Democrats Praise Military Progress

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,516
212
63
Bowling Green Ky
Democrats Praise Military Progress
Wednesday, August 08, 2007

By KIMBERLY HEFLING, Associated Press
One senator said U.S. troops are routing out al-Qaida in parts of Iraq. Another insisted President Bush's plan to increase troops has caused tactical momentum.

One even went so far on Wednesday as to say the argument could be made that U.S. troops are winning.

These are not Bush-backing GOP die-hards, but Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin, Bob Casey and Jack Reed. Even Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, said progress was being made by soldiers.

The suggestions by them and other Democrats in recent days that at least a portion of Bush's strategy in Iraq is working is somewhat surprising, considering the bitter exchanges on Capitol Hill between the Democratic majority and Republicans and Bush. Democrats have long said Bush's policies have been nothing more than a complete failure.

The Democrats' choice to acknowledge the military's progress in Iraq signals support for the troops, a message that voters want to hear. But they still heap criticism on Bush and his Iraq strategy, which promises to be a prominent issue in next year's presidential election.

All of Washington is waiting for the September assessment from Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker about the Bush administration strategy. Bush has called the plan a "surge" because it poured thousands more troops into the country.

A key component of the January plan was that there be political progress in Iraq. Last week, the chief lawmaking body in Iraq went into recess until September without accomplishing much of what U.S. leaders had hoped they would.

Levin, while saying military progress was being made, said the troop build-up could not be considered a success because its purpose was to make way for political reconciliation, and that hasn't happened.

"The only hope is if they take the responsibility onto themselves and we end the open-ended military commitment," Levin, of Michigan, said Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition."

Reed, a Rhode Island senator who visited Iraq last month, said there's been tactical momentum, but it "has yet to translate itself into real political momentum, which is the key, I think, to progress."

Durbin, an Illinois senator who is traveling this week with Pennsylvania Sen. Casey, told CNN on Wednesday that "naturally" troops are routing out al-Qaida in parts of Iraq, but then explained there's no evidence of the government in the areas.

In a conference call with reporters, Casey said one could make a good argument that U.S. troops have won the war, then accused Iraqi politicians and the Bush administration of not matching the intensity of the troops.

"The troops have met every assignment, they've beaten the odds time and again, they've done everything we've asked them to," Casey said.

California Democratic Rep. Jerry McNerney had a different take. After visiting Iraq last month and visiting with Petraeus, McNerney said signs of progress led him to decide he'll be a little more flexible about when troops should be brought home.

"I'm more willing to work with finding a way forward to accommodate what the generals are saying," McNerney said.

___
 

Spytheweb

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 27, 2005
1,171
14
0
This is helping Iraq how? They don't have clean drinking water and power for about one hour a day while the temp is about 117. The military can sure kill people but they can't make a government work.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
In 1999, Bush Demanded A Timetable
In 1999, George W. Bush criticized President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo, and yet he refuses to apply the same standard to his war.

George W. Bush, 4/9/99:

?Victory means exit strategy, and it?s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.?

And on the specific need for a timetable, here?s what Bush said then and what he says now:

George W. Bush, 6/5/99


?I think it?s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.? [ed. note: article originally ran in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on 6/5/99]

VERSUS

George W. Bush, 6/24/05:

?It doesn?t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you?re ? you?re conceding too much to the enemy.?
 

Cie

Registered
Forum Member
Apr 30, 2003
22,391
253
0
New Orleans
In 1999, Bush Demanded A Timetable
In 1999, George W. Bush criticized President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo, and yet he refuses to apply the same standard to his war.

George W. Bush, 4/9/99:

?Victory means exit strategy, and it?s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.?

And on the specific need for a timetable, here?s what Bush said then and what he says now:

George W. Bush, 6/5/99


?I think it?s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.? [ed. note: article originally ran in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on 6/5/99]

VERSUS

George W. Bush, 6/24/05:

?It doesn?t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you?re ? you?re conceding too much to the enemy.?


This backs my contention that every single one of these guys (and gals) is a freakin' partisan scumbag. Not only Reps, not only Dems, but all of them. Most are willing to say whatever it takes to win elections. Most are willing do whatever it takes to scratch the back of those who support their campaigns.

What we need are leaders w/ integrity, which are uncommon because the most idealistic of men become infected with the lust for power.

this is my humble, southern, naive opinion.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
This backs my contention that every single one of these guys (and gals) is a freakin' partisan scumbag. Not only Reps, not only Dems, but all of them. Most are willing to say whatever it takes to win elections. Most are willing do whatever it takes to scratch the back of those who support their campaigns.

What we need are leaders w/ integrity, which are uncommon because the most idealistic of men become infected with the lust for power.

this is my humble, southern, naive opinion.

I watched the Democratic debate and what i got out of all of it was there is some pretty good candidates in that crowd but its a huge game to see who doesn't slip up to let the others spin their words. That is what we vote for now. The guy who is better at spinning the others words. Nothing about the platforms or integrity it is about seeing who can cleverly out speak the other. Barack stated what he said before (about Pakistan)and Hillary and Dodd tried to spin it their way until Biden made an ass out of Hillary and Dodd saying what Barack is talking about is already on the books. The best of all was when Barack said to Hillary and Dodd "i find it amazing that people who voted for the worst blunder in American history are now lecturing me about foreign policy" I thought it was a classic line but of course the press made it out like Barack was being defensive:shrug: My vote right now goes to Kusinich and Paul. The two with the integrity. Just my Eastern naive opinion:142smilie
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
There goes that wacky Associated Press and the moonbat liberals being tough on terror and positive about the war again. Will their madness and spin never cease?!?
 

smurphy

cartographer
Forum Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,914
140
63
17
L.A.
There goes that wacky Associated Press and the moonbat liberals being tough on terror and positive about the war again. Will their madness and spin never cease?!?
Yeah. Not really sure where DTB is heading with this one. If anything, he's sort of painting himself into a corner of contradiction. Apparently many Dems are able to measure realistically what's going on. Doesn't mean Iraq was a good idea or that we should continue on this maddening course. It just means people are realistic.

And the heading is slightly misleading. Nobody is praising Bush or validating his decisions.....

Levin, while saying military progress was being made, said the troop build-up could not be considered a success because its purpose was to make way for political reconciliation, and that hasn't happened.

"The only hope is if they take the responsibility onto themselves and we end the open-ended military commitment," Levin, of Michigan, said Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition."

Reed, a Rhode Island senator who visited Iraq last month, said there's been tactical momentum, but it "has yet to translate itself into real political momentum, which is the key, I think, to progress."

Durbin, an Illinois senator who is traveling this week with Pennsylvania Sen. Casey, told CNN on Wednesday that "naturally" troops are routing out al-Qaida in parts of Iraq, but then explained there's no evidence of the government in the areas.

In a conference call with reporters, Casey said one could make a good argument that U.S. troops have won the war, then accused Iraqi politicians and the Bush administration of not matching the intensity of the troops.

"The troops have met every assignment, they've beaten the odds time and again, they've done everything we've asked them to," Casey said.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
There goes that wacky Associated Press and the moonbat liberals being tough on terror and positive about the war again. Will their madness and spin never cease?!?

He Chad guess who i finally found? Problem is he is in a jam again and I might not be able to talk to him for ahwile.:mj07:
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top