Democrats & Good News In Iraq

JaJae · 08-08-2007, 01:09 AM

I was reading an editorial just now. I'll spare everyone the actual editorial and go over the key elements. Essentially the editorial was saying that some Democrats are ... fearful .. of good news from Iraq. They're afraid it will divide their party, they don't want to hear about it and don't want it getting out to the public. They listed quite a few examples and I'm going to link to some of them here.

James Clyburn (House Majority Whip) basically said good news in Iraq is bad news for the Democrats. Now I think we all realize that this is true. The better Iraq is doing the better off the Republicans will be and thus the worse off Democrats will be. This may be part of the reason the media harps on only the negative. On July 24th the NY Times did a poll that showed 42% of Americans felt military action was the right thing to do in Iraq. Up from 37% in June. The NY Times was perturbed by this number and actually conducted a new poll. To their disdain they received the same numbers. Now obviously this is bad news for the Democrats. More and more Americans are starting to feel military action in Iraq was the right thing to do and with the new reports coming from Iraq lately that show good military progress, it's only going to hurt the Democrats even more.
washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

At a recent hearing of the Armed Services Committee, retired Gen. Jack Keane said "progress is being made" by U.S. military forces in Iraq; "We are on the offensive and we have the momentum," he added. This was so outrageous and offensive to Democratic Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas that she literally walked out. When asked why she walked out she responded by saying there was "only so much" good news she could listen to before the frustration overwhelmed her to the point she couldn't be in the same room anymore. She then expressed concerns about this good news being reported by the media. Oh the horror! Luckily for Boyda Congress is in recess for August and she can go on vacation and never listen to the news for the entire month and keep her sensitive ears away from progress being made in Iraq.

Some more good military news in Iraq for those who are interested:
According to Brig. Gen. Mick Bednarek, in Iraq today "al Qaeda is on the run ... We are going into places that the coalition has not had the sufficient troop strength and force size to go before, and we're going after them, and they will not find safe haven in this country.
We have good...er bad...news | Capitol Hill Blue

The Brookings Institute recently went into Iraq and changed their tune. Many reporters who went to Iraq recently are saying they've seen a great change. The commanders and generals are saying militarily things are looking better. Military advisers are saying things are going well, but the Democrats are tying their hands.
Military adviser rips Democrats over Iraq bills -- The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

When asked about that, Pelosi's camp said the Democratic leaders are "not willing to concede there are positive things to point to" in Iraq.

Not willing to concede? What does that mean? They're not willing to back down against basically the opinion of everyone who has been there recently? They'd rather sit back at home in the states and walk out of military hearings pretending they're not hearing what they're hearing.

What is so bad about good news coming from Iraq? Why must there be a divide just because our military does well? The Democrats shouldn't be divided if the military does well. There's absolutely no reason for it. The problem is they've centered themselves around pessimism rather than practicality and realism over Iraq. The Republicans have had their faults, but they have stood behind the good news. They can't hide from all the bad news and thus their approval ratings drop. But the Democrats could have sold themselves as being the better party to lead Iraq. They could have sold themselves as the party who was militarily stronger and more capable. If they had done that, which considering how bad the Republicans had done they'd be able to take the good news and take credit for it. You have to also remember Petraeus is THEIR man. He's the person they wanted in Iraq. They successfully got previous generals removed and Petraeus who they voted unanimously was the person put in charge. Under his direction in a few months Iraq has turned around militarily. They SHOULD be taking credit for this. But they can't because of the stances they've taken leading up to this point. Their promises of a "slow bleed" strategy, pulling out of a "failed" occupation, etc into infinity means that now whenever their is good news they lose all credibility. At this point the party needs bad news. Good news will only divide their party and aid the Republicans.

It's a sad state of affairs when a political party in America can't rally behind our troops for doing a job well done and literally needs to undermine their efforts to assist their political agendas. This is already starting to happen and will likely only get worse if the surge continues down the path it is going. The reality though is that as far as I'm concerned the surge is only working to the degree it is because of Petraeus who wouldn't be there if not for the Democrats and they probably wouldn't have been as productive without the deadlines and reviews that the Democrats instilled. As far as I'm concerned any good news coming from Iraq is the doing of the Democrats, yet they're running from it like the plague. It's just sad that they've set themselves up to depend on failure and their means to end the war and make the Republicans look bad have actually had the adverse effect and helped the military effort and aided the Republicans.

Thorgrim · 08-08-2007, 01:27 AM

Democrats aren't afraid of good news, they are afraid of mediocre news that is easily spinned as quasi-good

I mean really, to suggest that all the veterans in Congress who are democrats, are licking their lips going "gee i hope this month is REALLY BLOODY, like A LOT OF SOLDIERS SHOULD DIE"

:rollseyes:

Yeah, and the military has been talking about cutting our forces, etc since basically the war started, and never stopped...everytime we are "gaining ground"

Seriously, do yourself a favor, and watch Oliver North's reports on Fox News since 2003, you'll find everytime he is pointing out how wonderful Iraq is...and american commanders agreeing with him

And retired generals isn't your best bet, here's a news article from Monday:

Volney Warner thinks big. A retired Army four-star general who helped craft counterinsurgency doctrine during the Vietnam War, he’s made a career out of thinking about how U.S. military strategy should advance America’s global interests.

How does domestic politics shape military tactics? How and why did U.S. civilian and military leaders fail in Vietnam and Iraq ? What has Iraq taught the U.S. military about unconventional war?

A highly regarded expert on counterinsurgency who enjoys a reputation among his peers as a sharp thinker who pulls no punches, Warner asks why the U.S. military— with all its tradition, training, equipment and support— has failed to learn the lessons of Vietnam and apply them to Iraq . He gave his answers in a series of interviews with a McClatchy Newspapers reporter.

“If the strategy is wrong and the policy is wrong, you can’t blame the people implementing it. They are trying to implement a political strategy that won’t work. It’s very difficult to turn the train around,” said Warner, who at 81 heads a defense consulting firm in McLean, VA. . “I have to believe that military leaders in positions of trust and confidence may have made stupid decisions (in the course of fighting an insurgency), but never with malice aforethought towards the country that spawned them and certainly not with intent to destroy the lives of those soldiers who believed in them, trusted their decisions and carried out their orders to their deaths.”

A veteran general hears echoes from Vietnam in Iraq - Yahoo! News

The WH's own standards, that it preset to low levels, have failed, every reasonable indicator has shown failing numbers

-Sectarian deaths: Up since the surge
-US deaths: Up since the surge
-Coalition deaths: Up since the surge
-Resignations/boycotts of Iraq's government: Up since the surge
-Tensions between Sunni tribes and Shia militias in general: Up since the surge
-Failures in Iraq's infrastructure: Up since the surge

I don't need to go on...it's basically a full list

Oh yeah, we're arming terrorists who are hell bent on killing Shias, after we already armed Shias ready to kill Sunnis...big success

And every liberal who said "Al Qaeda will never survive in Iraq" was proven right, and every conservative who said "Al Qaeda is gonna take over!!!" were proven flat-ass wrong, before the surge

Listen, I like being right, but in certain cases I don't...I predicted the AQ thing ages ago, that civil war was going to break out, that sectarian violence would go down but not halt and still stay at high levels, that US troop deaths would rise if we surged, etc etc

Please, state your clear opinion in the thread, rather than the obvious "i hate the media" can you say flat out: Do you support Bush's surge and the continuation of it in Iraq?

JaJae · 08-08-2007, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I mean really, to suggest that all the veterans in Congress who are democrats, are licking their lips going "gee i hope this month is REALLY BLOODY, like A LOT OF SOLDIERS SHOULD DIE"

:rollseyes:

I knew someone was going to mention something like this. I'm going to obstain from reading the rest of your post because I'm sure it will only rile me up. The reality is I said nothing of the sort.

I do not believe for one second that any Democrat wants soldiers to die, nor did I state that. What I said was that Democrats need bad news to assist their political party. And good news is detrimental to them. As a political party they've focused themselves around the bad and it's gotten to the point where when good news is coming out they don't want to hear it and they don't want us to hear it.

Please feel free to respond to my actual post. Thanks.

When you were responding I edited my last paragraph btw:

It's a sad state of affairs when a political party in America can't rally behind our troops for doing a job well done and literally needs to undermine their efforts to assist their political agendas. This is already starting to happen and will likely only get worse if the surge continues down the path it is going. The reality though is that as far as I'm concerned the surge is only working to the degree it is because of Petraeus who wouldn't be there if not for the Democrats and they probably wouldn't have been as productive without the deadlines and reviews that the Democrats instilled. As far as I'm concerned any good news coming from Iraq is the doing of the Democrats, yet they're running from it like the plague. It's just sad that they've set themselves up to depend on failure and their means to end the war and make the Republicans look bad have actually had the adverse effect and helped the military effort and aided the Republicans.

I'm not sure if that matters at all to the rest of your response.

JaJae · 08-08-2007, 01:41 AM

I think another point to consider is the NY Times poll. Had the percentage of Americans who supported military action in Iraq dropped by the same degree it increased, I highly doubt they would have felt the need to conduct a second poll. Good news in Iraq is bad news for the Democrats. It's sad that that's the way it is, and in reality it's probably the Democrats fault. Even though in my opinion they hold essentially full responsibility for anything good that happens in Iraq at this point.

It's late and I have a few in me, so I dunno how much sense I'm making right now if at all...

motivez · 08-08-2007, 01:43 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

What I said was that Democrats need bad news to assist their political party. And good news is detrimental to them. As a political party they've focused themselves around the bad and it's gotten to the point where when good news is coming out they don't want to hear it and they don't want us to hear it.

The underlying suggestion here is that Democrats are "hoping" it continues to go bad for political reasons.. so the suggestion that you said nothing of the sort doesn't hold water.

You can't suggest that they want to undermine their efforts, don't want us to see good news and are afraid of it, and are "depending" on bad news without acknowledging that it's the same thing as hoping things go bad, meaning more blood and chaos.. which is what Thorgrim posted.

Thorgrim · 08-08-2007, 01:45 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think another point to consider is the NY Times poll. Had the percentage of Americans who supported military action in Iraq dropped by the same degree it increased, I highly doubt they would have felt the need to conduct a second poll. Good news in Iraq is bad news for the Democrats. It's sad that that's the way it is, and in reality it's probably the Democrats fault. Even though in my opinion they hold essentially full responsibility for anything good that happens in Iraq at this point.

It's late and I have a few in me, so I dunno how much sense I'm making right now if at all...

I have a very on-topic point to make:

Beer is empty calories

JaJae · 08-08-2007, 01:50 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

The underlying suggestion here is that Democrats are "hoping" it continues to go bad for political reasons.. so the suggestion that you said nothing of the sort doesn't hold water.

You can't suggest that they want to undermine their efforts, don't want us to see good news and are afraid of it, and are "depending" on bad news without acknowledging that it's the same thing as hoping things go bad, meaning more blood and chaos.. which is what Thorgrim posted.

The current state of Iraq has never been reported properly by our media. They never speak of the good, but good things happen every day. This goes beyond just the surge, but I used the surge as my example because of its broad effects and current media attention.

It refers to any good news at all coming from Iraq being reported in our media. Democrats are hoping the "news" about Iraq continues to remain bad. This doesn't necessarily imply they want dozens of soldiers to die daily. Just that they don't want the media to start reporting good news along with the bad because any good news will harm their party.

Good news regarding Iraq is bad for their party and they're worried about it reaching the voters. This is their own words. When I say it I'm suggesting they want our soldiers to die, but when they say it... ??? what exactly? I don't understand how I can't talk about issues they readily admit without it being turned around against me.

motivez · 08-08-2007, 02:08 AM

The good things that happen in Iraq are so minute compared to the extraordinary amount of bad that happen every single hour that it's simply not worth reporting anywhere near the same amount of time as the bad.

Most of the educated, upper class Iraqi's have fled the country. There's a refugee problem. Hundreds die every day, thousands every month, in a country with a population of roughly 27 million (less now with the refugee problem and the large amount of deaths).. New York has 19 million.. so 8 million more people with a generous estimate.

Imagine living in New York and having 100 people (or more), die every single day in violent, horrible murders. Whole families, neighborhoods uprooted, people in hospitals dragged out of their beds and shot in the head.

Imagine not being able to travel down major roads, pray at Church, go to a restaurant, without risking being blown up by an IED or slaughtered by someone with a different interpretation of your religion? Executed with a bullet to the back of your head and left in the street to rot?

In 2006, New York had 576 murders through December 24th, or 1.6 per day (rounding up).. and I think many people still feel like New York is one of the more dangerous places to live in..

This suggestion that there's good things that go on which somehow negate the increasingly horrible situation and conditions in that country is without merit.

The largest Sunni block just recently QUIT the coalition government, please tell me what good news you think there is which compares to that?

When the leader of Iraq (which is essentially our "puppet") says that if we continue to arm one faction's militias, he'll arm the other factions, what compares to that?

A school being built? A small dip in violence in one location while it increases and continues to get worse elsewhere?

Shit, there's plenty of news that the general public doesn't hear about that's horrible -- like the refugee problem, the worsening electricity conditions, the lack of running water, the revocation of women's rights under these theocrats to a level lower than under Saddam, the fact that the educated people who CAN get out of Iraq have already left for the most part, making it pretty fucking hard without any kind of higher education system in that country for legions of new engineers, doctors, and so forth to bring that country up..

And those educated folks who stay have been targeted by the religious militias that we are too impotent to do anything about and killed or forced to flee..

I mean, get real. The reality in Iraq isn't pretty, it's not going to be pretty, and I don't fault the Democrats for benefiting politically while trying to end our involvement in a nation which doesn't want our help anymore and refuses to work towards goals that we need them to.

To your main point, the idea that Democrats want things to go bad in Iraq is wrong. Do they need things to continue to go bad for political success? To some extent, sure.. But the American people are already fed up with Iraq and want us out, and the Democrats (lack of spine for cutting off funded excluded) are attempting to find a solution to that problem.

They don't want to keep us there and have things continue to go wrong so they can benefit politically, they want us out, and it happens to benefit them politically because people are sick of the overwhelming amount of bad news.

Thorgrim · 08-08-2007, 02:44 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

The good things that happen in Iraq are so minute compared to the extraordinary amount of bad that happen every single hour that it's simply not worth reporting anywhere near the same amount of time as the bad.

Most of the educated, upper class Iraqi's have fled the country. There's a refugee problem. Hundreds die every day, thousands every month, in a country with a population of roughly 27 million (less now with the refugee problem and the large amount of deaths).. New York has 19 million.. so 8 million more people with a generous estimate.

Imagine living in New York and having 100 people (or more), die every single day in violent, horrible murders. Whole families, neighborhoods uprooted, people in hospitals dragged out of their beds and shot in the head.

Imagine not being able to travel down major roads, pray at Church, go to a restaurant, without risking being blown up by an IED or slaughtered by someone with a different interpretation of your religion? Executed with a bullet to the back of your head and left in the street to rot?

In 2006, New York had 576 murders through December 24th, or 1.6 per day (rounding up).. and I think many people still feel like New York is one of the more dangerous places to live in..

This suggestion that there's good things that go on which somehow negate the increasingly horrible situation and conditions in that country is without merit.

The largest Sunni block just recently QUIT the coalition government, please tell me what good news you think there is which compares to that?

When the leader of Iraq (which is essentially our "puppet") says that if we continue to arm one faction's militias, he'll arm the other factions, what compares to that?

A school being built? A small dip in violence in one location while it increases and continues to get worse elsewhere?

Shit, there's plenty of news that the general public doesn't hear about that's horrible -- like the refugee problem, the worsening electricity conditions, the lack of running water, the revocation of women's rights under these theocrats to a level lower than under Saddam, the fact that the educated people who CAN get out of Iraq have already left for the most part, making it pretty fucking hard without any kind of higher education system in that country for legions of new engineers, doctors, and so forth to bring that country up..

And those educated folks who stay have been targeted by the religious militias that we are too impotent to do anything about and killed or forced to flee..

I mean, get real. The reality in Iraq isn't pretty, it's not going to be pretty, and I don't fault the Democrats for benefiting politically while trying to end our involvement in a nation which doesn't want our help anymore and refuses to work towards goals that we need them to.

To your main point, the idea that Democrats want things to go bad in Iraq is wrong. Do they need things to continue to go bad for political success? To some extent, sure.. But the American people are already fed up with Iraq and want us out, and the Democrats (lack of spine for cutting off funded excluded) are attempting to find a solution to that problem.

They don't want to keep us there and have things continue to go wrong so they can benefit politically, they want us out, and it happens to benefit them politically because people are sick of the overwhelming amount of bad news.

You touch a deeper point and one that I don't think many people here realize...

Where do you HONESTLY see Iraq in 3-4 years? As mentioned above, the best and brightest have left, strict sectarian lines have been drawn, the infrastructure is collapsing as Americans are sick of giving them so much money

The thing is, it's not going to be a big terrorist haven, it's just going to be a big fucking mess of warlords and eventually we're going to have to get on our knees and beg the rest of the world to bail us out...it's going to be more humiliating than Vietnam...

Honestly, we're the leader of the free world but who the hell will follow us again?

Donkey® · 08-08-2007, 03:03 AM

If you have a sister with cancer, and it's terminal...is there any REAL "good news" that means anything? "She's alive today" and "she can still eat food" is considered good news? That's the whole problem here. What is touted as "good news" are pathetic attempts to politically spin a MONUMENTAL FAILURE into something that could be capitalized on...wait for it...politically. It's funny that you're spouting off about how the Democrats "WANT" failure and "IGNORE" good news because it would be a political failure for them. Well, maybe if you took your blinders off you'd see that the Republicans "WANT" positive news and "IGNORE" the bad news because it shows how they failed politically. On top of it all, I see NOTHING that lends credibility to the crux of your argument...that the Democrats "IGNORE" and "WANT" bad news.

If the Conservatives would just smarten up and stop with the pointless and baseless attacks and realize that Iraq is a Democrat failure as well...then all would be well.

kinggovernor · 08-08-2007, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

If you have a sister with cancer, and it's terminal...is there any REAL "good news" that means anything? "She's alive today" and "she can still eat food" is considered good news? That's the whole problem here. What is touted as "good news" are pathetic attempts to politically spin a MONUMENTAL FAILURE into something that could be capitalized on...wait for it...politically. It's funny that you're spouting off about how the Democrats "WANT" failure and "IGNORE" good news because it would be a political failure for them. Well, maybe if you took your blinders off you'd see that the Republicans "WANT" positive news and "IGNORE" the bad news because it shows how they failed politically. On top of it all, I see NOTHING that lends credibility to the crux of your argument...that the Democrats "IGNORE" and "WANT" bad news.

If the Conservatives would just smarten up and stop with the pointless and baseless attacks and realize that Iraq is a Democrat failure as well...then all would be well.

the fact that the majority of the violence in Al Anabar province has stopped is not political spin. It is fact.

Donkey® · 08-08-2007, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

the fact that the majority of the violence in Al Anabar province has stopped is not political spin. It is fact.

What? Links?

Let's say, Ok, you're right...how long will that last? We have the Taliban conducting full frontal attacks on outposts in Afghanistan. I thought we beat them down years ago? Just because something shows a MONTH of improvement doesn't mean shit.

ballz2wallz · 08-08-2007, 01:52 PM

This article said it nicely back then, and it still applies today:

The insurgents, the al Qaeda terrorists and the Shiite militias know that they can't win in military terms. What they hope for is to win politically - that is to say, ensuring defeat and humiliation for the United States.

With a combination of intelligence, patience and determination, Petraeus can win in Baghdad.

The battleground where his chances do not appear as good is Washington. The United States today has become home to a veritable industry of defeat - producing books, TV documentaries, research papers, intelligence analyses and feature movies destined for a growing market. Almost every day, some article assuming that the United States has already been defeated in Iraq, and recommendmeasures to deal with the consequences of defeat. And when the United States does something, it does it Big: The defeat industry is assuming a bewildering scale.

The citizen-soldier Petraeus is certain to win in Baghdad - just as Gens. Tommy Frank, Rick Sanchez and Casey did in different contexts. But will Washington allow his win to be recognized as victory?

Notice too that he's Iranian.

ballz2wallz · 08-08-2007, 01:54 PM

For the latest updates and news you won't read here in the states, try Michael Totten's blog here or Michael Yon's blog here.

ballz2wallz · 08-08-2007, 01:59 PM

Here's a website of nothing but the good news.

JaJae · 08-08-2007, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

The good things that happen in Iraq are so minute compared to the extraordinary amount of bad that happen every single hour that it's simply not worth reporting anywhere near the same amount of time as the bad.

I read your post, but didn't want to quote it all because of the length. Generally speaking what I took from it was the progress and good things in Iraq don't compare to the negative so we should only and harp on the bad.

I don't agree with putting political blinders on for any reason. If good things are happening in Iraq we should hear about it and be proud of those accomplishments.

The analogies in this thread seem to relate to Iraq being terminal. No good end in sight and therefore we should put blinders on to the good and dwell in the negativity. I disagree with this view and many people are starting to leave the idea that Iraq is a lost cause.

Militarily we are starting to see an improvement in Iraq. Listing the death statistics, although tragic, does not give an accurate presentation of what is going on in Iraq. Hillary, Edwards and Reid have now all changed their tune about Iraq being a complete failure and they are now saying it is a political failure. Militarily we are making some ground as kinggoverner has said in this thread. As far as I'm concerned that is a fact. We can all toss around news articles that show problems in Iraq, lord knows the media loves those stories. But the reality is that people who seem to be going over there recently are painting a completely different picture.

YouTube Video

Dick Durbin wen over to Iraq again recently and came back humbled. There is military progress, politically Iraq is in disarray, but look at the response by CNN. They have to ask three times to make sure they can believe what they just heard. Even Casey says he was expecting the crap he sees in the media when he went to Iraq for the first time and it wasn't what he saw, he saw military progress as well.

This seems to be the current reality in Iraq as far as I'm concerned. On the military front we're starting to see headway. However, politically the situation is still a mess. However, trying to get Democrats to say this is like pulling teeth. It's considered BAD news for them. And the media is reluctant to report it as seen by CNN questioning it numerous times, NY Times doing follow-up polls, etc. This shouldn't be. Our brave men and women of the armed forces are going over there and they're doing their job well. Our military has stepped it up and they are doing some good in Iraq. As a society, we owe it to our servicemen and their families to support that and for our media to tell that to our citizens.

08-08-2007, 02:23 PM	#17
Thorgrim Banned Progressive Philadelphia, PA