Iraq General Thread

[EvilMonkey]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7073001380.html

 

Clyburn: Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War

 

By Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza

Washington Post Staff Writer and Washingtonpost.com Staff Writer

Monday, July 30, 2007; 6:26 PM

 

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

 

Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.

 

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

 

"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."

 

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 of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

 

Clyburn's comments came as House and Senate Democrats try to figure out their next steps in the legislative battle. Clyburn said he could foresee a circumstance in which House Democrats approve a measure without a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces, which has been the consistent goal of the party throughout the months-long debate. But he said he could just as easily see Democrats continue to include a timetable.

 

Clyburn also address the reasons behind declining approval ratings for Congress, which spiked earlier in the year when Democrats took over the House and Senate. The most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll showed just 37 percent approving of the performance of Congress.

 

"Remember right after the election it went very high on approval,?" he said. "Then all of a sudden people saw that we were not yielding the kind of result that they wanted to yield."

 

He said most Americans still do not know some of the domestic legislation that has been approved. Fewer understand that, despite Democratic majorities in both houses, that it takes 60 votes to pass anything legislation in the Senate.

 

Clyburn noted that while overall approval ratings of Congress are low, people still rate Democrats higher than Republicans. "People feel good about the Democratic Party, they just don't feel real good about the Congress itself."

 

Heaven forbid that there MIGHT be good news. He almost sounds distraught that there may be good news.

[kapkomet]

The truth is, and I don't care how you slice it, the Democrats have put themselves in the position that the United States must lose the war, or they lose power. It sucks that they put themselves there. I also think that is the only reason Mrs. Bill Clinton hasn't renounced her Iraq vote directly like the other candidates have - because she needed the wiggle room just in case things started going "well".

 

 

[kapkomet]

By the way, don't misunderstand my personal position. We have a long way to go, that's for sure... but any signs of progress is bad news for the people who want to get out as fast as we can get out. It shows that if we actually stop making this a political discussion and let the military do its job, it would get done right.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Here's an aside. How much positive news could there be? The standard of living for most Iraqis is not getting better?

 

The amount of electricity that the average Iraqi had is not just down since Saddam left power, its down since the beginning of the year. So much so that the US government won't report those figures anymore.

 

The star of the Iraqi national Soccer team has asked for refuge in another country because he fears for his life in Iraq. Iraqi refugees make up double digit percentages of the population in Syria and Jordan.

 

The Iraqi government still hasn't passed any legislation that might lead to peace in the region, like issues regarding oil revenue sharing. And they just took another one month vacation without acheiving any of the benchmarks that we've asked them to tackle.

 

Even if the violence cuts by half between now and September, how is it acceptable for us to sit there and prop up a failed state?

[kapkomet]

Here's an aside. How much positive news could there be? The standard of living for most Iraqis is not getting better?

 

The amount of electricity that the average Iraqi had is not just down since Saddam left power, its down since the beginning of the year. So much so that the US government won't report those figures anymore.

 

The star of the Iraqi national Soccer team has asked for refuge in another country because he fears for his life in Iraq. Iraqi refugees make up double digit percentages of the population in Syria and Jordan.

 

The Iraqi government still hasn't passed any legislation that might lead to peace in the region, like issues regarding oil revenue sharing. And they just took another one month vacation without acheiving any of the benchmarks that we've asked them to tackle.

 

Even if the violence cuts by half between now and September, how is it acceptable for us to sit there and prop up a failed state?

So it's better to leave NOW (or in the next 60-90 days, depending on what Democrat you talk to...), right?

 

I do agree that we can't babysit their government - they need to get off their ass. But I think the cost is too great to just pull out.

[NorthSideSox72]

So it's better to leave NOW (or in the next 60-90 days, depending on what Democrat you talk to...), right?

 

I do agree that we can't babysit their government - they need to get off their ass. But I think the cost is too great to just pull out.

Saying the cost is too great to pull out is, I think, not the best way to look at the decision. You have to see the cost of pulling out versus the cost of NOT pulling out. And at this point, the cost for Iraq AND the U.S. seems lower to pull out than to say. And any sort of third strategic option, such as a Biden-esque plan, the Kurdish option or some sort of regional coalition are of course a moot point since neither BushCo NOR Congress are willing to hear those options out.

 

[sox4lifeinPA]

Here's an aside. How much positive news could there be? The standard of living for most Iraqis is not getting better?

 

The amount of electricity that the average Iraqi had is not just down since Saddam left power, its down since the beginning of the year. So much so that the US government won't report those figures anymore.

 

The star of the Iraqi national Soccer team has asked for refuge in another country because he fears for his life in Iraq. Iraqi refugees make up double digit percentages of the population in Syria and Jordan.

 

The Iraqi government still hasn't passed any legislation that might lead to peace in the region, like issues regarding oil revenue sharing. And they just took another one month vacation without acheiving any of the benchmarks that we've asked them to tackle.

 

Even if the violence cuts by half between now and September, how is it acceptable for us to sit there and prop up a failed state?

 

 

Just a side comment, but didn't you say you're working for a Democrat rep now? Just wondering how much spin I need to wade through in your posts.

[EvilMonkey]

The whole point is just as Kap summarized, that good news in any form is bad news for the Dems, since they are hanging thier hat out with the nutroots.

[Balta1701]

The whole point is just as Kap summarized, that good news in any form is bad news for the Dems, since they are hanging thier hat out with the nutroots.

I just adore how the people who were right on the war from the moment the Administration started marketing it are still considered the nutty ones.

[NorthSideSox72]

I just adore how the people who were right on the war from the moment the Administration started marketing it are still considered the nutty ones.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Balta1701]

So it's better to leave NOW (or in the next 60-90 days, depending on what Democrat you talk to...), right?

 

I do agree that we can't babysit their government - they need to get off their ass. But I think the cost is too great to just pull out.

I may as well point out that virtually every bill brought before Congress gives at least 8-9 months before withdrawal needed to be complete.

 

And I'll absolutely guarantee you that if Mr. Bush came out and said "give us a few more months, make it some time in late 08 or even in 09" the Dems would pass that exact date in a quarter second.

[kapkomet]

I may as well point out that virtually every bill brought before Congress gives at least 8-9 months before withdrawal needed to be complete.

 

And I'll absolutely guarantee you that if Mr. Bush came out and said "give us a few more months, make it some time in late 08 or even in 09" the Dems would pass that exact date in a quarter second.

Of course because you tell the nutjobs over there to just sit and wait a year and then they take over. You can't do that.

 

[GoSox05]

so should we jump for joy every six months when something goes right and than forget that the country is in complete havoc and thousands and thousands of people are dead.

[EvilMonkey]

so should we jump for joy every six months when something goes right and than forget that the country is in complete havoc and thousands and thousands of people are dead.

Nope. but you shouldn't be despondent when good news, however slight, shows up, just because you chose to ride with the Nutroots.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Nope. but you shouldn't be despondent when good news, however slight, shows up, just because you chose to ride with the Nutroots.

Nutroots? Nah, I much prefer the term Barking-Pinko-Hippie-Moonbats. With Nutroots there is too much chance of accidental confusion with the Wingnuts and their assorted Wingnuttery.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Nutroots? Nah, I much prefer the term Barking-Pinko-Hippie-Moonbats. With Nutroots there is too much chance of accidental confusion with the Wingnuts and their assorted Wingnuttery.

 

 

oh, but their wingnut sauce is soooo good!

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Nope. but you shouldn't be despondent when good news, however slight, shows up, just because you chose to ride with the Nutroots.

I don't mean to be crass but rather direct, so please do not mistake that as writing on a message board is a poor medium for inflection, etc.

 

Explain how exactly we're nutroots when every possible explanation for this invasion that was given was proven false.

Explain how exactly we're nutroots when the antiwar movement was pretty much right about the entire damn invasion rhetoric BS that 70% of the public bought as a bill of goods back in 2003.

 

The US needs to GTFO and set up a Marshall Plan style assistance package for the country that we recklessly f***ed up beyond recognition in an aggressive, pre-emptive war.

 

The scariest thing about the war is not the amount of Iraqi and US dead/wounded. It isn't the fact that the country is damn near FUBAR. It isn't the amount of mental/physical trauma that US soldiers and Iraqis are facing even after they have finished with combat. What I find severely frightening in Iraq is US taxpayer dollars going to private mercenary fighting firms such as Blackwater USA who have no oversight or accountability for their actions within Iraq. There is no oversight from the US government, despite being a paying customer, for any actions that Blackwater may perpetrate inside Iraq or any other place where they are stationed.

[EvilMonkey]

I don't mean to be crass but rather direct, so please do not mistake that as writing on a message board is a poor medium for inflection, etc.

 

Explain how exactly we're nutroots when every possible explanation for this invasion that was given was proven false.

Explain how exactly we're nutroots when the antiwar movement was pretty much right about the entire damn invasion rhetoric BS that 70% of the public bought as a bill of goods back in 2003.

 

The US needs to GTFO and set up a Marshall Plan style assistance package for the country that we recklessly f***ed up beyond recognition in an aggressive, pre-emptive war.

 

The scariest thing about the war is not the amount of Iraqi and US dead/wounded. It isn't the fact that the country is damn near FUBAR. It isn't the amount of mental/physical trauma that US soldiers and Iraqis are facing even after they have finished with combat. What I find severely frightening in Iraq is US taxpayer dollars going to private mercenary fighting firms such as Blackwater USA who have no oversight or accountability for their actions within Iraq. There is no oversight from the US government, despite being a paying customer, for any actions that Blackwater may perpetrate inside Iraq or any other place where they are stationed.

 

You will note that I am not arguing that things are going great there, or are even on the right course. I think it has turned into a pretty big clusterf***, and I think most of it is because the people on the ground either don't want to do what they need to do, or can't do what they need to do, because of political concerns here and abroad. Now then, as for nutroots, I am referring to the fringe element of the Dems that is of course the most vocal (as most fringle elements tend to be, whichever fringe they are on) that typically refer to Bush = Hitler, no war for oil, etc. LCR, as anti-Bush as you are, you are not some raving lunitic standing outside Bush's ranch with Bush = Hitler signs. I will agree that we need a plan, but you cannot put a firm date on it for withdrawal. You can put down things like if the Iraqi's haven't done x by a certain date, they pay us a huge amount of money. I like that. But even you have to realize that if we just pull out, even if you set a date of 6 or 9 months down the road, the place will become even worse than you claim it is now. You might as well let Iran just annex the whole place right now, and execute about half the people there who happen to be the wrong type of Muslim. We need a plan, that doesn't take into account how it might play on the 6pm news, or if it will offend France or the UN, we need a plan that will accomplish whatever the objective is. It is war, war is dirty, even when played by the 'rules'. People die, sometimes civilians, lets just make sure that it is the bad guys doing most of the dying. And every time I hear that 4 American soldiers were killed in Iraq today, I also want to know how many bad guys were killed that day. Let me be clear, I don't want the US to be there. I would have been happy bombing Saddam back in to the 13th century so he can go visit Allah. But we need a plan that goes with a victory. How do we get that? I don't know. Maybe one of the generals knows, but what is holding them back? Politics.

 

 

[Balta1701]

So basically the argument is that:

 

a. We should accept it being bad, because it might become worse if we got ourselves out of the way.

b. 4.5 years into this, it's time for a plan.

c. Because some people hold up Bush=Hitler signs, everyone who is vocally against this war is therefore wrong and has no standing on anything.

 

Now here's my counterpoint:

 

Is it worth $125 Billion a year and 1000 American lives per year, plus however many hundred thousand Iraqi lives, to make sure things might not get worse? $125 billion could save several million lives per year if it was put into sanitation, malaria nets, and anti-malarial, anti-AIDS drugs, just as an example. This is a monstrous undertaking, and I think that context is important.

 

So, it's time for a plan. Ok...I'll be willing to say it's time to wait if someone can explain to me one thing; how exactly our presence there is going to be able to accomplish something significant and positive that is worth $4,000 a second and about 2-3 American lives per day.

 

I refuse to accept the argument that it is worth that sort of expenditure on our part because things might be worse than the absolute disaster they are now if we leave if there is no evidence whatsoever that our efforts will make things better. Every step of the way, it has gotten worse and worse. Wiht every life lost, things have been made worse. So just saying "if we leave things will get worse" doesn't argue a thing to me, because every year we've stayed, things have gotten worse and worse.

 

And an additional point: for 4+ years, the military and this administration have gotten EVERYTHING, every single thing, they could have possibly wanted. The Republicans in Congress gave them everything for 3 years, and the Dems caved on the funding bill earlier this year. The Administration had absolutely no one to account with for 3+ years, and somehow it is politics that is holding us back from a successful plan? Seriously, tell us what it is the French or the U.N. have done to stop the U.S. in the last 4 years. Has there been a resolution opposing the U.S.? Have the french sent troops in to fight us? Have we done something to appease those organizations (other than showing up there and begging for help?) The only thing that has encumbered this administration at any point in this war is basic humanity; because no one else has done jack to stop them.

 

And I'm just going to say the fallacy phrase "Group guilt" and ignore the continued bashing of the people who were right before this started.

[kapkomet]

So basically the argument is that:

 

a. We should accept it being bad, because it might become worse if we got ourselves out of the way.

b. 4.5 years into this, it's time for a plan.

c. Because some people hold up Bush=Hitler signs, everyone who is vocally against this war is therefore wrong and has no standing on anything.

 

Now here's my counterpoint:

 

Is it worth $125 Billion a year and 1000 American lives per year, plus however many hundred thousand Iraqi lives, to make sure things might not get worse? $125 billion could save several million lives per year if it was put into sanitation, malaria nets, and anti-malarial, anti-AIDS drugs, just as an example. This is a monstrous undertaking, and I think that context is important.

 

So, it's time for a plan. Ok...I'll be willing to say it's time to wait if someone can explain to me one thing; how exactly our presence there is going to be able to accomplish something significant and positive that is worth $4,000 a second and about 2-3 American lives per day.

 

I refuse to accept the argument that it is worth that sort of expenditure on our part because things might be worse than the absolute disaster they are now if we leave if there is no evidence whatsoever that our efforts will make things better. Every step of the way, it has gotten worse and worse. Wiht every life lost, things have been made worse. So just saying "if we leave things will get worse" doesn't argue a thing to me, because every year we've stayed, things have gotten worse and worse.

 

And an additional point: for 4+ years, the military and this administration have gotten EVERYTHING, every single thing, they could have possibly wanted. The Republicans in Congress gave them everything for 3 years, and the Dems caved on the funding bill earlier this year. The Administration had absolutely no one to account with for 3+ years, and somehow it is politics that is holding us back from a successful plan? Seriously, tell us what it is the French or the U.N. have done to stop the U.S. in the last 4 years. Has there been a resolution opposing the U.S.? Have the french sent troops in to fight us? Have we done something to appease those organizations (other than showing up there and begging for help?) The only thing that has encumbered this administration at any point in this war is basic humanity; because no one else has done jack to stop them.

 

And I'm just going to say the fallacy phrase "Group guilt" and ignore the continued bashing of the people who were right before this started.

Where's that rolly smilie?

 

Come on Balta. Even from you, this is trash. Go back and re-read this, and you'll hopefully see what I mean. If not, I'll explain... but you're better then this crap.

 

 

 

[Rex Kickass]

Actually Kap, exactly what has stopped the administration from making this a success? They've had every tool and dollar they've wanted available to them.

[NorthSideSox72]

Where's that rolly smilie?

 

Come on Balta. Even from you, this is trash. Go back and re-read this, and you'll hopefully see what I mean. If not, I'll explain... but you're better then this crap.

trash? I think that was one of the most well-written, well-reasoned posts regarding the war I have seen yet. I think he makes soem excellent points, especially about the cost and scale, and what else we could be doing with that money (like saving millions of lives, or, getting off foregin oil, for example).

 

[kapkomet]

trash? I think that was one of the most well-written, well-reasoned posts regarding the war I have seen yet. I think he makes soem excellent points, especially about the cost and scale, and what else we could be doing with that money (like saving millions of lives, or, getting off foregin oil, for example).

That part, yes. I should have been more clear. The other part is what I was talking about (the last half of the post about the UN and France and all of that).

 

[kapkomet]

Actually Kap, exactly what has stopped the administration from making this a success? They've had every tool and dollar they've wanted available to them.

Because they have tried making this a "political" thing... that's the real reason why things haven't gotten done over there like it needs to. And that's squarely on this administration. Stop the pansy ass waivering back and forth because of "poltical consequences", get it right, and THEN get out. But not until then.

 

[EvilMonkey]

So basically the argument is that:

 

a. We should accept it being bad, because it might become worse if we got ourselves out of the way.

b. 4.5 years into this, it's time for a plan.

c. Because some people hold up Bush=Hitler signs, everyone who is vocally against this war is therefore wrong and has no standing on anything.

A. I never said that we should accept it being bad. I didn't want to be there in the first place, but like a bad lease, you are stuck until you can finish the deal. If we just get out of the way, it WILL get worse. So when the Dems orchestrate a pullout, and you see a genocide on a scale never before seen in Iraq, will the Dems blame that on Bush as well?

 

B. It is time for a plan. that will work. They have had plans, and so far, they have NOT worked, as the whole world can see. They need a plan that takes into account the only objective, which is winning, and not worry about whatever PR may come out of it. I don't care if we piss off a few thousand more Muslims, or the UN, or whoever. Just win. If the current people in charge can't find a way to do that, get some new ones. But winning isn't just 'pulling out'.

 

C. Nice leap to assume I mean all war protestors arr wrong. As with every point, people are on both ends of the spectrum. There are crazy people against the war whom I would classify and nutroots. Murtha. That Sheehan b****. Just about anyone who posts on DailyKoz. You can be against the war and not be a total dips***, but for some of the more vocal ones, that is hard to do.

 

You can continue to argue this amongst yourselves. I am going to blow my money in Vegas. See you all in a week.