Posted on 08/03/2007 9:18:21 AM PDT by bnelson44
The Iraq debate that we’ve 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. It’s 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.
It’s 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.”
Clyburn’s comments are the flip side of what Reid said in April when he declared, “We’re 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.
It’s 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.
That’s why we have seen such frenzied criticism of what is probably the most debated op-ed of the year, this week’s article in The New York Times entitled “A War We Just Might Win,” by Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack.
The authors, both with the Brookings Institution, were early proponents of the war and later critics of Bush’s 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 isn’t 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 aren’t betting on — haven’t staked their hopes on — American failure.
Who would want to do that?
Well put. Beat me to it.
...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... 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... 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." ...[NY Senator Charles Schumer] predicted, some Republicans face "extinction" while Democrats pick up more seats. American success in Iraq could mess all of that up. It's 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... even if the surge is working, war supporters can be rightly furious at Bush for not doing it years ago. But at least they aren't betting on -- haven't staked their hopes on -- American failure. Who would want to do that?
bump
As our gardener would say “Muchos gracias.”
mentioned above:
A War We Just Might Win
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1873493/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1873593/posts
discussion thereof:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1873818/posts
related:
Poll: American Support for War Inches Up
(Rats,”stop the surge, it’s working and we might win”)
nytimes | 7/23/2007 | Megan Thee
Posted on 07/23/2007 4:09:44 PM EDT by tobyhill
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1870400/posts
Now we Know why Kosovo War was ‘Just’ and Iraq Isn’t
Political Mavens | 16 May 2007 | Julia Gorin
Posted on 05/16/2007 9:21:21 AM EDT by radar101
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1834418/posts
Donkeys Upended!
I love that pic.
He could kiss my butt.
What is you solution Mr. Gloom and Doom?
I’m not gloom & doom, just trying to be clear minded.
As of now, I think it’s possible that the dems make strong gains no matter who the GOP nominee is. I don’t have a solution.
I am sure that you are hoping very much that this scenario happens.
Why? I’ve been a conservative since age 12 and a GOPer since age 18.
I try to make my observations are divorced from my hopes, as best I can.
Tell me again why would the American people elect the rudest, meanest, most uncharismatic, and most fake person for President? I mean Hillary Clinton. Your problem is that you complicate things more than it is, the American people will not elect for President a very nasty and mean woman like Hillary Clinton, just her incredibly annoying voice and the mean gestures of her face is enough to turn off the majority of voters away from her let alone that she is a communist and dwarfs John Kerry in flip flops. Neither her nor the media can do anything about this no matter how hard they try.
They elected LBJ didn't they? A mean, uncharismatic man. And he was elected in a landslide in better times.
The Clinton brand is strong. Hilly benefits from that. If the nation could elect Bill again, they would in a landslide. She benefits from the brand.
The enemy within, the domestic enemy AND their enablers who prop them up.
I have never voted for Pat Buchanan nor ever identified with him. You make this stuff up.
On a scale of -100 (loopy liberal) to 0 (moderate) to +100 (cocopuff conservative), I am about a +70-75. On FR, that makes me a ‘liberal,’ not a Buchanan fan. Actually, that shows just how skewed the conventional wisdom and perspective is on FR.
The donkey party frequently works toward US weakness and defeat - this began with Vietnam and has been most evident in the Carter-Mondale fraud, the Clintonistas, and the current Demagogues in Congress. Heaven forbid that anyone should ever question their judgment, never mind their patriotism...... no wonder they are always squealing and wailing at the least hint of criticism.
Most of them do sincerely believe that a “multi-lateral” world in which the USA plays a weaker role and has to depend much more heavily upon the UN, EU, Russia and China, Islamo-fascists, etc. is for the better. They admit this and even argue for it when they are together at party meetings, academic conferences, etc. George Soros epitomizes their mindset when he longs for the end of this “bubble of American supremacy” as he calls it.
Only problem for them is, in electoral terms, that is a massive loser if they are ever honest about it. A large majority of the US public would not willingly embrace US weakness.... so of course they try desperately to keep their real views out of the picture in electoral campaigns, etc. They are all dishonest frauds.
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.