Thread: Democrats: What is the most politically-advantageous number of dead US troops?

It's worse than you've written it. It makes it seem like there were just a few tactical disagreements here and there, a parting of the ways on what was the best way to further the national interest.

That's NOT what happened. It's not what's happening NOW.

Originally Posted by astralis

JAD
...the title of this thread aside, bluesman has since said (and correct me if i'm wrong here, blues) that he no longer believes that democrats are doing what they do out of a sense of political gain, but out of pure anti-americanism. that they are perfectly willing to take a political hit if it means they can harm america one more time.

that's a different animal from what you and i think. i suspect if we do differ in opinions- and from what you've written so far, nothing really opposing to my viewpoints- it is in degree and not kind.

I see you have had your head handed to you by blues ostensibly for straddling the issue.)

I don't think anyone is characterizing the dems as inherently anti-American. But their attempt to score political points with opponents of the Iraq war risked failure in Iraq and was bound to generate questions about whether they are more loyal to power or to America?

Originally Posted by JAD_333

There is nothing to argue about there. But the way you articulate it reveals a lot that is central to the debate here. It reflects the polarization that was created by the dems dragging their heels on the administration's requests. Had the dems backed the administration, as is customary in time of war, the mistakes made would been faced and fixed. They would not have been turned into an albatros around the administration's neck.

Maybe my memory's getting hazy, but as I recall, it was the Administration that dug in its heels first back in 2004 and made the war the defining issue. It played its cards first and was responsible for backing itself into a corner where it could ignore a failing strategy to save face or do the right thing. Especially in the light that President Bush claims to not read the polls, this shouldn't even be an issue. Also, I'm not sure about the claim that the opposition party always falls in line, but I suspect the argument here would be a matter of degree of opposition.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Operations may not have been much impacted, but I think their meddling and threats to end funding had some impact on policy. Remember we were not over there solely to emancipate Iraq; we had a wider strategic purpose. I think the dems rained on our parade, e.g. made the Iranians and the Syrians fear less for their bad behavior.

Concur and it is a great point.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

And still they dragged their feet. It's uncertain the dems cattle prodding really helped. I think the Iraqi government just needed time to sort out its politics. And, anyway, what would have happened if we played that card? Leave them to their devices? That's calling it quits, isn't it?

While I suspect that it was more a matter of time as opposed to pressue, I think it will be interesting to see what history records a decade plus from now. I'd specifically be curious to see what effect the combination of Democrats threatening funding along with Hadley I believe "leaking" the no confidence in Maliki letter had.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

It's worse than you've written it. It makes it seem like there were just a few tactical disagreements here and there, a parting of the ways on what was the best way to further the national interest.

That's NOT what happened. It's not what's happening NOW.

Who are you addressing?

Originally Posted by Shek

Maybe my memory's getting hazy, but as I recall, it was the Administration that dug in its heels first back in 2004 and made the war the defining issue. It played its cards first and was responsible for backing itself into a corner where it could ignore a failing strategy to save face or do the right thing. Especially in the light that President Bush claims to not read the polls, this shouldn't even be an issue.

We've been focusing on the dems use of the issue for political gain. Bush's handling of the war, as bad as it might have been early on, is in a different league. It goes back to what we were saying about the difference between bunggling and obstruction. There's nothing wrong in a loyal opposition questioning how a war is being handled, but it seems to me it ought to be done more quietly and more directly in the presence of the commander in chief. If that doesn't produce results, then there are ways to slip stuff into the media that could result in some political pressure being brought to bear on the commander. That's if one party wants to win as much as the other party.

But what does it mean and what will come of it if a party chooses to get up on the mountain and shout out its criticism and throw up political hurdles? This is not frustration with how a war is being handled as much as it is a reach for political gain.

Also, I'm not sure about the claim that the opposition party always falls in line, but I suspect the argument here would be a matter of degree of opposition.

Your suspicion is correct.

While I suspect that it was more a matter of time as opposed to pressue, I think it will be interesting to see what history records a decade plus from now. I'd specifically be curious to see what effect the combination of Democrats threatening funding along with Hadley I believe "leaking" the no confidence in Maliki letter had.

I think I'll get some sleep before the history books come out. But you are right; it will be interesting.

blues,

And I'll go farther: if if had been left to the Democrats, we would have been defeated four years ago. THAT is absolutely and incontestably true.

actually, i don't think you're going further with that comment than you did with your previous ones. had the US withdrawn in 2004, it would have been seen as a defeat, no question about it.

however, i seriously question that even with the most loyal of oppositions, we would have WON by 2004. too many mistakes made by this point by the administration ostensibly running the war- the sunnis would not begin to turn against AQ until late 2006-2007, and al-sadr would have STILL done his thing.

As it is, I think you're merely in love with the idea that you're even-handed and impartial, so much so that you're willing to entertain the notion that there are two sides to every story, and each has equal weight and merit. That's not true, and the Iraq War as approached by the two major American political parties is an excellent example.

Pick the right side, and fight that side all the way. This 'honest broker' act makes me sick, when one side is so obviously disloyal to the national interest.

and my problem with your view is that your characterization of Democrats is so extreme, there's simply no realistic method of dealing with them. except by handing out treason sentences and giving them all a noodle in the neck.

like i said in the past, you don't just rail against treason, or vote treasonous individuals out of power. a nation cannot tolerate a treasonous party nor that party's voters/enablers- conciliation, working together, middle-ground would be, as you characterize it, rather treasonous by itself.

as it is, though, i suspect my presidential voting record of the last two elections is much like yours...and that it will be the same for this time around, as well.

Astralis:

A striking characteristic of the times in which we live is the iconoclastic attitude more and more people are adopting toward morals and ethics that once governed attitudes and behavior on everything from making money to gaining power. It's not that coveting these is anything new, but that coveting them has superceded restraints that for years frowned on people who trespassed on social norms to get them. There have always been some people for whom the ends justify the means; now there is an abundance of them.

This abundance seems to be the product of the aptly named "me generation" that is now entering middle age and moving into leadership positions in business and politics. The mark of that generation was not only the putting of "me" first, but of unabashedly breaking any social norms that stood in the way of "me." When the rationalization for breaking a norm is that it's standing in the way of "me", likeminded people are quick to agree.

So, here's the debate topic: Resolved that the members of Congress are justified in using the Iraq war issue to advance their party's political agenda to win the White House even if it causes the country to lose the war?

In collegiate debate you have to be able to argue both Pro and Con and
present evidence to support your arguments--published opinions of recognized experts and media reporters may be used as evidence.

Which side do you think you could argue best?

JAD,

if that's the debate, then certainly it is a lot easier to argue that dems are much more willing to use the iraq war to advance their agenda: many of them never bought into it in the first place, and once the war started to turn sour, found it convenient to take the politically easier path.

recognizing this, i think it is another jump altogether to say that democrats celebrate the news of yet another death of an american soldier as another plus in their column.

and of course, yet another jump to get away from the "democrats do what they do not because it is politically convenient, but because they are inherently anti-american." as bluesman has indicated in his post, he has since moved away from the former belief which started this thread in the first place.

from another angle,

i think the interesting thing is that had the iraq war gone as well as the projections the bush administration presented to the public in 2002-3, i think the dems would have grudgingly respected bush as a good president, and supported his policies down the line to 2004.

if you remember the time right after baghdad fell, the dems were falling over themselves to celebrate saddam's fall, with the DLC particularly proud of their pro-war stand.

even if it had gone half as well, the dems wouldn't really have been able to say much: if you look at the charges made by the more serious dems around the war, they have revolved around cost, and how iraq is a "distraction". that wouldn't have been true here, if by nov. 2003 the US had only 60,000 troops remaining (not to say the 30K originally projected).

as it was, all they can offer is a fairly half-hearted, ineffectual opposition. even with obama, probably the most anti-war of the serious dem contenders, is trying to find wiggle room out of his "16 month" promise. the funny thing is now, with maliki's recent grumbling about getting americans out, obama's wiggling, and mccain's belief that the war's done by 2013...i think the difference between the two presidents might really only be a year, a year-and-half's difference. (a big difference perhaps in 2006-2007, with the sunni turn, not so sure if we can see another concurrent improvement. i would absolutely love to be proven otherwise, though.)

i think looking at their behavior, we can indeed agree that most of the opposition is politically motivated by people whom weren't really for it in the first place...and not by people whom are anti-american at the core.

Code Pink contributes to Barack Obama's campaign. Oh, and also to the terrorists in Iraq. Code Pink is comprised of Democrats, socialists, anarchists, and communists. (But I'm being redundant.)

Jodie Evans, the crank that co-founded Code Pink, has voiced her support for ObL AND Obama. Neither one has returned her donations; each seems comfortable with her largesse assisting their efforts.

I find that interesting.

See, I tried to make the point way back in the early pages of this thread that the Democratic Party is not patriotic, as the term is normally understood. I can make that case today, just as I could have made that case in 1968. And even farther back than that.

But some of you wanted to argue with me about it.

I'm still ready for that conversation.

And I guess we'll never know the answer to the original post's question. Because now that troop casualties have finally and precipitously dropped to levels that make all but the most ardent defeatists (to include Obama - YOU know, the Democratic Party's candidate for the Presidency of the United States) too embarrassed to call for a retroactive defeat (which he still maintains is his official position - we SHOULD accept defeat, even now, when we don't have to)in a war that the troops won on their own and with almost no support from the majority political party in the country...nobody wants to talk about it anymore.

Think we're going to hear of any Obama supporters gettin' out there to organize the big Victory in Iraq parades? It would be the right thing to do, sure; but they'd rather everybody forget their dishonorable role in supporting our wartime enemy's aims, and their utter failure to back the guys that a lot of them sent over there in the first place.

If you think I'm angry and bitter at the gross perfidy, betrayal and yes - TREASON that the Democratic Party displayed in this war, you'd be right, but you can have no idea how intense that sentiment is.

Get this, folks: Democrats are eager to support America's enemies, and slow to support her friends. They're quick to made our adversary's arguments against America, and rarely can find any virtue in their own country. Who doesn't see this by now? Do you disagree with me? Do you think I go too far? Do you believe that the Democratic Party is a force for improving America and the world, and if so, where is your evidence for this theory?

PLEASE, argue me off my basic point, and tell me why I should not perceive the Democrats as a domestic enemy.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Do you believe that the Democratic Party is a force for improving America and the world, and if so, where is your evidence for this theory?

I pulled the above out of sequence simply to point out that the burden of proof is the accuser.

I would say the dem party thinks it is a force for achieving those ends, or at least would like people to believe so. And I would also say that the dems are not about selling the US down the river. Nor are they traitors or unpatriotic. However, I think they are blind to certain realities and, therefore, their statements and actions may indeed lead us down the river.

Get this, folks: Democrats are eager to support America's enemies, and slow to support her friends. They're quick to made our adversary's arguments against America, and rarely can find any virtue in their own country. Who doesn't see this by now? Do you disagree with me? Do you think I go too far?

I think you go too far. But then my impression of what you are saying is that they are traitors. I don't see that. I think the dems went too far. What I see is a party that attempted to tap into public opposition of the war for political gain and in a related step saw itself as the heroic inquisitors of those conducting the war. It will be their fate to be the doormat of history because they encumbered those conducting the war with extra baggage and worse still missed seeing the obvious: the US had to act to protect its vital interests.

I see nothing to gain from calling them traitors. Making the case that they are wrong is more productive.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

I pulled the above out of sequence simply to point out that the burden of proof is the accuser.

I know you don't believe so, but I think I can make the case.

I would say the dem party thinks it is a force for achieving those ends, or at least would like people to believe so.

If they do think that, it requires a level of self-delusion as to be classifiable as a mental condition. After your comma is where the real truth lies.

And I would also say that the dems are not about selling the US down the river.

If that's so, it represents a departure from Democratic Party thought and behavior that stretches back through the 1950s. I can perceive no demarcation point on the timeline that ended or began the enthusiastic support of American interest.

They've been this way for over fifty years.

Nor are they traitors or unpatriotic.

You know, even I never was comfortable with the 'treason' charge as applied to the party-at-large, generally speaking. Oh, sure, there are numerous examples life-long Democrats that have committed actual, no-kidding TREACHERY, and several that have been fundamentally disloyal, so much so that the evidence has to be hidden, lest the American People understand finally just what this party actually advocates. The defenders of these people, while not actually forced into defending them from state action, has had to cover for their acts. The Democratic Party, to an undeniable and alarming degree, has essentially functioned as a Fifth Column, and has provided cover and assistance to real, actual traitors, whose ideological and spiritual home has become inextricably entangled with America's enemies, and has never comfortably co-existed with those entities that are charged with advancing and defending America's interests.

But treason, party-wide? I suppose that's not supportable.

But it's not even a point of contention that the Democratic Party has a dam' poor track record in the area of supporting the country, opposing enemies, and maintaining a respect for the institutions that do both.

However, I think they are blind to certain realities and, therefore, their statements and actions may indeed lead us down the river.

I wrote way back in the beginning of this thread that if Ted Kennedy were an actual turncoat and consciously worked for the destruction of the United States of America's government and in opposition to the interests of her People, it wouldn't make much of a difference. Look at his voting record, and we see a man who has been an excellent representative of the wishes of every single American opponent for the past 40 years.

So, as for motive, I believe it's a dam' sight less significant than actual EFFECT. And the effect of Democratic Party core values (such as they are) has been to hobble and hamstring the interest of the United States to such an extent that even were the entire Democratic Party to be paid-up shills for our enemies, it would only be a difference in degree (a SMALL degree), and not a difference in kind.

I think you go too far. But then my impression of what you are saying is that they are traitors. I don't see that.

I yield that point. But I contend that it's actually a small point, except as to the necessity of charging the entire party with a capital crime.

I think the dems went too far. What I see is a party that attempted to tap into public opposition of the war for political gain and in a related step saw itself as the heroic inquisitors of those conducting the war.

And if that's all that had happened, all well and good; we could just disagree about this rather narrow and esoteric political point. Oh, the ramifications of taking a winnable war and actually choosing an optional loss instead would be enormous, so it's not a small matter; that's not what I'm saying when I refer to it as a 'narrow and esoteric political point'. But fair-minded people of good will can and do disagree about every aspect of the Iraq War, from its necessity to the means of prosecuting it to the best way to conclude it. All well and good; those are legitimate arguments that we NEED to have, and I don't begrudge anyboy their opinions on it (as long as those opinions are based on FACT, not surmises based on wishful thinking).

But that's not all that's occurred, and it did not occur in isolation. There's a pattern of behavior and the historical record that points to an inescapble - and extremely dishonorable - conclusion.

I look over my shoulder at the last six years, and I see a record from the Democratic Party that accords perfectly with everything they've done and attempted to do to the country since Korea. This is not the first time we've seen this from these people. It won't be the last, either. In contrast with your next para, I believe they'll be rewarded for this again, as they have been in the past, and it will solidify their belief that anti-American actions and sentiments are a path to power.

It will be their fate to be the doormat of history because they encumbered those conducting the war with extra baggage and worse still missed seeing the obvious: the US had to act to protect its vital interests.

I wish I believed this. But the fact is, the Democratic Party is filled with exactly the sort of people who allow themselves to believe that their country is the world's problem, not part of the solution. When they vote, it obviously translates into action that accords with that belief. And there are enough of the deluded, the ignorant, the self-interested and the fearful that represent a pool of power that may be harnessed to achieve political ends.

As long as the American People deny the nature of the Democratic Party, it has a future.

I see nothing to gain from calling them traitors. Making the case that they are wrong is more productive.

Okay; I'll agree to that. I am a bit hung up on the incredible lengths that the Democrats went to to lose this war, and NObody can tell me that there was no sense of self-awareness that allowed them to ignore what they did along the way, once they'd decided that they were the possessors of The Way, and that they had a better answer.

At some point, ANY person could have seen what they were advocating, and THAT is the point at which they crossed over from merely seeking another solution to the point of being willing to do ANYTHING AT ALL to 1) regain political primacy, and 2) hand a defeat to a President that they loathed more than they loved their own country. (And as history amply demonstrates, the Democrats' love of country has always been of a rather lukewarm character.)

There is simply no excuse that covers what has happened in their pathetic history of anti-American actions, words and sentiments during this tragically-and unnecessarily-prolonged war. I know absolutely that what they did AS A PARTY ended up costing American lives, Iraqi lives, untold wealth and has set history on a new, and much more dangerous path. If there's anybody around to write the history in a hundred years, they'll look back on those times with the same shocked disgust as we read about the feckless, blind and dishonorable men that allowed the wholly-preventable circumstances that began WWII to occur, and whose revolting conduct cost humanity so much, when it didn't need to have occurred at all.

The book that parallels 'Origins of World War II' for the modern era that we're now riding out will be replete with the names of American Democrats that were so blinded by their personal ambitions and loathing of their own American character that future generations will think of them the same way we think of the men that were so almighty WRONG that a world almost succeeded in destroying itself, and came within easy reach of a new and even more barbaric Dark Age.

I can see it so clearly, and any person with a shred of wisdom and integrity should be able to see it, too. And that's what I find so very nauseating about a Democrat: they saw what they'd become, and were just fine with it.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

I know you don't believe so, but I think I can make the case.

I expected you to hand me my head, but I am happy to see a thoughtful response.

If that's so, it represents a departure from Democratic Party thought and behavior that stretches back through the 1950s. I can perceive no demarcation point on the timeline that ended or began the enthusiastic support of American interest. They've been this way for over fifty years.

Except for WWII and WWI.

But I take my example of what a determined opposition can do back more than 100 years ago to the Civil War. When the war seemed never-ending, opposition in the Senate came close to forcing Lincoln to accept a peace "in place" with the Confederacy. And the more extreme Copperheads actively sought secret contact with the south. Gen George McLellan, the Wesley Clark of the day, even ran for president against Lincoln. Fortunately, Sherman's success turned public opinion around in the nick of time. Where would we be today if the opposition had prevailed?

But treason, party-wide? I suppose that's not supportable.

But it's not even a point of contention that the Democratic Party has a dam' poor track record in the area of supporting the country, opposing enemies, and maintaining a respect for the institutions that do both.

I truncated the rest of your post into the preceding because it captures the essense of what you are saying. I see it like you do, but I come at it differently.

First of all, I recognize that what we don't like about the dems comes out the contrasts between their position and ours. Therefore, our critique of the dems' positions can only come from a defense of our own.

While the dems lamented the war's mistakes and cost in lives, money, prestige abroad, and divisiveness at home, their mistake was to forget that the war had everything to do with US national security.

One could regard dem opposition as the expression of doubts about the war churning in America's collective conscience. Surely, you and I had doubts back in the beginning. Sorting them out is part of coming to a conclusion.

What the dems did is somewhat hypocritical since many of them supported the Iraq resolution and didn't jump ship until things started to go badly. They knew or should have known that our geopolitical strategy went well beyond WMD. I think too many of them got run over by public opinion and rushed to save themselves instead of the situation.

The larger political picture isn't that far out of whack. The dems are liberals and we are conservatives; our inclination is to put first what the dems put second. The more radical members of each side are the most intractable. They don't grasp the simple fact that the natural dynamics between liberal and conservative is healthy because it prevents excesses--not all the time unfortunately, but usually. Most excesses that occur when either side is ineffectual in gaining compromise, are corrected when the political balance shifts.

Iraq will not be a pretty moment for the dems when history is written. but I am sure republicans will have, have had their not so pretty moments, although I can't find one worse.)

jad,

wow, you actually got blues to (partially) agree to some of your points, which are the same as mine

you know, i see a major point that would argue against the idea that democrats are inflexibly unpatriotic. consider this: in the 1950s and 1960s, the democratic party was so afraid of being tarred as communists that they often tried to veer to the right of the republicans in national security- see kennedy's ill-considered Bay of Pigs intervention and LBJ pushing the vietnam war.

then, skipping to the 90s, bill clinton's third way/DLC tried to forge a new party that was definitely more open to use of military power, to the point where american commitments overseas proved to be more than what most americans wanted (somalia). same with after 9-11 and the aftermath of the iraq invasion, as democrats fell over themselves to proclaim how glad they were saddam was eliminated. the nomination of kerry over dean comes to mind. my main concern with the Democratic Party is its vulnerability to be influenced EITHER WAY by how the popular vote goes. when the iraq war was popular in 2003, they were all for it; then by 2008 they're uniformly against it.

i think you hit the nail dead on here: the democratic party of today seeks to leverage a highly unpopular war to win the election. however, it still believes that its actions are not only electorally popular but also the right thing to do by america (however wrong that is).

one particularly good illustration of this is a point that obama makes which really infuriates mccain: the claim that even if the US did not surge, iraq would still be better off today. obama seems to believe it, but mccain must either think obama is crazy or out and out lying

EDIT: i think the crux of the argument here is exactly how deluded the democrats are. bluesman doesn't believe they could possibly be that deluded, we think perhaps otherwise