Skip to comments.Who Decided to Lose Iraq? Not the Voters
Posted on 05/07/2007 9:11:46 AM PDT by jazusamo
May 7, 2007
Since its not typical in U.S. history for one of the two major political parties to pursue Americas 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 dont 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 didnt get spending under control, didnt fix Social Security, didnt 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 Bushs 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 Americas interests are served by giving up and losing in Iraq, so they dont 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 doesnt qualify. A supposed mounting death toll (do death tolls ever decrease?), which is still infinitesimal compared to almost every other war in this nations history, doesnt 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 presidents 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 theyve come up against a serious president who embraces a set of principles about Americas national security priorities and isnt 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 Americas role in the world. That means America still seeks victory, which shouldnt perplex anyone. The fact it perplexes Reid and Pelosi says everything about them.
Dan Calabrese is so right but Reid and Pelosi haven't a clue, and that's scary.
The only vote that I know of on the war was the race involving Senator Lieberman. We now who won that one.
The voters put Reid and Pelosi into power, again and again and again. I guess we get what we deserve.
Good point and notice that none of the dems want to talk about his being elected as an Independent.
I’m still waiting for Dingy Harry Reid to tell us who won, since he’s convinced we lost.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“Reid and Pelosi may wield the gavels on Capitol Hill, but Bush still decides Americas role in the world. That means America still seeks victory, which shouldnt perplex anyone. The fact it perplexes Reid and Pelosi says everything about them.”
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
I’m hoping that Mitch McConnell will take a firm stand. He has shown some promise but has a ways to go, IMO.
Well, Saddam is dead.
The Baathists have been removed.
from this point forward,
there's no reason not to say
we've already won.
The only issue the democrats ran on was Mark Foley.
“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.
They are scared. If Iraq does not show progress, they are afraid that the Dims will win 60 seats in the next election.
“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!).
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?
The democrat congress is the only group that has decided to lose in Iraq. This is very different from saying mistakes have been made.
Amen! Post of the day. Making mistakes is a far cry from surrender.