House leader Sam Clyburn said that a positive report from gen'l petraeus would be a problem for democrats.
"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,"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380.html

Why would positive news about positive developments in iraq be a problem for democrats?

As if you didn't already know.

What kind of positive news are we talking about, that it took six years, thousands of American deaths, countless Iraqi deaths, a war debt our children will be paying off like a second mortgage, our prestigious standing in the international community, all so the Iraqis have twice the number of schools they had before, or some such? (they're only half as uneducated now, and half the reason is that those little bastards keep dying!)

Is this the kind of good news that Democrats are trying so desperately to avoid?

What kind of positive news are we talking about, that it took six years, thousands of American deaths, countless Iraqi deaths, a war debt our children will be paying off like a second mortgage, our prestigious standing in the international community, all so the Iraqis have twice the number of schools they had before, or some such? (they're only half as uneducated now, and half the reason is that those little bastards keep dying!)

Is this the kind of good news that Democrats are trying so desperately to avoid?

I don't know if that's the kind of news they are trying to avoid.

But the question remains. Why would good news from petraeus be a problem?

If you ask me, waldo, you seem to already know the answer and are just asking this to stir up conflict. ;)

Politicians can't stand good news, of any kind, unless they can take credit for it. This is not something limited to democrats, but this time, it was a democrat who expressed the concern.

House leader Sam Clyburn said that a positive report from gen'l petraeus would be a problem for democrats.

Among other things.


Why would positive news about positive developments in iraq be a problem for democrats?

Since this is the opinion of Mr. Clyburn, perhaps you should ask him, but if you read the article, the answer might be...

"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."

As if you didn't already know.

Why would positive news about positive developments in iraq be a problem for democrats?

Duhhhhhh.

""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.""

Just as a wild fucking guess [/sarcasm], I would surmise that it would be *a problem* for those (sane) politicians who'd like to see the disastrous Iraq war brought to a quick end.

Also, inherant in Clyburn's concerns there is no doubt the possibility that the coming "report" might portray --in a thoroughly dishonest way-- the situation as being "positive".

Among other things.



Since this is the opinion of Mr. Clyburn, perhaps you should ask him, but if you read the article, the answer might be...

"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."

As if you didn't already know.

Also because the Dems have been workin overtime of late in
preparation of just that.That the new General might echo more
than just what the early mid summer progress report stated.
al-Anbar Province has been literally transformed.The number
of safe or Green zones have been expanding.Al Qaeda is having
a hard time finding safe haven and places like Ramadi have been effectively
looped off.
The lowest casuality and monthly death toll in a year happened just
within the last couple weeks,as the surge kicked into gear.
Progress Militarilly IS being made.
Whether Political Progress has been made,is anoither question.
Or Dilemma.

Among other things.



Since this is the opinion of Mr. Clyburn, perhaps you should ask him, but if you read the article, the answer might be...

"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."

As if you didn't already know.


Precisely. Cynicism at it's finest. Their opposition to the war is based on political calculus. Not on what is good for the country, good for the region, or good for the world. Not an appreciation of historical us policy or past democratic ideals. It's about political power.

Duhhhhhh.

""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.""

Just as a wild fucking guess [/sarcasm], I would surmise that it would be *a problem* for those (sane) politicians who'd like to see the disastrous Iraq war brought to a quick end.

Also, inherant in Clyburn's concerns there is no doubt the possibility that the coming "report" might portray --in a thoroughly dishonest way-- the situation as being "positive".

And how would you know if it was dishonest?

Precisely. Cynicism at it's finest. Their opposition to the war is based on political calculus. Not on what is good for the country, good for the region, or good for the world. Not an appreciation of historical us policy or past democratic ideals. It's about political power.

Your opinion, not mine.

You know I really don't know how this Iraq War got demonized so badly.

No matter what aspect you look at this war from (statistically speaking) we are doing FAR better than we have done in any other war we have faced.

We hear alot that progress is being made from military officials---two prominent war critics game out in the Times saying progress was being made. We may have to face facts that we are actually making a difference; finally making a difference.

The horrible truth is that there is no solution to this war not involving Iran. That is what makes this war so bad in my opinion, there will be no triumph for Caesear, no surrender on the battleship, no bowing at the king's feet. There will simply be a point where we have done all we can do and we leave.

There is no glory to be had here.

Your opinion, not mine.

If you have another explanation do bring it forward.

And how would you know if it was dishonest?

I guess one could look at what is actually happening on the ground in Iraq-- (well, in the hypothetical situation that an objective news reporter existed who would actually be allowed by this administration to get inside Iraq, and that he would be allowed to report what he saw without it being filtered through the military before being disseminated to the great unwashed back in the U.S.) and compare it to the "progress" that is said to be being made.

Precisely. Cynicism at it's finest. Their opposition to the war is based on political calculus. Not on what is good for the country, good for the region, or good for the world.

Riiiiiiiiight.

:rolleyes:

Because no one observing the mayhem ensuing in Iraq could possibly want what is best for the country and the world.

No, they just want "political power". They are not actually bothered by all the death and destruction taking place. Who CARES about meaningless stuff like that, eh? They just want power. THAT is why the war angers them.

Yeah. That's it.

[/sarcasm]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'd say you have it exactly backwards.

The people who lied us into this war, --the Bushs, Cheneys, Feiths, Kristols, Wolfowitzs and Rumsfelds-- and who keep it going despite massive dissaproval by the People, are the ones entirely motivated by unalloyed greed for power and wealth and control.

____________________________________

The most cold-blooded, murderous people involved in the Iraq conflict are to be found in Washington D.C., atop the nation’s military-industrial and war media complexes – at the soulless pinnacles of Empire and Inequality, Inc. They stride in expensive suits through the safe, tranquil, air-conditioned corridors of power while brown-skinned children weep in anguish and U.S. soldiers’ lose their limbs in the sweltering bloodbath of “liberated” Iraq.

"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."

So I guess they are hoping for bad news so that they can go ahead with their withdrawal plan. This simply reinforces my view that certain Democrats hope for bad news from Iraq because it suits their political purposes.

I guess one could look at what is actually happening on the ground in Iraq-- (well, in the hypothetical situation that an objective news reporter existed who would actually be allowed by this administration to get inside Iraq, and that he would be allowed to report what he saw without it being filtered through the military before being disseminated to the great unwashed back in the U.S.) and compare it to the "progress" that is said to be being made.

So the news reports that we are currently getting are biased. That's a rather unusual admission from you free. You're to be commended.

JOhn Burns just might fit your bill, if he wants to go back.

"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."

So I guess they are hoping for bad news so that they can go ahead with their withdrawal plan. This simply reinforces my view that certain Democrats hope for bad news from Iraq because it suits their political purposes.
Precisely.

The most cold-blooded, murderous people involved in the Iraq conflict are to be found in Washington D.C., atop the nation’s military-industrial and war media complexes – at the soulless pinnacles of Empire and Inequality, Inc. They stride in expensive suits through the safe, tranquil, air-conditioned corridors of power while brown-skinned children weep in anguish and U.S. soldiers’ lose their limbs in the sweltering bloodbath of “liberated” Iraq.
I love it when you write like this. I mean, it's just...s..s..so mooooooving.

But the question remains. Why would good news from petraeus be a problem?Good news in the expected September report may well be bad news in the sense that it allows people to conclude that this is winable militarily, so we avoid doing what really needs to be done, and eventually will be done. It will lead, potentially, to pouring more more money, lives and reputations down a bottomless pit. Sad to say.

(Incidently, the reports from the AO are already improving in some important ways, though not all. The fact that the Legislature took the month off is concerning, and the Sunni split promises more fireworks and extra-Iraqi involvement down the road.)

So the news reports that we are currently getting (about the situationin Iraq) are biased. That's a rather unusual admission from you free. You're to be commended.

Thanks.

We all knew from day one what a sham it was going to be, in terms of honest unbiased journalism, when the B*sh Administration would not allow the Media to operate freely in Iraq, to report on events there, unless they were *embedded*.

"Embedded" meaning, of course, that the military brass has the wherewithal to pretty much re-write the news reports, to gloss over any attrocities while making sure the news back home is filled with feel-good tales of oh-so valiant fighting men, just eating applie pie and hotdogs, trying to "do their job" and get back home to the folks.

No wonder the coverage is so biased. BushCo demanded that it be biased.

If you have another explanation do bring it forward.

You posted:

"Precisely. Cynicism at it's finest. Their opposition to the war is based on political calculus. Not on what is good for the country, good for the region, or good for the world. Not an appreciation of historical us policy or past democratic ideals. It's about political power."

Isn't it possible they are against the war because they feel the war is bad for the country? And you accuse them of being cynical. :)

You stated your opinion that they are against the war for purely political reasons. I don't agree. Clyburn's statement was definitely a political one, but all he was saying was that Congress is divided along party lines and a good report from Iraq won't change that. This will mean that passing legislation will be more difficult. Why read more into it than that?

Thanks.

We all knew from day one what a sham it was going to be, in terms of honest unbiased journalism, when the B*sh Administration would not allow the Media to operate freely in Iraq, to report on events there, unless they were *embedded*.

"Embedded" meaning, of course, that the military brass has the wherewithal to pretty much re-write the news reports, to gloss over any attrocities while making sure the news back home is filled with feel-good tales of oh-so valiant fighting men, just eating applie pie and hotdogs, trying to "do their job" and get back home to the folks.

No wonder the coverage is so biased. BushCo demanded that it be biased.

After the war was won no reporter has had to be embedded. They are free to move about, as Michael Ware has demonstrated, at their leisure. It certainly hasn't prevented them from writing negative articles about events in bagdhdad.

So I guess they are hoping for bad news so that they can go ahead with their withdrawal plan. This simply reinforces my view that certain Democrats hope for bad news from Iraq because it suits their political purposes.

I can't help but wonder: Do you think George W. Bush is hoping for good news in order to further his political agenda ("I'm a war president!") and secure his "legacy?"

:rolleyes:

You posted:

"Precisely. Cynicism at it's finest. Their opposition to the war is based on political calculus. Not on what is good for the country, good for the region, or good for the world. Not an appreciation of historical us policy or past democratic ideals. It's about political power."

Isn't it possible they are against the war because they feel the war is bad for the country? And you accuse them of being cynical. :)

You stated your opinion that they are against the war for purely political reasons. I don't agree. Clyburn's statement was definitely a political one, but all he was saying was that Congress is divided along party lines and a good report from Iraq won't change that. This will mean that passing legislation will be more difficult. Why read more into it than that?

Two reasons.

First, i fully accept that there are some among the democrats that are truly opposed and have been so from the beginning.

That said in the beginning most democrats were for the war and/or the aftermath. (I suspect that was also political calculus as well given their past faux pas' on GWI, Somalia, Afghanistan.) When it became apparent that all was not wine and roses in the aftermath many started to use the war as stick with which to beat the admin. And as things became more difficult their objections increased. Criticism that was perhaps deserved, but if they were truly for the war and it's objectives they would have been offering advice, not just demanding change.

The criticism consisted of a demand for more troops (charlie rangel wanted to institute a draft to supply more troops, a change in leadership, new tactics). Following the elections in '06 they got all of the above. More troops, a new general, a new SecDef, and new tactics. The Democrats got everything they wanted.

And yet still the objection to the war continues. And this despite the appearance, atpit, that their tactics are working.

The president has followed their advice (grudgingly and without offering them any credit) and seems to be achieving results. So if they were/are really interested in building a safer world and defeating the radicals out there they should be happy, not considering good news from iraq to be a problem.

The telling thing about Clyburn here is his automatic instinct when answering the question.

The first thing he said should have been "Well first let me say, we Democrats all want this war to be waged successfully and concluded victoriously, but having said that......"

Instead he is automatically, instinctively, a partisan. It has been obvious for a long time that certain members of the Democrat leadership view this war purely as a political tool, it's just odd to hear one admit it.

I don't think the rank and file Democrats in Congress subscribe to their leadership's politicization of the war, but those leaders have made their position obvious.

I can't help but wonder: Do you think George W. Bush is hoping for good news in order to further his political agenda ("I'm a war president!") and secure his "legacy?"

:rolleyes:

I hope George W. Bush is hoping for good news. I hope everyone is hoping for good news. I am hoping for good news. Your post makes it seem that you are not hoping for good news. I really hope I misread what you posted.

I hope George W. Bush is hoping for good news. I hope everyone is hoping for good news. I am hoping for good news. Your post makes it seem that you are not hoping for good news. I really hope I misread what you posted.

Of course you did. You are Frogger, after all.

I was merely pointing out that this comment:

This simply reinforces my view that certain Democrats hope for bad news from Iraq because it suits their political purposes.

is nothing more than your blind partisanship coupled with the Republican party's talking points.

So tell us, Fran, do you have a problem with a politician who sees good news about Iraq as a bad thing or are you such and ideological hack that you agree with him? I'm betting on the latter.

So tell us, Fran, do you have a problem with a politician who sees good news about Iraq as a bad thing or are you such and ideological hack that you agree with him?

I guess those are the only two choices. I mean, if you don't agree with that point you must be an ideological hack, right?

Wrong. If someone sees "good news" from Iraq as a bad thing because he wants to see Bush and the US fail, you might have a point. Assuming that this is the reason someone might feel this way about news from Iraq exposes your hackery, not theirs.

The telling thing about Clyburn here is his automatic instinct when answering the question.

The first thing he said should have been "Well first let me say, we Democrats all want this war to be waged successfully and concluded victoriously, but having said that......"

Why should he say that if he doesn't believe it? Why should someone wish that a war be "waged successfully" if they don't think a war should be waged at all?


Instead he is automatically, instinctively, a partisan. It has been obvious for a long time that certain members of the Democrat leadership view this war purely as a political tool, it's just odd to hear one admit it.

It would be an odd thing to hear indeed. Where did he admit that again?


I don't think the rank and file Democrats in Congress subscribe to their leadership's politicization of the war, but those leaders have made their position obvious.

How many people are you talking about here?

Why should he say that if he doesn't believe it? Why should someone wish that a war be "waged successfully" if they don't think a war should be waged at all?

That is not what he said. He said good news on the war front was bad news for Democrats. Had he said he was against the war in Iraq but still was happy there was good news that would be one thing. He was bemoaning the fact that the war is beginning to go better.

That is not what he said. He said good news on the war front was bad news for Democrats.

Had he said he was against the war in Iraq but still was happy there was good news that would be one thing. He was bemoaning the fact that the war is beginning to go better.

No he wasn't. He was bemoaning the fact that House Democrats might not vote to end the war if things are seen to be improving. Big difference.

Good news in the expected September report may well be bad news in the sense that it allows people to conclude that this is winable militarily, so we avoid doing what really needs to be done, and eventually will be done. It will lead, potentially, to pouring more more money, lives and reputations down a bottomless pit. Sad to say.

(Incidently, the reports from the AO are already improving in some important ways, though not all. The fact that the Legislature took the month off is concerning, and the Sunni split promises more fireworks and extra-Iraqi involvement down the road.)

*********************************
Wood You kindly ...shut the Hell up,already.
Like what this Country needs right now,is some backpeddlin
hindsight,from Dear Abby.
Why can't you *unts just shut yer yappers and knit some
summer sweaters.

No he wasn't. He was bemoaning the fact that House Democrats might not vote to end the war if things are seen to be improving. Big difference.


We'll have to agree to disagree on this, Vilepagan.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this, Vilepagan.
Amen. I think that's a very convenient excuse. IOW, it wouldn't be the first ambiguous response given on the house floor. It's not as if their true motivations are indeterminate here. I mean, give me a freakin' break...:rolleyes:

Right on, Freethinker! Waldo has problems. Guess he's lost. Remember the game "Where's Waldo?"

I'd say you have it exactly backwards.

The people who lied us into this war, --the Bushs, Cheneys, Feiths, Kristols, Wolfowitzs and Rumsfelds-- and who keep it going despite massive dissaproval by the People, are the ones entirely motivated by unalloyed greed for power and wealth and control.

____________________________________

The most cold-blooded, murderous people involved in the Iraq conflict are to be found in Washington D.C., atop the nation’s military-industrial and war media complexes – at the soulless pinnacles of Empire and Inequality, Inc. They stride in expensive suits through the safe, tranquil, air-conditioned corridors of power while brown-skinned children weep in anguish and U.S. soldiers’ lose their limbs in the sweltering bloodbath of “liberated” Iraq.


You are right, FT.

And the Neocons who planned this whole thing were not that secretive about ther agenda. They came right out and said that their goal is US dominance of the world back in the 90s.

Remember the game "Where's Waldo?"
Yeah - he alludes to it in his location information, but with that aside, your quip was really clever, "truthout".......:rolleyes: