Why are Democrats so afraid of success and victory in Iraq?

Question

A top UN official reported to the UN Security Council that recent developments in Iraq have opened an opportunity for progress. UN Under Secretary General for Political Affairs, B. Lynn Pascoe, briefed the UN Security Council that sectarian tensions are still problematic, but that recent trends including recently released figures that show September having the lowest number of casualties in 2006 are reason to believe there is opportunity for progress." In fact, ladies and gentlemen, front page above the fold with pictures today, the New York Times, the security improvements in most neighborhoods are real. Twenty-thousand so far have returned to their homes in Baghdad. "Iraqis sound uncertain about the future, but defiantly optimistic. Many Baghdad residents seem to be willing themselves to normalcy, ignoring risks and suppressing fears to reclaim their lives. Pushing past boundaries of sect and neighborhood..." Front page, above the fold. New York Times. This story has just got to make the Democrats livid, particularly Hillary, particularly Reid and Pelosi.

In a related story from the Daily Star -- don't know where that's from because the top half of the page with the web link is clipped, can't read it, only half of each letter showing. "Iraqi army raid Shi'ite militia strongholds, finds cache of Iranian-made weapons." These were from Mookie's boys, the Mahdi army of Muqtada al-Sadr. And from Mosul, "Abu Nawall, a captured al-Qaeda in Iraq leader, said he didn't join the Sunni insurgent group here to kill Americans or to form a Muslim caliphate. He signed up for the cash. 'I was out of work and needed the money,' said Abu Nawall, the nom de guerre of an unemployed metal worker who was paid as much as $1,300 a month as an insurgent." Well, now, wait, folks, Abu Nawall and his captors agreed that the Iraqis were joining the insurgency out of economic necessity. Well, wait a minute. I thought all along we were creating all these terrorists. I thought Bush was so wrong and so bad and so horrible, John Kerry and the whole Democrat Party elite, they were running out saying, "These people are a proud Muslim bunch, and we're attacking Islam, and they're joining up, we're creating more terrorists." No. They were mercenaries. It was also a way to stay alive. Of course, we hate the Americans, they say here, but we needed the money. As one general referred to them, sounds like they're the Iraq branch of The Sopranos.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/world/middleeast/20surge.html?ei=5065&en=7e7d43064c067b63&ex=1196226000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=86909

http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Emerging_Threats/Briefing/2007/11/19/un_official_says_iraq_showing_progress/7541/

Answer 1

Because that would mean that the Republicans were right the whole time....and...that just can't happen. When they finally find out the truth and have to accept it though, they can still say "hey, we supported it in the beginning"...which, of course is true. :)

Answer 2

I guess this also depends on whether people base their consideration of party candidates on a single issue such as the 'success in Iraq' rather than the big picture of the entire time in Iraq, the situation at home as soldiers return and DOD personal that had to go because there were not enough military trained in certain areas. I'm not a 'party' person, I pick the person I feel will best provide leadership to the country. I'm not impressed with anyone at this point, it is too early in the 'game'. Interesting article in the Washington Post concerning the lack of care provided to a DOD employee hit while riding in a Humvee in Iraq as a gunman. I blame all of Congress and the President - not just a party for this type of injustice. 'Service Civilians and the Wounds of War Many Fill Vital Roles in Iraq, but Medical Care Can Be Spotty' By Ann Scott Tyson Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, July 25, 2007; Page A01

Answer 3

It depends on what you call a victory and success, and why you really think we are there in the first place. 911, revenge, get Bin Laden. Remember??? The U.N. Secretary Annan calls it an illegal war an invasion an illegal occupation. Getting Bin Laden, total failure. So let's move on to WMD. " We found them!!!" I guess that to was a failure or a big lie. Liberate the country??? You can decide that one. "This war should take weeks...6 weeks...I doubt 6 months..." Failed again. If you call success killing as many innocent Iraq women and children as we have bullets, or watching our service men and women get injured and killed, or even if you call allowing Al Qeada to enter the country when they there weren't any terrorists there before we occupied the country. Or do you consider it a success that by us being there, Sect. violence and civil war broke out. Which do you consider a success? Tell me and I will better know how to answer your question.

Answer 4

Iraqis have become desensitized to the war going on around them, and last October was one of the highest casualty months!!!

whenever casualtys go down in one area where the troops are focused on the casualtys go up in the areas where the troops are thinned out!!

evidence is piling up more every day that bush was goin after iraq as soon as he got into office!!

so all of you on the right just shrug off all the lies and say "well as long as there"!!!

thats not the way our American system is supposed to work!!!

so go figure!!!

Answer 5

Being right is more important than what is good for Iraq, the USA, and the world. The fact that people like this would cheer for defeat is not really politics. It's a certain kind of personality.

Answer 6

The demoncrats ran their entire election on the war in Iraq... its the only possible idea that US citizens will listen to them on,...BUT, all the front running Dems have all said that they would not pull all troops out immediately. So what is their plan??? THey dont have one, and cant win the election by telling everyone they will raise taxes, bring socialist health care to the US, (which will raise taxes again) and they are not interested in securing the borders! The bottom line is...the war is the only possible rally cry they have!

Answer 7

We're not afraid of success in Iraq. why do you consider failure in policy and over spending and under supplying Iraq with soldiers in the first place a success? It's not and Iraq is not a success.

It's also funny that you rip on the UN for their lack of acknowledgement of the aids situation in the world and yet use them as a source to justify what you are saying in regards to Iraq. You don't find the irony or hypocrisy in this? You either trust the UN findings or you don't. You can't cherry pick.

Answer 8

Democrats are not afraid of that all. The question is will there ever be a victory and/or success in Iraq? The answer is no and you yourself well aware of that. You purposely keep spreading your evil propaganda here, Neocon.

Answer 9

first, you don't prove anyone is afraid, as usual...

so... we can reason with most terrorists... since they are only doing it for the money?

your rediculous propaganda ALSO works both ways...

which is it? are they capitalists? or evil islamofacists who hate our freedom?

and I've seen many stories like this over the past 6 years... it seems to get better for a while, then worse, then better, then worse... I'm going to wait a few months before I buy into it this time

Answer 10

Where, in all this rant, do you cite a single reference to any of this information displeasing Democrats?

Plus, as you stated, it is front page in the New York Times. I though conservatives believed that was a liberal paper?