something that would never happen is happening. The terrorist best friends in the United States have acknowledged it.
Some days it just doesn’t pay to be a terrorist. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, or even a person who agrees with the terrorist’s goals nine times out of ten.
I guess this is ten. Hey Durbin, is this ten?
Yep.
They won’t like it one bit if any Dem dares to defy them.
Indeed, whats ironic is what they want will not win a general election cycle for them.
One could have made a half decent case that was true, but then they all voted against the surge in that nonbinding resolution.
Harry Reid. Following in Tom Dashole's footsteps.
Iraq needs another round of elections, sometime before our next elections to get a more secular, less partisan government. Maybe not quite yet, more time with the surge may improve things enough to get a better result, but like the market we shouldn’t try to time it too closely.
Kos is all hubris. He should remember his dismal record in 2004.
In politics you should never get to drunk off your recent successes. Pride goeth before the fall.
You're way too kind with Harry POS Reid. :)
In their minds it will....just as long as the election isn’t stolen from them again.
Great quote!
They really could have made a great case for it. It would have been wholly disingenuous, but that’s just because they are who they are. It still would have been checkmate.
Instead, it’ll be another “I was against it before I was for it” scenario. I’m sure the confirmations of Gates and Petraeus will serve to divert attention from the non-binding resolution and the defeatist rhetoric from early 2007.
“Prepare for the next weeks and months ahead... the Dems will applaude our troops and emphasize their bravery and achievements, while saying it’s not worth because the Iraqis are a failure, their Government is in shambles etc.
This will play way better with the American public than bashing the troops Murtha-style.”
This piece was exercised on Free Republic’s site yesterday and I stated the same as you. No one should be sucked into thinking this situation is anything other than what you suggest above.
1)The Maliki government is not likely to form the basis of a political settlement between the three groups in Iraq.
2) AQ is becoming marginalized by Sunnis and most Shia will not support AQ. AQ will still be around, just not as powerful.
3) On one point I am not sure that the Kurds will side with the Sunni tribes. Right now the Kurds are still hanging in there with the non-radical Shiites.
4) The influence of Iran is still a big question. I think Iran’s influence grows as radical Shia need support to fight Sunnis.
5) Shiites are very divided, and that is why Maliki has survived. They don’t want to lose power after being out of power for decades, even centuries. They just cannot see past their noses on this.
Summary, I think what Iraq needs is a strong leader of the Shiites, not associated with Mookie or the Iranians, that could be trusted by the Sunnis. I don’t know if such a man exists, but perhaps there is such a man. It wouldn’t hurt if a Sunni leader, for rapprochement with the Shia and Kurds came forward as well, and had the political power to negotiate with that still undiscovered Shia leader.
Where is that George Washington, Abraham Lincoln or Winston Churchill when you need him?
That's the exact strategy. Democrats sure believe in equal opportunity and diversity... except when they talk about THOSE people who aren't worth it because they can't handle Democracy.
For example Hey ROK, how about sending 10,000 guys for 6 mos. They have perfect cover. The PM could simply say "The Americans have asked for our temporary help in the midst of the surge and we are returnng the favor. To not do so would be dishonorable. It will only be for 6 mos. and then we are leaving."
Multiply that by 10 allies and we could really solidify our gains. 6 months and that swamp could be fully drained if everyone pitches in.
What an ignorant man. Just look at that split infinitive in the last sentence!
...just like they did with welfare reform.
Kos is all hubris. He should remember his dismal record in 2004.
In politics you should never get to drunk off your recent successes. Pride goeth before the fall.
The midget at dailykos has an abysmal political track record. Its amusing he’s convinced himself he played a role in the 2006 election cycle.
Sorry, dailykos, Tom Foley and ‘maccaca’ were what flipped both houses. Not you, not Iraq.
Fantastic quote and presentation! Thank you.
I am thinking the same thing. However, I think their parliament was elected for four year terms. I am not sure that they can just dissolve it and call for elections. A new parliament might well be better. However, I think the constitution that they have represented the best that they could do. It is not reasonable to demand that they settle issues that they coud not, any more than our country could settle slavery easily in a few years.
The Moonbats are afraid we’re going to win before the Dims can pull out.
I'd add the phoney DeLay indictment on your list of tipping points.
Sadly between Senator Stevens and the national chairman of the YR's we might have our next Delay and Foley problems...
That's what it comes down to.
Anyone who had the stomach to watch that Dhimmicrat whining-fest at Soldier Field Tuesday night(they called it a debate) saw it in all its pandering glory.
Your strong leaders were systematically eliminated by Sadam. They lie in the mass graves. Many of the problems Iraqis have stem from living in an oppressive police state.
right about that
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.