Is it sad that Democrats must hope for failure in Iraq for a victory in 2008?

Question

It does not take a political genius to know that Democrats have no possibility for victory if the Iraq situation improves drastically before the Presidential election. I am not slamming on any party nor do I need to hear again your opinions concerning this administration. I think most honest people can agree that this war was not entirely justified or properly executed. It is just a little depressing to know that some politicians deep inside would not want our troops and foreign policies to succeed. I guess they always have the Cuban healthcare platform. Anyone that believes our government can oversee healthcare needs to visit their local VA hospital. It is also ironic that people come from all over the world for healthcare.

Answer 1

even one of their own kind stated that democrats need some bad news


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

Answer 2

They really don't -- that's just the easiest way to sweep the election....

Currently, a huge percentage of America is anti-Bush and anti-Republican (and to an extent, anti-Congress) because of the Iraq fiasco..... so the Democrats can ride that wave as long as it lasts.

If somehow, magically, things start changing in Iraq, then they'll have to find other issues to attract voters.

So, either they get handed the election if Bush's debacle continues, or they have to work for it.....

And don't turn success into Iraq into an automatic failure for the Democrats -- some good PR and spin might convince voters that the change of Congress to Democrat control was what caused the "win"....

Personally, I hope both the Democrats and Republicans fold and leave politics entirely -- but that's unlikely.

Answer 3

define victory. Killing Iraqi's, the persons we are meant to be helping. Oh, you propose terrorists, yeah, Bin weighted down isn't discovered, and we are torturing the detainees at Gitmo. So confident, victory is leaving those 2 pointless wars. who's Bush to basically overlook on the subject of the country's opinion and the U.N. and invade because of the fact he theory there could be weapons of mass destruction, and then defined it as quote " a unhappiness" that there have been no weapons of mass destruction. So he grew to become into greater upset that his poor decision confirmed than our u . s . a . being risk-free. help our Troops, deliver them abode. And confident, you probably did recieve better than a confident or no, because of the fact us democrats supply clever solutions, no person be conscious ones. Take Barack for an occasion, Harvard graduate. McCain, 5th from the backside of his 994 member type on the Naval Academy and a while at "The national conflict college"(yet he hates conflict, constructive...).

Answer 4

Look on the bright side. Republicans have to hope for a miracle in Iraq. And if we do win in Iraq (however you define winning), a vote for the Republicans is a vote for more war in Iran or Syria or who knows where.

Answer 5

"It is just a little depressing to know that some politicians deep inside would not want our troops and foreign policies to succeed"

- You cannot succeed because people will always push you back. You failed in Vietnam, you failed in Iraq, you will fail in Iran. It is that simple.

Answer 6

Democrats want to withdraw troops from Iraq now, but they would keep enough troops there to fight Al Qaeda. We don't have enough there now to do that, so how is taking troops out going to accomplish this?

Answer 7

Little chance of that happening isn't there. Iraq is already a monumental failure by any measure.

Answer 8

What are you talking about?
We WON that war- remember

"Mission Accomplished"?

Your President said so.

Answer 9

It is sadder still that we will probably still be in Iraq when
the elections roll around.

Answer 10

I agree with everything you said.