Democrats changing tone as Iraq success becomes obvious

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
This from the ultra right wing rabidly conservative New York Times. :D

A real "Oh, shit!" for the Democrats.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/u...WAY&adxnnlx=1196053908-nOtdEvGZ8h/UtbxVM2yNRQ

As Democrats See Security Gains in Iraq, Tone Shifts

As violence declines in Baghdad, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are undertaking a new and challenging balancing act on Iraq: acknowledging that success, trying to shift the focus to the lack of political progress there, and highlighting more domestic concerns like health care and the economy.

Advisers to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains. At the same time, they are arguing that American casualties are still too high, that a quick withdrawal is the only way to end the war and that the so-called surge in additional troops has not paid off in political progress in Iraq.

But the changing situation suggests for the first time that the politics of the war could shift in the general election next year, particularly if the gains continue. While the Democratic candidates are continuing to assail the war — a popular position with many of the party’s primary voters — they run the risk that Republicans will use those critiques to attack the party’s nominee in the election as defeatist and lacking faith in the American military.

<more>
 
Republicans changing tone as Iraq failure becomes obvious:

With American military successes outpacing political gains in Iraq, the Bush administration has lowered its expectation of quickly achieving major steps toward unifying the country, including passage of a long-stymied plan to share oil revenues and holding regional elections.

There have been signs that American influence over Iraqi politics is dwindling after the recent improvements in Will the US then stage a coup and oust Maliki to put in a Chalabi type puppet in his place? This war and their supporters represent the term “absurd” in the extreme. security — which remain incomplete, as shown by a deadly bombing Friday in Baghdad. While Bush officials once said they aimed to secure “reconciliation” among Iraq’s deeply divided religious, ethnic and sectarian groups, some officials now refer to their goal as “accommodation.”…

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/washington/25policy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
 
Republicans changing tone as Iraq failure becomes obvious:



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/washington/25policy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Nice cherrypicking. You also need to set off your personal comments -- (Will the US then stage a coup and oust Maliki to put in a Chalabi type puppet in his place? This war and their supporters represent the term “absurd” in the extreme.) -- IN PARENTHESES so it doesn't look like part opf the story! You also need to learn how to use elipses (...).

You als forgot these parts:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 — With American military successes outpacing political gains in Iraq, the Bush administration has lowered its expectation of quickly achieving major steps toward unifying the country, including passage of a long-stymied plan to share oil revenues and holding regional elections.

Instead, administration officials say they are focusing their immediate efforts on several more limited but achievable goals in the hope of convincing Iraqis, foreign governments and Americans that progress is being made toward the political breakthroughs that the military campaign of the past 10 months was supposed to promote.

The short-term American targets include passage of a $48 billion Iraqi budget, something the Iraqis say they are on their way to doing anyway; renewing the United Nations mandate that authorizes an American presence in the country, which the Iraqis have done repeatedly before; and passing legislation to allow thousands of Baath Party members from Saddam Hussein’s era to rejoin the government. A senior Bush administration official described that goal as largely symbolic since rehirings have been quietly taking place already.

Bush administration officials have not abandoned their larger goals and emphasize the importance of reaching them eventually. They say that even modest steps, taken soon, could set the stage for more progress, in the same manner that this year’s troop “surge” opened the way, unexpectedly, for drawing Sunni tribesmen to the American side.

A senior official said the administration was intensifying its pressure on the Iraqi government to produce some concrete signs of political progress.

...

On Saturday, Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador to Baghdad, said that the military had created an opportunity for progress, adding that there were some indications that Iraqis on the local as well as the national level want to move forward. But he cautioned against expecting quick results on the core issues.

“We are seeing encouraging signs of movement,” he said, but added, “This is going to be a long, hard slog.”

“It is going to be one thing at a time, maybe two things at a time, we hope with increasing momentum,” he said. “It is a long-term process.” (Unfortunately the anti-war bunch wants everything NOW or the war is lost. -- j)

...

While Bush officials once said they aimed to secure “reconciliation” among Iraq’s deeply divided religious, ethnic and sectarian groups, some officials now refer to their goal as “accommodation.”

“We can’t pass their legislation,” a senior American official in Baghdad said. “We can’t make them like each other. We can’t even make them talk to each other. Well, sometimes we can. But we can help them execute their budget.”

...

Still, he said, there were some positive signs that Iraqis were interested in making headway on some thorny issues. Provincial governors, he said, were pressing for a law to define their powers. “We are past the point where it is an American agenda,” the ambassador said. “It is what needs to be done in Iraqi terms.”

...

... Bush administration officials said they hoped approval of a few initial steps might lead to more substantive agreements next year, including provincial elections, which the White House wants to see held before Mr. Bush leaves office in less than 14 months.

...

Perhaps the most achievable of the administration’s short-term targets, American and Iraqi officials said, is legislation that would allow thousands of members of the Hussein-era Baath Party, most of them Sunnis, to return to government positions.

...

Other immediate steps the Bush administration is pressing the Iraqi government to take include passing a budget, $48 billion for the coming year, and again renewing the United Nations mandate for the American troop presence before it expires at the end of the year.

You and your ilk are simply terrified that the war will be won, the Iraqis will become autonomous, and, worst of all, that GWB will go down in history as having been correct.
 
nah, if it turns out that most democrats really don't want to "lose" the war, that'll weaken the identities of those who, lacking anything positive to contribute to society, define themselves in contrast to the mythical "liberal."
 
most democrats really don't want to "lose" the war

Most democrats don't support Pelosi. However, the voting block, especially the MoveOndotorg types have overtaken a party with a valuable history. So, when most republicans, or conservatives in this case, say liberal or demoncrat, they aren't talking about the average American of democrat leanings. They (we) are discussing those in the forefront looking to take to party ontp the realms of Marxism, which is exactly where they are leading it. Too bad the average democrat isn't paying enough attention to stop them.
 
Right and when we talk about the Republicans we mean the ones on the forefront that are looking to take the party into the realms of fascism.
 
Pelsoi, Clinton (Mrs Bill), Reid, Waters, Schumer...just off the top of my head.
 
gonz wouldn't know a real marxist if the 12 that remain in this country all fell on his head at once.
 
To these guys a marxist is anyone to the left of Newt Gingrich.

Who the fuck named that bastard "Newt"? If I were him I'd change my name....
 
gonz wouldn't know a real marxist if the 12 that remain in this country all fell on his head at once.

Giving away the farm takes time. Incrementalism isn't an overnight process. 16 years ago when government controlled healthcare was the First Lady's plight, it got shot down in flames. After nearly two decades of convincing, it's seen as a possibility.

They say the words. I believe them. You can choose to ignore them if you wish. It was your money.
 
... as the plain and simple fact that both "sides" are the same once again flies low but still over the heads of the sheeple...
 
Back
Top