PDA

View Full Version : Bad news for Dems



bamadog
11-30-2007, 05:58 PM
"Murtha's comments on 'surge' are a problem for House Democrats

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), one of the leading anti-war voices in the House Democratic Caucus, is back from a trip to Iraq and he now says the "surge is working." This could be a huge problem for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders, who are blocking approval of the full $200 billion being sought by President Bush for combat operations in Iraq in 2008.

Murtha's latest comments are also a stark reversal from what he said earlier in the year. The Pennsylvania Democrat, who chairs the powerful Defense Subcommittee on the House Appropriations Committee, has previously stated that the surge "is not working" and the United States faced a military disaster in Iraq.

Murtha told CNN on July 12, following a Bush speech, that the president's views on the success of surge in Iraq were "delusional."

"Well it's delusional to say the least," Murtha told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "As I said earlier, and you heard me say it, it's a failed policy wrapped in illusion. Nothing's gotten better. Incidents have increased. We have had more Americans killed in the last four months than any other period during the war."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a year ago the Dems won both houses of Congress by beating the War in Iraq is "lost" a "quagmire" and "unwinnable", drum. As a party, they were so invested in defeat, how do they get their credibility back?

Drop1
11-30-2007, 06:56 PM
Yawn!!!

moblsv
11-30-2007, 07:59 PM
new sig, just for bamadog

S0Noma
11-30-2007, 08:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote moblsv:</font><hr> new sig, just for bamadog <hr /></blockquote>

"Can't see the forest for the trees"

JPB
11-30-2007, 09:27 PM
Maybe. Mr. Murtha was not the ultimate authority when he was speaking against the war. What changed? It may be that things are better. It is also complicated since there are so many insurgent groups. The best analysis I have read discusses Sunni groups going away from Al Quaeda, which is good. OTOH it discussed the problems with Iran, and the possibility, possibility should be emphasized, that Iran has asked Shia groups to hold off and wait to see what happens with Iran. If Iran is worried about an attack before the end of President Bush's term, it makes a great deal of sense to lay low for a while. If the US attacked Iran, expect Shia groups funded by Iran to go totally ape. Also, it makes sense in general for insurgent groups to lay low for a while. They may figure that the US views 3 years as the long term, and they may be thinking of 3 years as short term, 30 years as a mid term, and 300 as reasonably long term. I guess the thing to do is to wait and see. This war is a lot more complicated than the shallow analysis given by the mainstream media suggests or that short comments by politicians might suggest. I would not get too excited yet.

As for me, I don't know. I don't think anybody who doesn't see the classified information does, and even then the CIA missed little things like the Iranian revolution in 1979. So what information do you really trust?

pooltchr
12-01-2007, 07:47 AM
Right or wrong, Mr. Murtha has put the Dems in a tough position. They have tried to hold back funding for the war by trying to force the President to begin troop withdrawl, in effect, surrendering, giving up, losing, whatever you want to call it. Now, they either must reconsider their stand, or face some serious political fall-out. This is the problem when a group takes a stand based on politics rather than facts. When the facts start to come out, you are left with egg on your face. Nancy will need to do some serious spinning to come out of this situation without looking bad. After calling Gen Petreus a liar, it now looks like he may have been pretty accurate in his assessment of the situation.
Can you say "Oops!"?
Steve

LWW
12-01-2007, 08:03 AM
Once they have all burned you shant have that problem any longer.

LWW

LWW
12-01-2007, 08:04 AM
Yes, we understand that you accept hypocrisy from the neoleft.

LWW

DickLeonard
12-01-2007, 11:32 AM
Pooltchr you can painted anyway you want we should never have gone to war with Iraq. We were lied into a War for Oil. We should get the hell out of Iraq and let them solve their own problems. We are afraid that Iran will solve Iraqs problem and we don't want that because Iran will control the oil against Americans Oil interest. Our servicemen are supposed to die for Mobil Oil.####

bamadog
12-01-2007, 12:43 PM
That's not the issue.
The Dem leadership has been screaming that we need to get out now because Petraeus is a liar, and the war is LOST.
Well, now it appears they are going to have to eat crow.
And that may not play so well at the polls.

It will be interesting to see how they spin our success into defeat.

S0Noma
12-01-2007, 12:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> Once they have all burned you shant have that problem any longer.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

Oh wait, don't you mean the 24% of forests impacted by environmental lawsuits that you'd like to see opened for logging?

You can't possibly mean ALL the forests will burn up due to those hated enviro lawsuits.

Because, well because, <font color="red">that would be LYING! </font color>

<font color="blue"> “Today the GAO released its report, which shows that the vast majority of forest-thinning projects done in the last two years were undertaken without delay. According to the GAO, three out of every four projects moved ahead unchallenged. Of those that were challenged, most were resolved within 90 days. (In fact, even though it has the authority to do so, the Forest Service did not reduce the timeframe for settling a dispute.) What’s more, the GAO noted that a vast majority of acres thinned were excluded from environmental review.

“I suppose that there are some who will remain unconvinced, and they will comb this report for a statistic that distorts reality, all in an effort to weaken our environmental laws. For example, I anticipate that some folks will single out the relatively few decisions that the Forest Service reviews on appeal. They may make it seem as if this is the norm rather than the exception. However, a careful, comprehensive analysis of this GAO report makes it plain that a vast majority of forest-thinning projects move ahead without any challenge, and that the 24 percent of projects that are challenged are the most controversial.

“These findings validate my view that the major obstacle constraining our thinning efforts is a lack of federal funding, due in part to the Forest Service’s habit of robbing the forest-thinning account to cover other agency costs. The report also points out that the Forest Service continues to focus its thinning efforts in areas far away from homes and communities, which means that the agency is not doing enough to protect people and property. </font color>

GAO Study Shows Environmental Laws, Citizen Appeals Not an Impediment to Reducing Wildfire Threat (http://energy.senate.gov/news/dem_release.cfm?id=203857)

Drop1
12-01-2007, 01:11 PM
And you except it from the neoright,and it all gets down to a game for children,so go play with yourself. Praise seeker,what is bad for the right,is bad for the left. I think we all salute the same flag,however some of us don't wear it.

pooltchr
12-01-2007, 01:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Pooltchr you can painted anyway you want we should never have gone to war with Iraq. We were lied into a War for Oil. We should get the hell out of Iraq and let them solve their own problems. We are afraid that Iran will solve Iraqs problem and we don't want that because Iran will control the oil against Americans Oil interest. Our servicemen are supposed to die for Mobil Oil.#### <hr /></blockquote>

That isn't what Bill Clinton said. He supported us going into Iraq, and even said at the time that GW needed to do it, based on the information BC had when he was president that Saddam did have WMD and was working to get nuclear weapons. The fact that they weren't there when we went in does NOT mean he didn't have them when we went we were trying to get his cooporation before the war. There was a very good reason for going in. I'm not so sure there is a good reason we stayed there as long as we have.
Steve

S0Noma
12-01-2007, 02:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> There was a very good reason for going in. I'm not so sure there is a good reason we stayed there as long as we have.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Good points, Steve. At this point in time it matters less about why we went in as the fact that we're in now and must decide what to do next.

Personally? I watched what appeared to be an attack on our WTC by a small terrorist group led by Bin Laden springboard from a failed search for him via an invasion of Afghanistan (where he was believed to be hiding) into an invasion of Iraq (where he wasn't believed to be hiding)

I still wonder how it is that we haven't found that son of a bitch? Where is Bin Laden? Anyone even care anymore?

As to staying in Iraq now that we are there? At the cost of another two hundred billion dollars (that we can ill afford) for one more year? More lives lost? I don't think so.

I'd rather see that money used to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels or to build new schools and hire more teachers - how about rebuilding our own infrastructure? Almost anything would be better than how that money's being spent now. There must be something more useful than pouring it down the drain on yet another year of a war without end.

pooltchr
12-01-2007, 03:19 PM
Ideally, yes, we probably should get out. The problem is that if we leave now, we will end up back there again because of the total chaos we would leave behind. I would like to see things stabalize before we pull out. If we had done it right the first time, we wouldn't be there now. If we don't get it right this time, there will most certainly be a next time. I think we need to get the job done, turn security over to the Iraq people, and then leave.
Steve

bamadog
12-01-2007, 09:58 PM
Any guesses on how long it will take the Dem leadership to apologize to Petraeus. I think Hillary should be first.

pooltchr
12-01-2007, 10:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bamadog:</font><hr> Any guesses on how long it will take the Dem leadership to apologize to Petraeus. I think Hillary should be first. <hr /></blockquote>

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Hillary to admit she was wrong about anything!
Steve