Another Democrat comes home from Iraq and sees progress

JaJae · 08-17-2007, 01:34 PM

The Campaign Spot on National Review Online

Credit Democrats Who Visit Iraq, They're Calling It As They See It

Day by day, I am more surprised at the turn in the Iraq debate. I know this is going to sound like pie-in-the-sky optimism, but I wonder if by the time General Petraeus makes his report, there will be something of a consensus on Capitol Hill - "we know that the surge has improved security for the Iraqi people and beat the hell out of al-Qaeda in Iraq. The question is, how do we get enough political stability so that we can hand this all off to the Iraqis and come home with honor?"

Take a look at these striking comments from five-term Congressman Brian Baird, D-Wash., who voted against the invasion in 2002, after recently returning from Iraq:

U.S. Rep. Brian Baird said Thursday that his recent trip to Iraq convinced him the military needs more time in the region, and that a hasty pullout would cause chaos that helps Iran and harms U.S. security...

With Congress poised next month to look at U.S. progress in Iraq and a vote looming on U.S. funding for the war, Baird said he's inclined to seek a continued U.S. presence in Iraq beyond what many impatient Americans want. He also expects Gen. David Petraeus, who oversees U.S. troops in Iraq, to seek a redeployment of forces. "People may be upset. I wish I didn't have to say this," Baird said. He added that the United States needs to continue with its military troops surge "at least into early next year, then engage in a gradual redeployment. … I know it's going to cost hundreds of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars."

It was Baird's fifth trip to the Middle East, and he conceded that what he has learned has put him again in an unpopular position with some voters. He no longer thinks partitioning Iraq into Sunni, Shiite and Kurd sections is possible, for instance; no one he spoke to in Israel, Jordan, Palestinian cities or Iraq liked the idea, he added.

Baird said he would not say this if he didn't believe two things:

• "One, I think we're making real progress."

• "Secondly, I think the consequences of pulling back precipitously would be potentially catastrophic for the Iraqi people themselves, to whom we have a tremendous responsibility … and in the long run chaotic for the region as a whole and for our own security."

Not only is he saying he's seeing progress, but he's saying pulling out would be a bad idea. He disagrees with Biden's plan for Iraq saying everyone he met in the area doesn't like the idea and even though sticking it out in Iraq will cause the deaths of hundreds of Americans and hundreds of billions of dollars he feels it is in the best interest of the security of our nation to stick it out.

He voted against Iraq in 2002 when it was unpopular and once again as a Democrat from Washington he is saying the unpopular by claiming there's progress and we need to stick it out in Iraq.

The more people go over to Iraq the more they see progress. And the more people claim they're seeing progress the more vicious the uninformed bloggers are getting towards anyone who disagrees with their position. The media is slowly changing their tune though and it's becoming more of a reality that the consensus of our government could be sticking it out in Iraq. Most Republicans want to stick it out and more and more Democrats do as well. As more Democrats start to speak out, it will become less unpopular to do so and I have a feeling there will be more.

Thorgrim · 08-17-2007, 01:42 PM

First off, he's a "New Democrat" which comprises people such as Joe Lieberman and other right-of-center Democrats...The Democratic party has pro-life Congressmen but that doesn't make the party pro-life, or say 2006 is the year Democrats decided abortion must be made illegal

Second, more importantly, he said "give the surge 6 months and then let's start the phased withdrawal" Bush would veto such legislation, and it's a radical departure from what the GOP and Bush want to do

JaJae · 08-17-2007, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

First off, he's a "New Democrat" which comprises people such as Joe Lieberman and other right-of-center Democrats...The Democratic party has pro-life Congressmen but that doesn't make the party pro-life, or say 2006 is the year Democrats decided abortion must be made illegal

Second, more importantly, he said "give the surge 6 months and then let's start the phased withdrawal" Bush would veto such legislation, and it's a radical departure from what the GOP and Bush want to do

Unfortunately for the liberal bloggers, there are a lot of Blue Dog Democrats who got elected. Not to mention Casey and Durbin who just last week went to Iraq and come home saying basically the same thing.

Thorgrim · 08-17-2007, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Unfortunately for the liberal bloggers, there are a lot of Blue Dog Democrats who got elected.

More progressives got elected than Blue Dogs, and we're a big tent party, so we welcome even more Blue Dogs to win seats in Wyoming, Idaho, etc that the DCCC is going after

Also, all Durbin and Casey did was praise the US military, which is basically a requirement of holding the office, you expected them to insult the troops...

This is the same Durbin that your right-ring blog friends labeled as a Troop-hater who likened US troops of the 21st century to Nazis...make up your mind

JaJae · 08-17-2007, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

More progressives got elected than Blue Dogs, and we're a big tent party, so we welcome even more Blue Dogs to win seats in Wyoming, Idaho, etc that the DCCC is going after

Also, all Durbin and Casey did was praise the US military, which is basically a requirement of holding the office, you expected them to insult the troops...

This is the same Durbin that your right-ring blog friends labeled as a Troop-hater who likened US troops of the 21st century to Nazis...make up your mind

Who is We?

And yea, it's amazing how Durbin's opinion changed with just one visit to Iraq. Same opinion as every other Democrat who's been there recently. I wonder how many more Democrats will go to Iraq and have a change of heart.

DosEquis · 08-17-2007, 02:04 PM

So, he thinks we should stick it out or "stay the course" if you will.... but Petreaus thinks we should reduce our forces, and continue to do so through 2008.

I dont think anyone disagrees that progress has been made militarily. There are two components for this thing to work, and the other (political) has not made any progress what so ever. During our surge, which was intended to provide security for their government, they take a vacation. Surge or no surge, nothing is going to happen which would allow our soldiers to come home without political progress and political solutions.

JaJae · 08-17-2007, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

So, he thinks we should stick it out or "stay the course" if you will.... but Petreaus thinks we should reduce our forces, and continue to do so through 2008.

Petraeus wants to slowly bring down numbers in a few months, he doesn't seem to be for a withdrawal from Iraq like the Democratic presidential candidates are for.

I dont think anyone disagrees that progress has been made militarily.

Uninformed extremist liberal bloggers do. But other than that, I would agree. Most people now seem to agree that some progress has been made militarily.

There are two components for this thing to work, and the other (political) has not made any progress what so ever. During our surge, which was intended to provide security for their government, they take a vacation. Surge or no surge, nothing is going to happen which would allow our soldiers to come home without political progress and political solutions.

I agree. The military progress needs to be in place to bring about a political solution or political progress. The military has done their job. Now it is up to the Iraqis to get the political area hammered out with the help of the US and the UN. Unfortunately they took the new found safety our military provided them with as a good time to go on vacation rather than advance their country.

RMNIXON · 08-17-2007, 04:50 PM

Another Democrat Target for Daily KOS!

JaJae · 08-17-2007, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Another Democrat Target for Daily KOS!

Well yea he's not a real Democrat. He's a "New Democrat." You even have to give it those quotes to ensure everyone knows he's not a "true" Democrat.

Thorgrim · 08-17-2007, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Well yea he's not a real Democrat. He's a "New Democrat." You even have to give it those quotes to ensure everyone knows he's not a "true" Democrat.

Ofcourse he's a democrat, that doesn't mean he speaks for Democrats anymore than I speak for all Democrats, or because I'm American, can I speak for all Americans?

He still supports a radically liberal position compared to Bush on the war, and his comments do from a member who is a "new democrat"

Zell Miller is a Democrat, yet does he speak for the Democratic Party and all its members?

RMNIXON · 08-17-2007, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Well yea he's not a real Democrat. He's a "New Democrat." You even have to give it those quotes to ensure everyone knows he's not a "true" Democrat.

I have no problem if fellow Democrats disagee with him. It is when he becomes a target of destruction by the Nutroots political machine. That should bother either party who claims a big tent!

JaJae · 08-17-2007, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Ofcourse he's a democrat, that doesn't mean he speaks for Democrats anymore than I speak for all Democrats, or because I'm American, can I speak for all Americans?

You speak for the Democrats all the time.
Another Democrat comes home from Iraq and sees progress

He still supports a radically liberal position compared to Bush on the war, and his comments do from a member who is a "new democrat"

Zell Miller is a Democrat, yet does he speak for the Democratic Party and all its members?

So then why did you equate him to Lieberman an in attempt to demonize him? The fact is this is another Democrat gone to Iraq who came home not towing the party line on what they should be saying about Iraq. This is becoming more and more common and it hurts the Democratic party to have their members polarized on this issue so the excuses are starting to flow.

Thorgrim · 08-17-2007, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

You speak for the Democrats all the time.
Another Democrat comes home from Iraq and sees progress

So then why did you equate him to Lieberman an in attempt to demonize him? The fact is this is another Democrat gone to Iraq who came home not towing the party line on what they should be saying about Iraq. This is becoming more and more common and it hurts the Democratic party to have their members polarized on this issue so the excuses are starting to flow.

There are some 280 Democrats in Congress and one says "we should start a phased withdrawal starting in 6 months, contrary to everything Bush wants" and you're dancing that the Democrats are praising the Bush-plan

JaJae · 08-17-2007, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

There are some 280 Democrats in Congress and one says "we should start a phased withdrawal starting in 6 months, contrary to everything Bush wants" and you're dancing that the Democrats are praising the Bush-plan

No, I'm saying there have been a handful of Democrats who have gone to Iraq recently and they're all saying they see progress in Iraq. I'm not dancing or praising the Bush plan. In fact, please point to one post or sentence which led to the invention of such an absurdly ridiculous conclusion.

Changing the subject once again regarding some made up extremist position and then attacking it doesn't change the facts of the matter.

Scrum · 08-17-2007, 06:12 PM

You mean to tell me we have politicians going to Iraq under heavy guard, touring safe zones that have been secured and they come backing thinking the place is improving?

Thorgrim · 08-17-2007, 06:21 PM

Much like the NY op ed piece, one who didn't contribute said it was a dog and pony show, and it was revealed that the US military planned every step of their "trip"

It's sure to be the same way with a Congressman, can't risk them being killed...he is only parroting what the US military bombarded him with when he went over...notice he cites one statistics or fact to back up his arguments

He just "feels" like it's improving

Well so did Petreaus, in 2004, before it turned even worse, which why you can't trust him, or this anecdote of one congressman

JaJae · 08-17-2007, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

You mean to tell me we have politicians going to Iraq under heavy guard, touring safe zones that have been secured and they come backing thinking the place is improving?

I don't think they're that ignorant to not take everything into consideration. For most changing their tune it is not their first trip to Iraq. To assume they're acting like sheep doesn't seem like a fair assessment.