Would success in Iraq be disastrous for the Democrats?

Question

People generally agree that defeat would, among other things, hurt the Republicans a great deal.

So is the opposite true as well?

No, I don't think the war should be fought (or not fought) for domestic political reasons.

But I see so many questions and answers about the war's effect on the Republicans that I thought it fair to turn the question on its head.

Criticisizing the question is merely a way to avoid answering it.

I hope the same people offended by the implication that some Democratic opposition to Bush's conduct of the war is political are AT LEAST as offended by the posts on this board alleging that Bush caused 9/11, went to war for oil, lied about WMDs, is a puppet of the Jews, etc.

Answer 1

No Question about that, the Dems rely Solly on the failure of a war being waged by a president they hate, for the sole purpose that they will gain the white house again. This policy is killing our troops and emboldens our enemy

I really wish people would understand two things.

There are people out there that are Evil and wish us harm. And that some of them are Democrat politicians, who use the plight of many for their own interest with no interest of helping them be successful in life

Answer 2

First of all, lets define success. Success is a fully functional government in Iraq that can stand on its own two feet, handle criminal activity, and keep peace in the society.

I think that democrats are afraid of the USA being successful in Iraq. While one person said that is sick, people suck and they do what is in their own personal best interest. Politicians and political parties are the same in this area. Just look at your life and your dealings with people, this holds true for everyone on Yahoo reading this. Its sad but it is true.

So yes, establishing a successful government in Iraq would be disastrous for Democrats. The democrating leadership wants to talk to these people and apease them. However this did not work under Clinton.

North Korea was developing nukes even though they agreed not to. Clinton had a chance to arrest and jail Bin Laden, but he didn't have a good enough reason too. It was OK if Clinton bombed Iraq with cruise missles, but he didn't want to get his hands dirty over there.

Answer 3

If Bush had responded to the al Qaeda terrorist threat by finishing the war in Afghanistan and capturing Osama bin Laden, this Democrat would have been the first to cheer. If Bush had followed the IWR, which stated that he " obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions." which meant that he should have waited for Hans Blix and the UN inspectors to report their findings this Democrat, like many Democrats in Congress, would have continued to support him.

But Bush didn't do this. He allowed bin Laden to escape capture by redirecting troops from Afghanistan to Iraq. He ignored the reports of the UN weapons inspectors, and actually manufactured evidence of WMDs (ie, Nigerian yellow cake). He fired the general who said we'd need at least 100,000 troops to stabilize the country, and when we did invade, he allowed looting not only of national treasures but of weapons armories while, at the same time, disbanding the Iraqi military.

The infrastructure of Iraq is in ruins; thousands have died, and more have been maimed; our reputation as a fair and honest dealer has been tarnished; our treasury is depleted; our military stretched to the breaking point. Do you honestly think that Democrats are happy about this? Do you think that any Democrat would wish this sort of disaster on our nation and upon the world? If you do, you are deluded, I feel.

Answer 4

Not at all. All people regardless of party affiliation are simply looking to resolve the situation in Iraq. Our men & women coming home safe after a succuesful mission would in no way be disastrous.

I understant your question as asking... Will it hurt the party for re-election? The answer is no. Democrats are in power because the American people know its time for a change. Its time for a new approach on what is happening over seas. The job simply needs to get done and evryone wants it done with as little American casualties as possible.

Answer 5

Of course, haven't you noticed that any US successes have been suppressed by the media which is pro-democratic! Look at what the Dems are suggesting as a new strategy, surrender and pull out ASAP.
Bush has not done much to help his own cause, because he refused to secure Iraq's borders when he was advised to do so and he has spent most of his time trying to avenge Daddy's mistake of pulling out too soon. He should have concentrated on securing his victory first, but since he was not allowing the generals of his army to make their own decisions he brought this on himself.
The only viable option that is not surrender is escalate and do it right this time as the Insurgency is unable to fight the US on any military scale. The next move is to get the politicians out of the war and conduct the war as if it is a real war and not a 'police action'.
You can't fight a war with one hand tied behind your back!
The interesting part is that the democrats are willing to make all of their heroes sacrifices in vain in order to buy and sell votes. This is the sad state of the US at this time.
The only actual solution is to vote out all of the incumbents and replace them until they start representing our best interests again. Other solution is to vote Libertarian
Somebody must have learned a lesson from Vietnam somewhere.

Answer 6

That would presuppose Democrats want "defeat" in Iraq. I don't accept that condition, so, superficially, the answer to your question would be "No".

However, like the term "success", the Republicans asking these questions fail to define what they mean by "success" and "defeat" as it applies to Iraq, so let's try to define these terms real quick. Just so, you know we can all be on the same sheet of music, politically speaking.

Do Repubs define success in Iraq include selling oil rights to Mobil, Chevron, Gulf and Exxon right out from under the legitimate owners of the oil? If so, congratulations, you have success in Iraq now. Does success in Iraq have anything at all to do with what the actual citizens of the sovereign nation of Iraq want? Or what they feel is best for them? Do "compassionate conservatives" even THINK about what the average Iraqi is going through? After 3 plus years, we can't even secure BAGHDAD, how is the rest of the country faring?

Bush Sr went in to liberate Kuwait after Saddam attacked and invaded it. He also had the CIA tell Iraqi rebel factions to use this time of conflict to depose Saddam and US forces would come in as a peacekeeping force to quell resistance. In other words, fomented treason and encouraged sedition in others, in a manner likely to cause a breach of the peace of a domestic or foreign country (You know, what a terrorist does, as far as the Patriot Act is concerned)
The rebels trusted Bush Sr and attacked, going against Saddam's soldiers and guards within Iraq. Bush reneged on his part of the agreement with the rebels, and with no US or International support, Saddam's forces swiftly crushed the insurrection and jailed, tortured and murdered not only those directly involved in the attempted uprising, but also their families as well. Thousands were slaughtered, and these actions are part of why Saddam was executed for "crimes against humanity".
So, here we are, 15 years later. Iraqis have long memories and simply could never trust ANYONE named Bush who says he is from the US government and has their best interests at heart.

Remember the speech Bush made before the invasion of Iraq, telling Saddam he had 72 hours to start following the UN Resolutions he was ignoring, or the US and a "Coaliton of the Willing" would attack and invade Iraq? By giving Saddam a clear timeline for invasion, Bush let him know ("you have 48 hours to get rid of anything which might embarrass us") what he had to do, to completely embarrass the US on the World Stage and piss away any goodwill and sympathy we still had from the attacks on Sept 11. When no nukes were found, when no equipment for making enriched Uranium was found, then the story changed to, "Well, they gave all that technical stuff to Iran! We gotta go into Iran and get the stuff Iraq gave em, that Afghanistan gave to Iraq, that they seized from nuclear material we gave to Israel, who lost some one battle or other." Then, of course, we set fire to Iran, no nukes anywhere, they dont even have glow in the dark wristwatches, and it will be, "SYRIA!! It's GOTTA be Syria! C'mon let us invade, we are 100% SURE this time! The stuff's in Syria.... yeahhh... Syria, that's the ticket...."

Answer 7

Hello, this isn't a competition, it's something that affects all of us. I would just as soon see a victory, whatever that is, as worry about what makes who look like an idiot. We are the idiots for not demanding this never happened in the first place. We could have spent that money securing our borders, and using our troops to secure them. There would have been less Americans dying and Iraq would not be the magnet for terrorists it has become. We have all lost, us, Iraq and the people of both countries. Much of the world now looks at the U.S. as terrorist. Another great achievement in our history.

Answer 8

It would set them back 90 years. If you look at the reds in early 1900s, this was their dream all along. The UN, loss of private property, loss of sovereignty, the end of capitalism, and absolute vilification of masculinity is almost here, as long as the left can kill the rugged individuals in America with military losses and cultural obliteration.
We have two male democrat senators yesterday saying how much they love each other on the floor (Reid and Kerry). That could not have happened 50 years ago. If they can defeat America, they'll be kissing and we'll like it.

The war in Iraq is really the war between the left and America.

Who cares about democrat/republican wins or losses. America loses is we run from Iraq.

Answer 9

As a liberal, success in Iraq would be an awfully good problem to have. Bad for the team, but good for the country. At this point, tho, I don't even know what success in Iraq would look like.
Maybe in the end there can be a peaceful resolution, but if you ask me that doesn't mean that Iraq wouldn't have been a failure. Too much life has already been lost to call the war a success.

Answer 10

A defeat in Iraq would hurt America...and most of the world! Step outside your party lines for a moment, and realize that the world is much bigger than the crap between Reps and Dems.