Turn around in Iraq???

Question

Since things are turning around for the better in Iraq, what do the Democrats have to say for themselves and their hopes of us pulling out so soon and losing the war???

NY Post source: August 1, 2007
"al Qaeda's in trouble in Iraq; the performance of the Iraqi military is improving, and security gains are making a significant difference in the daily lives of Iraqis. "


http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/08012007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/gray_lady_hedges_opedcolumnists_raplh_peters.htm

Answer 1

Before I start, for Margie S, I was in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and my wife is currently in Iraq. My father also served in Desert Storm, and retired a year after returning from a tour in OIF. That is where my family members are, so I can say what I want.

Here is some of the most blatant signs of politics trumping over caring about both the war and the troops. This is from the Washington Post July 30, 2007:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380.html?hpid=topnews
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."

Here it is, a member of the Democratic Leadership admiting that US and Iraqi successes are "a real big problem."

Can these people, and any of you that support them still claim to "support the troops"? Apparently, more Americans dying, and a poor September report would be "a real good thing for you".

Answer 2

Decrease in deaths count is due to that surge. Having more boots on the ground. But there have been 0 political progress in Iraq. Which is the point of this surge. To have Iraqis make political process.

It is good thing there are less deaths in Iraq, but that doesn't tell us the whole picture. We'll have to wait little more.

Answer 3

From what i can carry mutually, we've had some fulfillment interior the cities that we've billeted small bands of troops in, and a few violence has decreased. yet on an identical time, the consensus between the generals seems to be like that the militias have backed off and are amassing potential to mount new assaults at their entertainment. i think of the talks are an excellent element - it is approximately time this got here approximately. despite if not something concrete comes from this commonly used assembly, it lays the muse for extra. it would take a miracle for us to be thoroughly out of Iraq by using November '08. yet i think that despite if we've been, the Democrats will nonetheless take the White domicile. actual everyone seems to be going to proceed grumbling with reference to the fee of this conflict, the two in lives and money, for an somewhat long term. they are suspicious of a better corruption interior the White domicile, especially after the Libby trial, and it in simple terms isn't long adequate interior the destiny for all of this to vanish from people's minds. i think of for an prolonged time they'll equate conflict and chaos interior the middle East with the Republicans and could vote in a Democrat with the sensation, outstanding or incorrect, that electing yet another Republican ought to bring about extra of an identical.

Answer 4

Can you explain how things are "turning around for the better" -- violence in Baghad is still high, and a large chunk of the Iraqi parliament just quit.

And aren't we supposed to be waiting until September when Gen. Patreaus gives his report before we determine if things are working?

Answer 5

1. They truly believe that the Iraq situation is still hopeless, due to evidence on both sides.

2. They realise most voters still hate the war, and realize they have a much better chance for re-election or election if they stay anti-Iraq

those are my thoughts

Answer 6

The war has already been won - at least the Iraq War. We had a goal of getting rid of Saddam Hussein, and he's gone. The problem lies not in the war, but in the aftermath.

The more nebulous "war on terror" is a more frightening term, since it has no achievable goal.

Herb wrote: "I have not met anyone who is a Democrat that wants us to lose the war." That's because they already think that we've lost the war and politically it's in their best interests to get out before it's time. Ironically, many of these same Democrats want to get us involved in Darfur.

Answer 7

sorry, but the "war" was lost before we entered that sorry god forsaken stretch of desert. as for things turning around?
ordering the marines to about face and retreat from battle is no turnaround.
let's get back to basics:
first: tell everyone, "this is war".
second: unleash the marines with orders to, "take out the threat".
third-and last- send in halliburton to secure the oil.

Answer 8

This may very well equate to the fatal "bullet in the ear" of the Democrats presidential bid in 2008...in light of this do not forget those in the House of Representatives who spurned the efforts of those brave men and women in harms way along with those presidential no-hopefuls...help them on their way to new careers in 2008.

Answer 9

The turnaround in Iraq might put the Republicans back in contention for the Presidential derby in 2008.

VOTE for your choice as US President on my 360 degrees blog and know who will likely win.

Answer 10

The Demagogues are just waiting for some bad news from the front to reverse their political fortunes. Three percent approval rating. Wow!