U.S. Troop deaths are at their lowest levels in 19 months AND civilian and Iraqi police deaths have declined. This is the second consecutive month for significant U.S. troop decline which started taking effect shortly after the surge was completed and accomplished what they needed to...allegedly. Additionally, overall violence is down for the 2nd month in a row as well.
If things keep getting significantly better over the next year, are the Democrats going to have any ground to stand to cling onto? Is this is a serious threat to the Democratic chances to win the presidency?
This was reported by the Associated Press.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21444614/
2007-10-23 15:15:21 · 22 answers · asked by bobrekrabold 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
This is very bad for the far left that are relying on the US to lose the war in order to take the white house next year... HAHA!! I love it!
2007-10-23 15:21:31 · answer #1 · answered by maggs717 3 · 8⤊ 3⤋
This will have no effect because the liberal media such as ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox will not report the truth. Truth is that things have been going on many fronts for months and years. There has always been much more good than bad, but what do we hear about? The BAD.
One axiom of politics is that perception is reality. The perception is that things have been going badly almost from the beginning. Therefore, truth does not really matter. The Iraq war will not help Republicans regardless of positive outcomes.
2007-10-24 00:51:39 · answer #2 · answered by A Human Bean 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I doubt this will be a problem for the Democrats.
The American Public has been told things are going well before. It's sort of like the boy who cried wolf, but in reverse.
A big chunk of people have already made up their minds that the war is going badly, and worse, they have made up their minds that they are going to be lied to about the war.
Additionally, people have no direct source of information about the war, and have started to tune out on the media's reports (both Liberal and Conservative) about the war.
And, I suspect, as the war gets better, people are going to expect soldiers to come home. And every time that is mentioned, Republicans have to say that it's not time yet.
Also, as a Liberal, I have to tell you that deaths "declining" isn't a great sign. Deaths stopping is a great sign. In July there were seventy-eight deaths, in August there were eighty-four deaths, in September there were sixty-five. There is nothing cheery or happy about those numbers.
And finally, the Democrats do not depend on the war being lost, regardless of what Fox News or Conservative Talk radio say. They are skeptical about success, but many Americans are as well.
So, get ready for a Democrat in the White House.
2007-10-23 22:18:03 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. Bad Day 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Democrats aren't in trouble because politically, most the voting public will believe just about anything politicians in their party tell them.
They've been conditioned to overlook all the blatant lies, ignore validating the truth and automatically trust even the most ludicrous information they're told.
Yesterday I posted a link from "MSN" (a highly valued, trusted and respected site among dems) on an article exposing Al Gore on all his Global Warming deceptions... And obviously all the dems that flamed or cited me for needing to heed his word... They didn't even read the article from the link.
2007-10-24 00:50:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
They are still blasting the Republicans (AKA telling lies about what is happening) so that Americans don't realize the truth. The media hates bush so they don't report good things that are happening.
In fact, a soldier was awarded the medal of honor and CNN & MSNBC didn't report it. Biased reporting? You bet! BTW, Fox covered the story becasue it was an important piece of news.
The Dems might be in trouble if Americans can finally understand that our efforts are paying off! Bad news is good for the Democrats. (They hoped the economy would tank so they could say, "Look what they did. We will fix everything."
2007-10-23 16:26:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
the hot information out of Iraq is that the protection stress says it really is going to go with to be there a minimum of two (2) more suitable years ! How is that sturdy information ? Many contained in the protection stress imagine we will be there yet another Ten years. and that is not any longer some article in a newspaper, it really is from comments contained in the Pentagon.
2016-10-22 22:05:10 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Agree with your comments re Iraq. At the end of the day Australia's troop presents is a token jesture to support our very important alias.
The Democrates, are they still around?
2007-10-23 16:07:08 · answer #7 · answered by David H 1 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The democrats have said if the war turns we are in trouble.
So now the media does not report about Iraq because it has turned, and they can not blast GW and the troops.
Sorry libs
What a bunch of moon bat surrender monkeys
2007-10-24 01:12:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I dont think the democrats ever stood a chance in the first place. But a victory in Iraq would seal their fate.
2007-10-23 18:00:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I will vote for the Republican ticket because anything else would be foolish and would invite danger to the USA!
Ron Paul is NOT I repeat NOT a Republican, he is and always will be a Libertarian. Pretending to be a Republican so they he may run a one of the two major party's tickets does not make it so.
I am hopeful that both Rudy and Mitt fade into the woodwork soon. Both are unacceptable conservatives.
The current Iraq strategy is to fight until we are able to successfully turn it over to the Iraqi Military and leave as soon as possible after that.
To simply say quit begs the question, where does that leave Iraq? Doomed to the terrorists, Iran or any other country wanting to take their land?
I am sick and tired of the BS about the USA not getting involved in other countries problems. Wouldn't that be nice...than why do we spend so much on relief for disasters, and humanitarian needs? Why do our celebrities go to other countries to care for their children, when we have sick and dying right here at home?
Because we are a nation who cares and it applies to the military support as well as the relief and humanitarian support as well.
I think it is very hypocritical for liberals to want it one way for social programs and another for the military.
GREAT QUESTION!
2007-10-23 16:30:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
Iraq is NOT getting better until the big push is over and they demonstrably hold the ground they have gained.
2007-10-26 14:43:48 · answer #11 · answered by jonbehd 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋