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

[S2]

Republican Dissent

"...the apparent political expediency that one party is demonstrating in opposing the Iraq war."

What expediency did the following Republicans pursue in opposing the war-Scrowcroft, Powell, Baker, and George H.W. Bush, because they did, you know?

Who needs "political expediency" to oppose this effort in any case? How about a Republican administration and a republican controlled congress for six of that administration's seven years- five years and four months of both since 9/11? At what point might we fairly question performance? And if my "party papers" come from ANY other party, does it make the relevance of the Republican party's performance any less valid?

I think not. Accusations of "political expediency" against a democratic congress that's possessed control of the purse-strings (subject to veto-exercised, governance forstalled Parihaka!)for less than seven months and with an incumbant if politically bankrupt President stll dragging down the effort? Hardly fair under the dire circumstances and national tragedy that's ensued under this administration's less-than-careful watch.

Look to March of 1991 for the seeds of this debacle-a republican administration unwilling to allow total victory over Iraq following DESERT STORM. Consider the subsequent fallout of THAT decision, to include the containment policy that arose, endorsed by the democratic administration of Bill Clinton AND the professed mandate underwhich GWB came to office in January 2001. That's the realpolitik wing of that party-you know, Scrowcroft, Powell, Baker, and GWB until Cheney and he fell under the magical hypnosis of Wolfowitz and Perle (thank God).

Then another Bush did it again-snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. The casual hubris with which this Republican administration approached this campaign can only make one wonder if they actually intended victory, or have some more malevolent designs in mind. They certainly didn't execute a campaign with the due diligence and attention to detail that you'd expect given the stakes.

Gosh, I wonder if they had the interests of the American people at heart or the pursuit of some convenient political expediency?

That's my Republican party, btw. Perverters of the true neo-con vision.

[JAD_333]

I'm from India but am squatting in San Jose(Dallas was so much more friendlier. I studied at UTD) for another year till i move back!

I hope you're enjoying your time in the US and not becoming addicted to any of our bad habits..

I'm just wondering why it should seem odd that a politician is courting votes. Because at the end of the day after all the arguments and the semantics, thats what it comes down to.

Who said it was odd? It's common, but not when it comes to the conduct of a war in progress. Winning the presidency cannot be a higher goal than national security.

Think carefully about this. Try to imagine yourself conducting military operations while every mistake, setback and tactic is debated in public. Then put yourself in the shoes of an insurgent leader watching all of this on TV. Who benefits from this kind of public debate? Us or them?

Now, let's be very clear here. I am speaking about politicization, and I am sure you know what that means. I am not speaking about ordinary criticism, which every elected reprsentative is perfectly correct in raising, insofar as they have any. But there is a world of difference between criticizing in the national interest and criticizing to get votes.

And I'm saying that the question is wrong. That the courting of votes is an essential and possibly the most important check on the power of politicians and the most useful leverage the demos has in influencing the direction of the country.

[/QUOTE]

The question isn't wrong; it simply doesn't fit the answer you want to give.

You're basically saying lets go to war or more accurately stay at war.

I am saying don't make our military ops in Iraq a political football.

The wishes of the majority of the population of the United States be damned.

Damned or not, they will be carried out.

Whatever the reason for the war, does that seem like a democracy to you?

lol... did you learn how to ask questions like that in this country...it's a classic "have you stopped beating you wife" type question. No matter how you answer it--yes or no--you're admitting quilt.

In representative democracy with the likely problems of concentration of powers, choice is a good thing. Why do you keep using "political expediency" like its necessarily a bad thing? Show me one other way the citizens can influence the direction of the country as effectively? And you want to take that away?

I am sorry, my friend, but political expediency is not a god, especially not when it could compromise national security, e.g., military ops. Take what away? Acting in a nonpartisan manner during wartime hardly denies citizens their right to vote, and bipartisanship doesn't take away Congress's residual power to block war activity thru the power of the purse.

Democracy is a self righting system. If the democrats get elected I'd fully expect the republicans to be at their throat, point out all the flaws in their plan and pick it apart. That is their responsibility as the opposition.

There's where you miss the point; you're correct, a loyal opposition has a responsibility to ask questions and offer criticism, but whether the dems are
trying to scuttle a foreign policy SOLELY to win an election is the issue we're discussing.

But I fail to see how any of this would be a bad thing.

Don't worry, you'll see it sooner or later.

And let me also point out that you seem to make the republican party into something they are not. They are also courting votes. Except they are courting the votes that You and Bluesman have to give.

So what? Be quiet?

...let me apologize for my combative tone. I've had a working weekend!

lol...get some rest. It's a long debate.

[Bluesman]

Feingold; one of the worst. Emphasis is most definitely and proudly MINE.

July 30, 2007
What did Sen. Feingold Know and when did he know it?

Washington Post reporters Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein continue their effort to assist congressional Democrats in smearing Attorney General Gonzales by questioning his truthfulness in another front-page story. The only news on this front from the past few days is the confirmation that Gonzales testified truthfully about which surveillance was the subject to his visit to John Ashcroft at the hospital. As John has noted, even the New York Times had the decency this weekend to acknowledge that Gonzales has been vindicated on this point. But the Post lacks such decency. In fact, Eggen and Goldstein include this matter in their compendium of alleged misstatements by the Attorney General.

The lead alleged misstatement in today's piece is not a misstatement at all, though I'm sure Senator Feingold appreciates the Post's efforts to make it seem like one. During the Attorney General's confirmation hearing in January 2005, Feingold pressed Gonzales about whether the Bush administration would ever allow wiretapping of U.S. citizens without warrants. Gonzales answered: "It is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes."

The Post attempts to paint this testimony as deceptive, since the administration had been listening in on calls from terrorists in the United States for three years. But Gonzales's testimony is problematic only if (1) this action was in contravention of U.S. criminal statutes or (2) Gonzales should have tipped off the terrorists that we were obtaining intelligence by listening in on their calls. As to the first point, the Post does not claim, much less show, that any U.S. criminal statute prohibited this surveillance. And the notion that Gonzales should have publicly disclosed secret surveillance on al Qaeda is ludicrous.

Keep in mind that the administration had advised key congressional leaders in both parties (including the heads and ranking members of the intelligence committees) about the NSA intercept program. In this context, Senator Feingold's claim that Gonzales deceived Congress, a claim Eggen and Goldstein essentially parrot, is itself a gross distortion.

It also raises interesting questions about what Feingold knew and when he knew it. It's not unlikely that Feingold knew or believed that the administration was engaging in warrantless wiretapping of terrorist calls. After all, the administration had disclosed this fact to members of the intelligence committee on which Feingold serves. Thus, Feingold's questioning may well have been an attempt to accomplish one of two things: lay the groundwork for a future claim that Gonzales is dishonest (i.e. the claim now being made) or force Gonzales to disclose secrets and thereby render useless a presumably valuable weapon against terrorism. If so, this would represent more evidence that

congressional Dems put their partisan interests ahead of fighting terrorism.

Perhaps we should appoint a special prosecutor to look into this matter.

Fortunately, Gonzales was able to avoid Feingold's trap, though Feingold and the Washington Post choose to pretend he did not.

[Bluesman]

I'm not the only one that sees them for what they are. Once again, emphasis is mine.

July 30, 2007
"A War We Just Might Win"

That's the title of an opinion piece by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution in today's New York Times. They have returned from a visit to Iraq, and report that conditions there are much improved:

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.***
After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.


These are basically the same observations that most visitors to Iraq have made lately. Yet, some think this piece is significant, because of who wrote it--two liberals from Brookings--and the fact that it appeared in the Times. We discussed the column on the radio with Bill Bennett this morning, and he is of that view.

Maybe so. My fear, though, is that the leadership of the Democratic Party sees progress on the ground in Iraq as bad news, not good. I think many Congressional Democrats are committed to defeat, for political and ideological reasons. If so, they won't be swayed by this kind of report. It could help, of course, if voters perceive progress in Iraq and hold politicians accountable if they fail to sustain it. But not many rank and file voters, either Democrat or Republican, read the op-ed pages of the Times.

[JAD_333]

And the Brookings Institute is no one's mouthpiece.

Another interesting development is the ecstatic Iraqi celebration over their soccer team's success. A Sunni scores off a Kurd pass; a Shia goalkeeper stands out. There was mention in a story in Time about a Shia judge who wanted to marry a Sunni. My question is, is the sectarian divide less deep and permanant than it seemingly is?

[S2]

O'Hanlon and Pollack

"How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008."

LOL!!! As if we were going to leave by January 1, 2008 anyway.

Pollack and O'Hanlon carefully separate our local military success from the national political picture. Their comments recognize the bankruptcy of our previous commanders versus Petraeus, reflected in our improved troop morale.

They don't, in any way however, suggest any change to O'Hanlon's notions of partition. Here's some great stuff from O'Hanlon and Edward Joseph recently. Maybe it's been missed.

O'Hanlon and Joseph Suggest "Soft Partition" as SAIS Conference

Nothing from Pollack and O'Hanlon's findings contradict these comments at SAIS.

In sum, a compelling case for partition. We can get ahead of the momentum and formalize it but it's coming regardless.

[JAD_333]

Pollack and O'Hanlon carefully separate our local military success from the national political picture. Their comments recognize the bankruptcy of our previous commanders versus Petraeus, reflected in our improved troop morale.

Carefully? Aren't you taking a liberty in saying that? Omission perhaps.

They don't, in any way however, suggest any change to O'Hanlon's notions of partition. Here's some great stuff from O'Hanlon and Edward Joseph recently. Maybe it's been missed.

O'Hanlon and Joseph Suggest "Soft Partition" as SAIS Conference

Nothing from Pollack and O'Hanlon's findings contradict these comments at SAIS.

In sum, a compelling case for partition. We can get ahead of the momentum and formalize it but it's coming regardless.

You call this compelling? The article about partition also said this:

However, both Joseph and O'Hanlon say partitioning Iraq was far from their first choice of how to set up the country politically following the removal of Saddam Hussein. But if it's happening, O'Hanlon said, they propose trying to make it happen well.

[JAD_333]

civics 101

The elected officials are better placed to make decisions because they have access to the best data and advisors. You choose them to make those decisions based on your analysis of their ability, and have the right to change them based on their track record.

What I mean by mob rule is that when every decision is made by elected officials by reference to public opinion. They are making decisions based on ignorance, namely the public isn't sufficiently educated on every issue to make an informed decision.

The whole point of electing a Government is for them to govern, to make strategic decisions based on the best data available. The whole point of a democracy is to elect officials to make those decisions, and to review the performance of those officials at the appropriate times, namely the elections.

An example of this is the current Democrat party, who were elected with a mandate, but as far as I can see from outside the country are using their time to politic and attack the president rather than actually governing.
This is why I often ask the question of how is their 'first 100 days' agenda going, because as far as I can see, it's not.

In other words, despite being in power, they are using that power to campaign for the Presidency rather than pass legislation as per their mandate.
Having a governing party that only campaigns rather than governs is a sure fire way to piss off the electorate and might explain the current dissatisfaction with them.

Well put. I hope you don't mind my breaking your post up into paragraphs.

Your last paragraph--I mean mine--is very telling. My wife said to me the other day, "don't they ever work" meaning shouldn't the candidates be minding the store. To be fair, the charge crosses party lines, although only one of the leading GOP contenders is in Congress, McCain, and he would have been better off not working, inasmuch as his baby, the immigration bill, tanked and cost him a lot of support.

[S2]

JAD 333 Reply

O'Hanlon and Pollack-

"Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms."

JAD 333-

"Carefully[separate our local military success...]? Aren't you taking a liberty in saying that? Omission perhaps."

I'd stand by the above as a defense of my comments unless I somehow misunderstand you.

JAD 333-

"You call this compelling? The article about partition also said this:

'However, both Joseph and O'Hanlon say partitioning Iraq was far from their first choice of how to set up the country politically following the removal of Saddam Hussein. But if it's happening, O'Hanlon said, they propose trying to make it happen well.'"

As you reference, that was then-this is now. I'd LOVED a successful design and implementation to OIF Phase IV which led to a sovereign and just Iraq. Simply didn't happen and we must adjust to that reality better than we've done so to date.

[chankya]

I hope you're enjoying your time in the US and not becoming addicted to any of our bad habits..

I'm loving it. as for the bad habits... if you mean wings, beer and football then the warning comes too late!

Now for the rest of it. I had some really incisive and well-thought out replies that were unfortunately erased when firefox crashed. So lets just say i won the debate!

Just kidding. I'll reply in detail when I've had some more sleep. Still trying to beat the clock but thought I'd look in and say hello to you folks. It's an addiction.

[smilingassassin]

I don't know why people say pandering to public opinion is a bad thing. That statement sounds anti-democratic. Not an anti-democrat, anti-democratic. In essence you think representative democracy is bad. Now that really is treasonous.

Treasonous, my freind, is publically stating "The war is lost". Thats simply unacceptable.....

[astralis]

smilingassassin,

Treasonous, my freind, is publically stating "The war is lost". Thats simply unacceptable.....

it would be wrong and fool-headed. but it would not be treasonous. otherwise, for instance, the military should be rounding up lcol yingling, whom proclaimed the iraq war a debacle and said that america's generals had failed.

[ArmchairGeneral]

Treasonous, my freind, is publically stating "The war is lost". Thats simply unacceptable.....

Um, why? Why is it treasonous to state "the war is lost?" Is it because it is not true? If so, then what if it was true? Treason is a very serious crime, and not a term to be bandied around lightly.

[Bluesman]

You know, I live under a lucky star. Here we are, ten pages into my controversial thread, and we have a Democrat on record - at a media outlet very favorably disposed to their party - saying that good news from Petraeus is bad news for Democrats.

And that's what the original post was all about.

Now then - who still thinks I've got it wrong?

Clyburn: Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War

By Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza
Washington Post Staff Writer and Washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Monday, July 30, 2007; 6:26 PM



House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.

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."

Clyburn's comments came as House and Senate Democrats try to figure out their next steps in the legislative battle. Clyburn said he could foresee a circumstance in which House Democrats approve a measure without a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces, which has been the consistent goal of the party throughout the months-long debate. But he said he could just as easily see Democrats continue to include a timetable.

Clyburn also address the reasons behind declining approval ratings for Congress, which spiked earlier in the year when Democrats took over the House and Senate. The most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll showed just 37 percent approving of the performance of Congress.

"Remember right after the election it went very high on approval,?" he said. "Then all of a sudden people saw that we were not yielding the kind of result that they wanted to yield."

He said most Americans still do not know some of the domestic legislation that has been approved. Fewer understand that, despite Democratic majorities in both houses, that it takes 60 votes to pass anything legislation in the Senate.

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."

[S2]

Great Argument

That might be a great case about Clyburn.

What kind of case would it be against the 47 "blue dog" caucus members that Clyburn's so worried about? Is good news for Petraeus good news for them? Seems so.