Has it become obvious yet that ANY measurable success we have in Iraq equals failure for the left? Ever since John Kerry woke up in early 2004 and decided to be an anti-war candidate, all the left has done is insist on withdrawl, failure, retreat, and insisted that Iraq can't be won. Just this week General Petraeus gave a report indidcating measurable success as a result of the surge, and what do democrats do? They call him a liar! So should it be any real surprise that any success or progress we make in Iraq only makes democrats look bad? Kinda makes you wonder why ANYBODY would support a political party that WANTS our country to fail.
2007-09-16 04:54:02 · 19 answers · asked by ? 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
if you define "success" as "being unable to meet half the benchmarks you set out for yourself" then iraq is a success.
believing that iraq is a success in spite of not being able to provide evidence is surely misleading.
2007-09-16 04:59:45 · answer #1 · answered by brian 4 · 5⤊ 3⤋
Sorry, Slick but there's been no objectively measurable success in Iraq.
What they're touting as "success" is a "drop" in civilian casualties.
However, the change in numbers is completely due to, are ya ready for it, cooking the books by the failed Bush Administration. If you could imagine such a thing! (Giggle, snort!)
They changed the criteria for what constitutes "civilian casualties" so that there would be far fewer casualties that would qualify to be counted, thereby showing the requisite "progress" in Iraq.
I'm still waiting for someone to answer the challenge I posed weeks ago: "Can anyone, anyone at all, give me one quote from the Bush Administration about Iraq that's turned out to be true?"
2007-09-16 05:29:07 · answer #2 · answered by marianddoc 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Even an overwhelming success in Iraq = failure. We still have not made any real progress towards weakening the terrorists such as Al Qaeda, and all the time and resources we've spent over there is just less we have used to solve our real problems.
2007-09-16 05:05:36 · answer #3 · answered by ajfrederick9867 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
There is only one party. John Kerry is not anti-war industry; he is part of the corrupt system, just as Bush and the Clintons are. There is nothing virtuous about staging terrorist attacks in order to justify waging a war for PROFIT. Hillary and Pelosi are on the side of the war industry - and the war industry is the new face of Communism; and hello - Communists are not Republicans. Republicans are for SMALL government - DUH!
Partisan Republicans who actually buy the lies, and fail to recognize Communists disguised as Republicans AND Democrats, ARE waking up. It won't be long and YOU will also have to admit to yourself the horrible truth. Hopefully you have your guns ready, as Jefferson advised good Republicans to do (in case the government turned to Tyranny!). You are going to need them! We all are.
2007-09-16 05:06:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, the measure of success does not help or hinder Democrats. It is, in fact a measure that Republicans rely on. The left does not call for either failure or retreat. That is a Republican myth. Democrats call for honorable, steady withdrawal and real political stability in Iraq. Political stability is not achieved through warfare.
2007-09-16 05:04:38 · answer #5 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Success happens everyday, but it is unfortunate that Democrats are not telling the truth to the American People. Instead, they Live In Everday Sin (or tell lies) to the American People about what happens in Iraq. Democrats know the TRUTH, but they know that if they actually spoke the truth, their popularity will become unpopular and President Bush popularity will rise.
2007-09-16 07:06:10 · answer #6 · answered by Mr. Knowledgeable VI 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
"Measurable success in Iraq" = should be finding the WMD's for which the US invaded Iraq. Anything else no matter ,even if we terminate the population of Iraq which we are doing" measurable success"=equals failure., for bothreps and dem alike, remember when we invaded iraq, It was the US not the libs nor the reps.
2007-09-16 05:05:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
um ... **sigh** when did it become a desire for failure to acknowledge the obvious? GW's war on Iraq is lasting longer than WW2 and the continuing loss of lives and squandering of treasure has to be dealt with whether it jives with the neoCON fantasy world or not.
but don't worry., GW and his war profiteering cronies will never be held accountable for the tragic disaster their greed driven foreign policies have caused. they'll all saunter out of the Whitehouse with their bank accounts and stock portfolios buldging, leaving their mess to be cleaned up by the next President. GW has said as much.
2007-09-16 05:07:01 · answer #8 · answered by nebtet 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
No. Not until there is a POLITICAL solution. I don't see one yet; just Bush's never - ending war. And as far as generals go, remember the ones who spoke truthfully to Bush during the runup and execution of Bush's war...were fired.
And WANTS our country to fail ? Its going to take decades to undo the damage caused by the Bush administration.
I support the Constitution, the Republic and the Nation... but NOT Bush or his handlers.
2007-09-16 05:01:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yes because the Democrats are to stupid to realize what they should have done was embrace the Surge but add that is what General Shinseki wanted to do over 4 years ago but the Whitehouse ignored him.
2007-09-16 05:05:44 · answer #10 · answered by satcomgrunt 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Yes it won't help them>It's a shame that either party would sell out the USA & citizens for themselfs>They are making defeat there campane & the amnesty bill for illegals there goal>Sad but true>There ture colors are coming out this week with another amnesty bills attached to the funding for our great military> What's next>
2007-09-16 05:06:30 · answer #11 · answered by 45 auto 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋