Dems Admit Good News From Iraq Would Not Be Good For Them

[red states rule]

At last, ems have fessed up and admitted what Republicans have said about them for years

Any good news from Iraq is bad news for the Dems



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."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380.html

[red states rule]

and this from Motor Mouth Murtha...........


Murtha Brushes Off Brookings Report on Iraq as ‘Rhetoric' on CNN's ‘American Morning'
By Matthew Balan | July 31, 2007 - 17:39 ET
Ken Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon's surprising op-ed in the New York Times on improvements in Iraq may have been ignored by NBC Nightly News on Monday , but CNN's John Roberts thought it was worthy enough to mention the article in an interview of Representative John Murtha on Tuesday morning. Murtha, a frequent guest on CNN when the subject of discussion is the Iraq war, dismissed the Pollack/O'Hanlon assessment. "I dismiss it at as rhetoric. I dismiss it as -- you know, in my estimation, the things that I measure are not -- oil production, electricity production, water. Only two hours of electricity. I don't know where they were staying. I don't know what they saw. But I know this, that it's not getting better. It's rhetorical is what is getting better. It's over-optimist. It's an illusion."

Roberts's first two questions to Murtha dealt with criticisms the Pennsylvania Democrat has received from the Left concerning his amendment that calls for a troop withdrawal from Iraq.

JOHN ROBERTS: So, this amendment that you're going to introduce today, to try to attach to the 2008 defense appropriations bill, would call for U.S. troops to start coming home within 60 days, be home within the course of about a year. I find it very interesting that you're taking heat from the Left on this amendment, because you don't have clear deadlines. Are you planning to change the language in this amendment?

MURTHA: Well, what we're trying to do is make sure the Administration knows we're serious. Now, they've always disagreed with the deadline in the end. But the troops have to start coming home. We've got a tale of two families here, John. We have the families who are going about their business, their kids are in college, and so forth. But the families I visit, the families I see are burned out by this war, the ones that are participating in the war, the families of the war. You know, this is individuals. When you say casualties go up or down, the members are clamoring for a redeployment.

We can't win this militarily. The rhetoric doesn't win this. The Iraqi parliament went on vacation. They're not serious. They're not taking up the things they need to take up. So, you know, this is the time that we have to start to redeploy, and regain the confidence of the American people. There's all kinds of corruption in Iraq with the money that's being spent. So we...

ROBERTS: Congressman, what do you say to critics on the Left who claim you're going soft on this by not having a firm deadline?

MURTHA: Well, we're trying to work it out. In the end, we may have to have a deadline. But let me say this. September is the real date. There's no money for Iraq in this defense bill. This is the basic defense bill. The next step is the supplemental. That's when all of the money for Iraq is -- that's when the $12 billion a month is in the bill. So, this comes together, and we're going to put the supplemental in with the regular bill in September. So, October 1st, when money runs out, is the real time. It's going to be a historic time. There's going to be a confrontation between Congress, the American public, and the White House about redeployment from Iraq. Rhetoric of the generals, rhetoric of the White House is over. People know it's not going well and they're ready to redeploy.

Roberts then brought up Pollack/O'Hanlon's op-ed that was printed in "The New York Times" yesterday.

ROBERTS: Now, on that front, Congressman, two fierce critics of the Bush administration's prosecution of this war, Ken Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon, both from the Brookings Institution, just returned from Iraq. They wrote an op-ed in yesterday's 'New York Times' in which they said there were some signs of improvement. Anbar province is getting safer, morale among the troops is getting better. Here is what they said. 'As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw. There was enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.'

What do you think about that?

MURTHA: Well, John, they were there for seven days. These troops have been extended. In order to sustain this deployment through March or April, just to sustain this deployment, you would have to extend the troops from 15 months to 18 months.

ROBERTS: So, you just dismiss that then?

MURTHA: I dismiss it at as rhetoric. I dismiss it as -- you know, in my estimation, the things that I measure are not -- oil production, electricity production, water. Only two hours of electricity. I don't know where they were staying. I don't know what they saw. But I know this, that it's not getting better. It's rhetorical is what is getting better. It's over-optimist. It's an illusion. And the American public is saying $12 billion a month in Afghanistan and Iraq is too much. The Europeans aren't helping, and now we're looking into trying to buy our allies by giving them a lot of money so they'll do more in this war.

In his final question to Murtha, Roberts played Newt Gingrich's comments on the possible result of a U.S. troop pullout.

ROBERTS: Congressman, there's also the big question of, what then? What happens after U.S. troops come out of Iraq? Here is what Newt Gingrich said that about that over the weekend.

NEWT GINGRICH (R), FMR. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Millions of Iraqis have sided with the United States. They are known in their neighborhoods. They are known in their cities. If we abandon them, they are going to be massacred.

ROBERTS: So, Congressman, what do you do after you pull out U.S. troops to make sure that those Iraqis who did side with the United States, who supported the campaign there, don't fall prey to insurgents and terrorists?

MURTHA: John, the only people that can solve this are the Iraqis. We can't solve it for them. We are considered occupiers. Even the fellow who kicked the goal in the winning soccer game, he says the Americans should be out of there. We have become occupiers in the minds of the Iraqis. We're the ones causing the problem. We're inciting the Sunnis and some of the Shias to say, get them out of there, they're the ones causing all of the problems. They'll have to solve this themselves, John.

So, Roberts asked two questions from the "get us out of Iraq now" Left, and two questions from commentators who are to the right of Murtha. Not too bad for a CNN co-host.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2007/07/31/murtha-brushes-brookings-report-iraq-rhetoric-cnns-american-morning

[nevadamedic]

They would much rather win the War on the Bush Adminisration rather then the War on Terror.

[red states rule]

They would much rather win the War on the Bush Adminisration rather then the War on Terror.

Dem slogan in 08

Hard On Bush - Soft In Terrorists

[actsnoblemartin]

Sadly, sometimes I feel that way. As if some or most dems believe bush is solely responsible for every terrible act in history, and if he does something good he doesnt deserve credit.

Even clinton, like any president, deserves praise for his successes, and cricism for his down falls as a leader.



They would much rather win the War on the Bush Adminisration rather then the War on Terror.

[red states rule]

Sadly, sometimes I feel that way. As if some or most dems believe bush is solely responsible for every terrible act in history, and if he does something good he doesnt deserve credit.

Even clinton, like any president, deserves praise for his successes, and cricism for his down falls as a leader.

It is called Bush Derangement Syndrome

[nevadamedic]

Sadly, sometimes I feel that way. As if some or most dems believe bush is solely responsible for every terrible act in history, and if he does something good he doesnt deserve credit.

Even clinton, like any president, deserves praise for his successes, and cricism for his down falls as a leader.

Clinton had successes? I can see that, he succeeded at crashing the stock market and having more affairs then any President in history..............

[actsnoblemartin]

hahaha


It is called Bush Derangement Syndrome

[red states rule]

Clinton had successes? I can see that, he succeeded at crashing the stock market and having more affairs then any President in history..............

and having more administration officals indited then any other administration in history

[actsnoblemartin]

alot of stupid americans, and liberal politicians is, redeployment :coffee:, i mean ending the war hehehe :laugh2:

[red states rule]

alot of stupid americans, and liberal politicians is, redeployment :coffee:, i mean ending the war hehehe :laugh2:

Bush Gives "Retreat" a Bad Name
“So, it has come to this,” I hissed as I crumpled up the announcement that Maharishi Steve’s Annual Yoga Retreat would from now on be officially known as a “Yoga Redeployment”. The whole thing was a sick, twisted joke, and I would have told the Maharishi as much if he had taken his toes out of ears long enough to listen.

The word “retreat” used to invoke pleasant thoughts of relaxing on some tropical shore, or perhaps enjoying a ginseng colonic with friends high in the wooded climes of the misty Cascades. But thanks to a relentless barrage of neo-con propaganda, “retreat” has now taken on a more negative connotation. Even congressional Democrats are afraid to utter the word, preferring instead to use the more palatable ”redeployment” when discussing their Iraq War strategy. Perhaps too eager to make nicey-nice with their Repug inferiors, the well-meaning Dems have failed to take a stand against the right-wing crusade to hijack the English language. Instead of fighting the GOP, they have essentally surrendered - a word the Repugs ironically stole from the benevolent, cheese-eating primates of France.

But it’s not to late for Democrats to take back “retreat” and preserve it for future generations of liberals. A massive marketing campaign must be launched to persuade the voting public not to think of a “retreat” as “fleeing from the battlefield”, but rather “taking a vacation from the war”. If Harry, Nancy, Jack, and all the leading Democrats in congress would make it a point to wear Hawaiian shirts, Bermuda shorts, Panama hats and sunglasses to every Congressional debate on Iraq, it would go a long way towards convincing the American people that with all the mindless bloodshed going on, it wouldn’t hurt everyone to take a little hiatus from reality with their Democrat pals for a while. Ya’ll can go right on fighting Bush’s illegal and immoral war without end, or you can join us liberals for some big, fruity, Appeasement & Capitulation cocktails down on Dhimmi Beach!

Sure, my idea may seem overly theatrical to some, but it’s far better than simply giving up on a word that has come to symbolize the Progressive approach to fighting the War on Terror.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2007/05/bush_gives_retr.html

[red states rule]

alot of stupid americans, and liberal politicians is, redeployment :coffee:, i mean ending the war hehehe :laugh2:

Now that Congress has yes to listenignto terrorist's phone calls - look at how the moonbat libs are reacting

It is classic


Wanted: a Constitutional Democrat
Posted August 4, 2007 | 09:20 PM (EST)

On Friday, by a vote of 60-28, the Senate passed the measure that President Bush had requested to enhance his powers of warrantless wiretapping. It is said that these new powers will not cover phone calls made within the United States; but the effect of the vote is certainly to remove a constitutional check. We now have the president's word that he will act with restraint.

Two small concessions were granted by the administration to the cooperative lawmaking body. First, in the revised legislation, the attorney general is no longer the sole official charged with oversight; Alberto Gonzales will share authority with the director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell. Second, the change in the law is not permanent but comes up for renewal in six months.

Such allowances hardly compare to what was extracted in return. The FISA court will be permitted to review the president's wiretaps only after the fact; and the court is restricted to a generic review of the warrants, with no power to inquire into individual cases.

This latest understanding with the President (which will not be any easier to reverse six months from now than it was to oppose yesterday) was approved by sixteen Democrats to make the required majority of 60--among them Senators Bayh, Webb, and Feinstein. The unintimidated opposition was led by Russell Feingold.

By what force was the Democratic majority effectively split? The answer lies in part in the nature of President Bush's appeal to fear. He has frightened many people into believing that if America is ever hit by another attack, the blame should fall on every lawmaker who ever opposed his will on national security. The Cheney-Bush campaign of fear is relentless, but not entirely disingenuous. President Bush is frightened, and the public has seen it; Vice President Cheney is frightened, and his bunker shows it.

Intimidation apart, a cynical prudence clearly drove some of the crossover votes. Many Democrats believe the party's best strategy is to run out the clock. Let the president have everything he wants between now and November 2008; watch politely, and show a seemly disappointment; and count the profits at election time. The same goes for the president's men, from Petraeus down to Gonzales: give them all they want for the next fifteen months and see where it lands us. That is one reason why impeachment has been taken "off the table."

Of course, impeachment was put into the Constitution partly as a remedy against the rashness and ambition of just such an administration as this; the shadow of impeachment, it was supposed, might curb the desperate attempts of bad men to shore up their power by fresh adventures. But here once more the Democratic calculation appears to be: the worse it gets, the better for us in the end.

In a recent talk with liberal journalists, Nancy Pelosi offered a second kind of prudential reservation: impeachment or censure, of either Cheney or Bush, would "divide the country." That is the same species of wisdom that prevailed with Al Gore when he withheld his support from the late petitions charging voter fraud in Florida in the election of 2000. He was choosing not to divide the country.

The trouble is that Cheney and Bush are happy to divide the country. They mean to play their terrible hand to the end; and they do not take no for an answer. Compromise with them, and you are the one who is compromised. The statement by Dick Cheney in January 2007, about the impact of the election on his plans for the Middle East, showed the curious streak of frankness that marks his political character. "It won't stop us," he said.

Now, in a constitutional democracy, there are two ways of stopping the claims of a leader out of control. One is by an appeal to the voters; the other is by an appeal to the laws. The vice president (and, therefore, the president) having declared his independence of the people, it would seem that the best remaining protection is the laws. If, on the other hand, the opposition are unwilling to resort to the laws--if, from a combination of timidity and tactical reasoning, they refuse to defend their own function as lawmakers--for what purpose do they exist?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/wanted-a-constitutional-_b_59173.html

[actsnoblemartin]

that is pathetic.


At last, ems have fessed up and admitted what Republicans have said about them for years

Any good news from Iraq is bad news for the Dems



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."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380.html

[red states rule]

that is pathetic.

It is the Dem party at their best