Do democrats want the surge to succeed.. Not!

[rogerwa]

Read this article and see if that is the message.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380_pf.html

In particular, this quote by House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) ..

"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."

Let me get this straight.. Success is a problem.. No progress is good. dogs living with cats..what's next..

Does it matter what the report is? Or is it a foregone conclusion that we should exit and give up regardless of the situation on the ground?

 

[sun_runner235]

Re: Do democrats want the surge to succeed.. Not!

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."


I think not!

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Do democrats want the surge to succeed.. Not!

Read this article and see if that is the message.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380_pf.html

In particular, this quote by House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) ..

"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."

Let me get this straight.. Success is a problem.. No progress is good. dogs living with cats..what's next..

Does it matter what the report is? Or is it a foregone conclusion that we should exit and give up regardless of the situation on the ground?

Hey Roger, As you and I know, (or it is likely you know this based on yer stated leanings), Democrats need disasters or they need to hype one up, (ever heard of Global Warmin' before), to arrange fer the power transfers they need to stay in the business of gainin' greater Corntrol over all of our lives. (Ya know higher taxes on all necessary things to keep us down: first flush of the terlet in the mornin' to turnin off the readin' lite at night), n' let's not forget about all those empowering regulations, they empower the pols n' bureauocrats at all of our expence and their own personal gain.

Their buds the MSM and a very clever n' capable n' ruthless enemy using all their advantages that the world's Liberals n; Media give them have demoralized the American people. If the Dems can force failure in 2007 they think they and the MSM will sucessfully blame the defeat on the Bush Administration then the Dems can come to the rescue with Hillary, Obama or Edwards as President to raise taxes n' draft an army to attack Paskistan to get revenge for the two or so American and one or so European cities in ruins.

Hopefully the Democrat supporters drunk on Kool aid will wake up in time. Who knows? Respectfully, JR

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Do democrats want the surge to succeed.. Not!

Here is another related article that analyzes and refers to the tipping of events and opinions in this Great Country. Michael Barone is a one of a kind walkin' talkin' encyclopedia of Politics fer US News and World Report. Enjoy the read the news maybe good in the mid term for all of us, and not so good if ya have bet the farm n' mortgaged the ol' house on a bet that the American people will openly welcome internally organized defeat for the second time in thirty years.

"IS THE SURGE WORKING?"

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2007/7/31/is-the-surge-working.html

Modern Democrats = Depressed Dip sticks fer Defeat n' Disaster

 

[JB]

Re: Do democrats want the surge to succeed.. Not!

The democrats don't care a flip whether the surge succeeds or not, as long as they can spin what happens to discredit and criticise GWB and his administration.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Do democrats want the surge to succeed.. Not!

JB is right. Being a liberal means never having to say you are sorry or that you are wrong. It's about the election and HATE.

I wonder if they can fit that on the side of Hillary's private jet?

Let's hear it again: We support the troops and their mission! NOT!!! (Nazi's, terrorists, murderers, torturers - liberal support lingo)

 

[PierBridge]

Re: Do democrats want the surge to succeed.. Not!

I'd say 95 percent of Dem's "people who vote Dem" would want the insurgence to succeed.

As far as Congress or politicians go much less I'll let you open minded guys put that number out...LOL

 

[treedancer]

Re: Do democrats want the surge to succeed.. Not!

To those that didn?t bother to go and read the full article that was on the link?rogerrwa? provided, here is the link with the two paragraphs that proceeded the snip that he posted, you can get a better understanding of the context of Clyburns statement.


I guess I would fit in the category of what Cllyburn refers to as a ?Blue Dog Dem,? seeing as I want this surge to succeed. In my opinion they are using the wrong tactic, I would be, as I do here wondering loud and long why are we in Iraq in the first place .Too me that is a stronger campaign tactic than standing around, wringing your hands and giving the ?appearance ?of being gleeful about none success.

<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.">

 

[rolmops]

Re: Do democrats want the surge to succeed.. Not!

Say tree,you did not really expect them to actually read the whole article now did you?
As you know well, selective quoting is a great way to keep the ignorant and the analphabetics on your side.

 

[12Footer]

Re: Do democrats want the surge to succeed.. Not!

How much do you need to quote?
I heard the actual words, spoken by him, and the question he was asked with my own ears. To this neocon, it sounded EXACTLY like what Murtha has been trying to say -- you know, This war is lost". It doesn't tell me anything I haven't learned by the concerted efforts to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It does not take a cow brain to know who the left champions. But when they say it, and then their minions attempt to excuse it like this, it becomes laughable.

 

[rogerwa]

Re: Do democrats want the surge to succeed.. Not!

Does it not say, selective editing or not, that a positive report would cause problems for the democrats? I guess, I would hope that they would all be pleased that we are making progress. A good report means a split caucus, which means they cannot pull the troops out.

The inferred logic here is that the end goal is to enact legislation to pull the troops out. A good report gets in the way. So proress is bad.

I'm not sure how you could read this any other way.. Selective editing or not.

 

[treedancer]

Re: Do democrats want the surge to succeed.. Not!

Lets not get to giddy on the surge working. Its just buying time till the Iraq?s decide that they want to be a country and run it themselves.

http://icasualties.org/oif/


May through July 2003_2007

..........May...June.... July.... Total
2007....126......101......74......301
2006.......69........61.......43......173
2005.......80........78.......54......212
2004.......80........42.......54......176
2003.......37........30.......48......115

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Do democrats want the surge to succeed.. Not!

Lets not get to giddy on the surge working. Its just buying time till the Iraq?s decide that they want to be a country and run it themselves.

http://icasualties.org/oif/


May through July 2003_2007

..........May...June.... July.... Total
2007....126......101......74......301
2006.......69........61.......43......173
2005.......80........78.......54......212
2004.......80........42.......54......176
2003.......37........30.......48......115

Nah, I'm jus' bein' a hopefull Cornservative, yer right Mr. Tree, lets all surrender and get prayer rugs right now!! JR

 

[rogerwa]

Re: Do democrats want the surge to succeed.. Not!

Who's giddy.. Either we're making progress or we're not. Does progress mean problems for the democrats? Why would that be?

 

[treedancer]

Re: Do democrats want the surge to succeed.. Not!

Quote rogerw


Who's giddy.. Either we're making progress or we're not. Does progress mean problems for the democrats? Why would that be?

That little context thing raises its ugly head again doesn?t it?

..........May...June.... July.... Total
[FONT=&quot]2007....126......101......74......301[/FONT]

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Do democrats want the surge to succeed.. Not!

Funny, nobody seems to think the dems want the surge to work. It is always interesting to hear what liberals DON'T say.

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Do democrats want the surge to succeed.. Not!

Lets not get to giddy on the surge working. Its just buying time till the Iraq?s decide that they want to be a country and run it themselves.

http://icasualties.org/oif/


May through July 2003_2007

..........May...June.... July.... Total
2007....126......101......74......301
2006.......69........61.......43......173
2005.......80........78.......54......212
2004.......80........42.......54......176
2003.......37........30.......48......115

I agree those numbers aren't good. But in trying to do some math, which is not my strong point, I can in no way come up with the 665,000 also reported on some websites that the left love.

Your 3 month total of 977 x 4 (gives you 12 months) =3908 x 4 = 15,632, so that's a difference of 649,638.

Now if you had numbers from ANY government that substantiated this figure that you post, I might believe it tree. I mean the figures mind as well be from Micheal Moore.

 

[Kalifornyakid]

Re: Do democrats want the surge to succeed.. Not!

Actualy plainsman, the 600k figure is suposedly including ALL war induced deaths, and it's a joke. It has no solid basis. Just some meaningles statistic.
The #'s Tree posted don't really mean anything either, can't see how you can equate soldier deaths with success or failure in Iraq.

 

[treedancer]

Re: Do democrats want the surge to succeed.. Not!

Quote Plainsman


I agree those numbers aren't good. But in trying to do some math, which is not my strong point, I can in no way come up with the 665,000 also reported on some websites that the left love.


It just might clear things up, if you go the link I provided and look the tab with the name statistic On it.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Do democrats want the surge to succeed.. Not!

Say tree,you did not really expect them to actually read the whole article now did you?
As you know well, selective quoting is a great way to keep the ignorant and the analphabetics on your side.

The democratic leadership has exibited blatant examples of the lowest of characture almost weekly for years.
Cherry picking additional examples these days is normal conversation now.

Really rolmops and treedancer, honestly, can you really defend the shameless?