Why Don’t The Democrats Support Victory In Iraq?

• January 24, 2007

Tonight the President spoke these words in his state of the union address:

If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country — and in time, the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.
For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective. Chaos is the greatest ally — their greatest ally in this struggle. And out of chaos in Iraq would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens, new recruits, new resources, and an even greater determination to harm America. To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September the 11th and invite tragedy. Ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East, to succeed in Iraq and to spare the American people from this danger. (Applause.)

After he spoke them the Republicans listening to the speech cheered. And a couple of Democrats did too, but most of the Dems stayed in their seats and didn’t applaud. Clearly there was something about these words with which they did not agree.
So, I’d like some Democrat to explain to me what it is, exactly, they don’t agree with. Because those words seem pretty straight forward to me.
Maybe it’s because they don’t like the man who uttered them? Maybe, though they cheered at other things he said tonight. So what is it they don’t like?
It’d be nice if some enterprising reporter asked them about that, but I’m not about to hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

Tags: Uncategorized

Bat One

What if they gave a war, and only one side showed up?
http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

Rob, you'd have more luck getting an answer from little children as to why they hold their breath until they turn blue.

The sitting Dems are working at about that level of maturity.
MikeAdamson

I'm not a Democrat so I can't answer your question but if I was then I might answer by asking another:

Why can't each of my kids have a pony?
Bat One

Ken,

You should be ashamed of yourself… insulting little children like that!
http://rofasix.blogspot.com/ NOTR

I think they took their cue from the Speaker. But I confess, at times she looked confused, "do I applaud here? Should I?"
http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

Sorry Bat, it had to be said.

Besides, I hate children just as Jonah Goldberg does.
http://www.willisms.com/ Zsa Zsa

It seems that the American people have bought into the Pelosi, Michael Moore propaganda against GW Bush. Pelosi and her memo that were sent out to vote against ANYTHING GW Bush was for, never became a big story for the MSM. (Not surprising) It is a shame that we as Americans would ever accept defeat! It is not what our country is or ever was about. Or at least that is what I thought??? Since 9-11 our country has not had even one citizen killed by terrorists on American soil…
http://www.willisms.com/ Zsa Zsa

What ever Political affiliation we are, should not matter when it comes down to OUR Country. Partisan politics has smothered patriotism. Very sad!
http://vdvfamily.com/ Sphagnum

American forces…America…America…September the 11th …America…succeed…succeed…American people

I think those were the words they didn't like
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

I'm not a Democrat so I can't answer your question but if I was then I might answer by asking another:

Why can't each of my kids have a pony?

The question is pretty simple Mike. I know you're not a Dem, but why wouldn't you applaud? Seriously?
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Why can't each of my kids have a pony?

Because you drink too much?
LoadTheMule

Why can't each of my kids have a pony?

Because there's a limit of one horses's ass to a family.

Regards…
Puzzlefeet

I thought this was a good explanation of why: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti…
WOOF

there's a limit of one horses's ass

That explains the mule .

Cordially…
Bat One

Puzzle,

For someone who last year gushed at the "realist" suggestions of James Baker and the so-called Iraq Study Group, Kessler has certainly changed his tune rather quickly with his disparaging remarks about Bush's SOTU speech.

After all, whether Kessler likes it or not, both Shi'ite Iran and Sunni Syria are in fact our enemies in this conflict. And both of stated as much.

Which makes the point rather handily that those on the Left have nothing to offer in the way of viable alternative policies at all. The criticisms, as you yourself have demonstrated repeatedly here, are partisan and personal, not substantive.

That said, I don't see where anything written by Glenn Kessler answers Rob's original question about the Democrat's behavior toward the suggestion that the US should win its conflicts rather than running away. Perhaps you have something more substantive to offer, a reason rather than an excuse?

Why shouldn't Democrats endorse the idea of American winning, Puzzle?
MikeAdamson

LTM's reply was the best of course. Perhaps the Democrats don't see Iraq as crucial to the GWOT, they don't believe that it is America's responsibility to keep the battling Iraqi parties from killing each other, that continued American presence is not worth the cost in terms of lives, resources, opportunities, etc. Perhaps the Democrats and an increasing number of Republicans don't believe that the present course is leading to a satisfactory conclusion…there are lots of possibilities.

Wanting to win isn't enough, even for America I'm afraid.
http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

Mike,

There is a binary solution set as regards your statement:

Democrats don't see Iraq as crucial to the GWOT, they don't believe that it is America's responsibility to keep the battling Iraqi parties from killing each other, that continued American presence is not worth the cost in terms of lives, resources, opportunities, etc.

Either the Democrats really believe, despite the clear contrary evidence, that Iraq is not a war by proxy against the supporters and fomenters of Islamic Terrorism…

Or they are cynically using playing against the strategic interests of the nation for personal political gain.

Neither of which says anything nice about Democrats.

Out Here
Rodney Graves
rodney.g.graves@gmail.com
HG

Rodney,

Precisely.
Mickey

No matter what, the democrats MUST make sure that Bush–and America–lose in Iraq. The only catastrophic consequences they can visualise comes about if America–and Bush–are perceived to have succeeded. In that quite horrific scenario, they correctly understand that their ideology will truly be taken out with the trash, as it should.
docdave

Yep, Mickey [how's it going by the way], for the communistic/socialistic democrats, it's either my way or the highway. There is no middle ground, no compromise, no tolerance for other ideas. The real war in this country is being fought over political ideologies i.e. nanny government vs individual freedoms/responsibilities and it is a war that is tearing the country apart.

I believe it is a truism that societies [countries, empires, etc.] fail because of weaknesses caused by internal strife which in turn make them vulnerable for foreign invasion. I think we may be well down that road and our pace is accelerating.
MikeAdamson

RG…I would guess #1 minus the fantasy about clear contrary evidence but as I say I'm not a Democrat.
http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

MA,

Weapons manufactured in Iran bearing 2006 dates of manufacture, including self forming penetrators. Iranian Republican Guards captured in Iraq. Syrian agents captured or killed.

Put your head back in the sand, it shows your better side.

Out Here
Rodney Graves
rodney.g.graves@gmail.com
MikeAdamson

RG…wow. I wonder if there are any foreign fighters or arms in Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon,etc.

It's seems a magical place…Out There.
docdave

Hi, Mike, still got your tongue in your cheek I see.

You wrote I wonder if there are any foreign fighters or arms in Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon,etc. The answer is that it doesn't matter where they lived or came from because they have this one commonality. THEY ARE ALL MUSLIMS!!!!

Don't you get it? This jihad is world-wide. You and I are potentially in as much danger as those in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon,etc and if we don't stop them there, we will be fighting them here (or in your case Canada).
Bat One

MikeA,

Actually, the "magical place" is that secure little comfort zone within which you operate. The rest of the world, "out there," is a pretty uncaring and brutal place. And all your polite and patient wishful thinking isn't going to keep the brutality from intruding on that warm, womb of wisdom you inhabit.

Sorry!
MikeAdamson

dd…nice to see you again! We must be hanging out on different threads. The jihadists do indeed operate worldwide but it still makes sense to go after the ones who have attacked us and to go after their bases of support.

B1…I only wish the world was as pleasant as you seem to think I think it is. Just because I view military activity as an extension of the political and that I believe the solutions to terrorism must include the political doesn't mean that I'm sitting in a womb. Military operations have their place when planned and executed competently and brought against the right targets.
robert108

MikeA: I think you have it backwards. Diplomacy is used to secure the peace that is won through military victory. If diplomacy worked as the main option, there would be no wars, would there? Generally speaking, human consciousness moves from the physical to the metaphysical, not the other way.
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

Diplomacy is used to secure the peace that is won through military victory.

"War is a continuation of politics by other means." -Carl von Clausewitz
docdave

Military operations have their place when planned and executed competently and brought against the right targets.

Which, Mike, seems to imply that in your opinion that the current military operations are not being brought against the right targets. What might those 'right' targets be?
robert108

"War is a continuation of politics by other means." -Carl von Clausewitz

Exactly. "Politics" isn't necessarily equivalent to diplomacy(witness our Dems approach to the President), and when both politics and diplomacy fail, war settles things, which are then organized and formulated along diplomatic lines.
2Hotel9

We already did that.
2Hotel9

And I become deeply, coldly angry when I consider Clausewitz(may he burn in Hell). That fuck has killed more men than old age.
Bat One

2H9,

Not quite yet. But the Democrats are certainly lining up to start giving up.
2Hotel9

I was thinking of Somalia. The first time around. From BBC there is a report that Spooky been out to dance again. AirFarce ain't good for much,but Warthog, OldDawg, and Spooky make up for alot of girlie crap.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Why Don’t The Democrats Support Victory In Iraq?

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments