Redstate

Yes, because it is inconceivable that Congressional Democrats actually believe that we can't win in Iraq and that sending more soldiers is just putting more lives at risk for no good reason.

Is it "can't win"?

Or is it "unwilling to do what it takes to win"?

The difference matters. Greatly.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

What is it, exactly, that we should be doing to win that we aren't currently doing?

Do you want to send several hundred thousand troops in? Do you want to attack Iran to prevent their interference? Do you want soldiers to bomb cities to rubble and kill civilians that have the misfortune to be around during an insurgent attack?

It is very easy to say "we can do more" or "we aren't doing enough" without ever actually defining what your "more" is.

To answer your question, I think the answer is "can't win" as long as you recognize that there is a significant number of military options that the American public would never, ever accept.

We could "win" if we helped the Shia kill off all the Sunni. We could "win" if we just nuked the whole country. We could "win" if we sent a couple hundred thousand troops, turned them into a permanent police force and stayed for 20 or 30 years.

Under the current plan of "130,000 - 160,000 troops in country, maintain illusion that Iraqi government is in control, minimize innocent civilian casualties", no, I don't think that we can "win".

I'd love to be proven wrong, but there you go.

Thanks for getting to the very simple answer, eventually. You could have spared a whole lot of strawmen in the process, though.

Just saying.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

That's almost a nice thing you said about me, there. Careful.

You didn't answer my question, though. What should we be doing that we haven't been, because we are "unwilling to do what it takes to win"?

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

For 4 years now. How long do you expect people to silently accept 800 deaths, 1000s of injuries and 100 billion dollars per year with very little sign of progress? If things were to stay the same in Iraq over the next two years, at what point are you, personally, willing to say "we've done everything we can possibly do and now we should give up and go home"?

As I said, we could certainly "win" if we are willing to stay in Iraq for 20-30 years. But that isn't going to happen. If we are leaving in two years* and things just fall apart when we leave, what is the point of what we do between now and then?

*Unless things improve dramatically, we almost certainly will be. No Presidential candidate will be running on "stay the course" if Iraq is anything like it is now.

We have not been patient. To say otherwise is an insult to anyone who has ever displayed patience before toward their kids, theur neighbors, their dog, anyone.

There were screams of QUAGMIRE™ six-flipping days into the ground assault for Heaven's sake. We've been treated to a steady drumbeat of the death watch - 500 dead, 1000 dead, 2000 dead - all with accompanying banner headlines. The constant, bleating, never-ceasing refrain coming from many on your side of the debate has been "Are we ready to leave yet?" "Are we ready to leave yet?" "Are we ready to leave yet?" "Are we ready to leave yet?" "Are we ready to leave yet?" "Are we ready to leave yet?" "Are we ready to leave yet?" "Are we ready to leave yet?" "Are we ready to leave yet?" "Are we ready to leave yet?" "Are we ready to leave yet?"

That sort of logic would have had us surrendering to the Soviets in the 60's, if you care to know. What's the big deal? We've been at this Cold War for 20-years. Isn't it time to give up? Communism can't be all that bad.

This war is been Iraq-nam in the eyes of its opponents from day-one and even before. And it seems many of those same people are doing their level best to see that history repeats itself. Only no one from Fat Teddy to Speaker Botox seems to want to level with the American people regarding what defeat in Iraq looks like. When can we expect to see that, beecubed? Huh? When are the Democrats going to "level with the American people" as to the likely result of their chosen course?

Tick tick tick tick tick tick ...

So yes, if 7-12 months of patience - if this new strategy and "surge" - is sufficient to bring stability to Iraq, is that not worth the potential downside given the alternative?

And finally you will see no progress unless you look for it. The Media has no interest in breaking from their successful narrative.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

We aren't talking about anti-war people being against the war. We are talking about people who initially supported the war, but have run out of patience and are now against the war. Obviously, Bush was never going to convince the people who were against the war to support the war. But he has even failed to convince people who once supported the war to continue to support the war.

If I believed that 7-12 months of patience plus the "escalation" was enough to resolve the problems in Iraq, I would support that strategy 100%. The problem is, I don't think it will make any difference. It seems like most people in this country agree with that.

You still didn't answer my question. At what point are you willing to admit that we can't accomplish anything else in Iraq and that it is time to bring the soldiers home? If, after 7-12 months and the "escalation" we are still in the same situation in Iraq that we are in now, do we give up at that point? Or do you ask for another 7-12 months and another "escalation"?

RE: "Fat Teddy to Speaker Botox"

I'd ask you to notice that I always refer to "Bush" or "the President". It would be nice if we could have a discussion like grownups, without silly name calling.

RE: The media

Yes, it is the media's fault that people think that Iraq is a mess. As opposed to the possibility that Iraq is actually a mess. Even Fox News, which is way further to the right than any other station in the MSM is to the left, is reporting a constant stream of bad news out of Iraq. Seriously, if a Republican initiative is getting bad press on Fox, you might want to consider the possibility that it isn't the press' fault that public opinion has turned against you.

I did not mean to imply that "lack of patience" is a partisan phenomena. It is a fundamental problem of our microwave society IMO. That our already annoyingly small level of societal impatience has been made smaller still by the anti-war-whenever-there-is-a-Repub-in-the-white-house movement however should be beyond dispute among among anyone who has been paying attention.

So long as there is a finite chance the escallation will work it should be attempted and supported. The chaos that will result from failure can wait at least that long.

If the Maliki government collapses, it's time to go. If they cannot get the security situation under control it won't last the summer.

I will refrain from "Speaker Botox" going forward. Kennedy is my senator and I believe his history is such that he deserves every ounce of derision I can muster on whatever forum I can get to.

I never said it's solely the media's fault that people think Iraq is a mess. What I said is that the media have no interest in presenting to the public anything that goes against that narrative.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

I respect that you are willing to place some kind of "anti-goal". I'm not sure if that is a realistic one (and I don't mean that in a snarky way, I just honestly don't know if the Maliki government collapsing could happen or whether that would mean that there wasn't anything further we could accomplish) but I think that articulating a condition like that is more than most people are willing to do.

RE: finite chances

To some extent, I agree with you. But, strictly speaking, I have a finite chance to win the lottery every time I play. That still doesn't make playing the lottery a good investment.

RE: the media "narrative"

You won't get any argument from me regarding that. I think that both Democrats and Republicans are frustrated by this. The pre-war runup, the Dean scream, Bush as the "common man", McCain the "maverick" are all media narratives that have frustrated Democrats and/or liberals.

...than an evil, self-serving bast*rd, myself. Not that it'd be all that much of an improvement.

Although I concede that they haven't actually put it all up to a vote, yet. No doubt we'll hear the announcement of when one will take place posthaste.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

that the purpose of the non-binding resolution against troop increase is intended to place Republicans and Democrats running for re-election on the record so this vote can be used against them. A number have already pre-emptively caved, eg Norm Coleman, Susie Collins, etc.

It's also being used to force Democrats like Max Baucus, up in 08, to renounce his support for the war -- solid up till now.

This is pure politics, disingenuous, unpatriotic, and possibly stupid, in that it discounts the possibility of success on the ground and the American people brought to support the war agin.

He should offer amendments that cut off the funding or do whatever it is that the Dems fear actually casting votes on. Wouldn't that completely turn the table on the game the Dems are trying to play? They want the GOP to cast uncomfortable votes on a meaningless resolution; let's give it some meat and see how fast the Dems start squirming and see how fast the MoveOn/DKos folks get ticked off at the Dems who backpedal.
--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.

Let's see those cards.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

I'm talking about the one that'd be played in Congress. You're so sure of winning? Then take the war away from the President.

Because he's not going to give it to you. You want it, you'll have to take it.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Are you talking about defunding? Are you suggesting that the only options available to Congress "defund" or "allow the President to do anything he wants"?

You think things need to be changed? Then change them. You think that you can beat Bush in this? Then go for it. Talk is cheap. If you wish to act, then act.

I'm sorry, but there are no zero-syllable words.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Well, ya, that is exactly what Congress is doing. They are saying we think escalation is a bad idea and they are employing the tools that they have access to in order to prevent escalation.

That's what this whole discussion is about, right?

Let's see them do it.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

That's "let's see them take the war out of the hands of the administration", not "let's see them hide behind toothless resolutions that won't actually stop anything". After all, don't you believe that the American people would demand nothing less?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Well, I suppose we will have to wait and see.

I thought that you guys had all the cards.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I meant, we will have to wait and see what Congress does. Just because they have a majority doesn't mean they can, or should, pursue any particular path.

I, personally, hold no cards, so I have no idea how this whole drama will play out.

relationship with the "Committee on the Conduct of the War," or whatever its precise name was, would be enlightening; and they were of his own Party!

Lincoln was almost as far from the rabid wing of his party is GWB is from the Congressional Democrats. The Radicals bedeviled him and the Army command constantly (Yes, Virginia, Generals playing footsy with Congressmen is not new.) and only when Lincoln fixed on Grant, resolved to withstand the "bloody arithmetic", and virtually ignored the Congress and the Party was he able to achieve military success. There certainly were many in his Party who would not have been heartbroken had he been defeated in '64, and only Grant and Sherman's military success in spite of the Congress and the popular will allowed his re-election and the successful prosecution of the War. I believe the analogue is a strong one.
In Vino Veritas

install the House(wife) Speaker.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

It kind of shows the worthlessness of polls, particularly weekly polls. 75% of the people polled have no idea what is going on, they really don't care, but they will opine when asked. Easily 75% of those asked will be swayed in their response by the face made by the pollster, or the response of the questioner, and the tone and wording of the question presented. Plus, there are "editing" questions asked before the poll, that eliminate many of the people reached. I have been polled several times, each time, after the preliminary questions, I've been thanked for my time, and the actual poll questions never asked of me. Yet when reported, the poll I thought I was going to participate in according to the introductory comments of the pollster, was presented as the results of a random selection of people. The media has an agenda, and that agenda will be pursued, hang the truth. Yet we find folks pointing at the polls and claiming that they actually mean something.

I am thankful we have a man like President Bush in the office now, rather than the "finger in the wind" type that preceded him. He sticks to his guns, and isn't swayed by the media manipulated polls. Thanks for sharing Beecubed. Folks, as you look at these polling questions, aks yourself, do you really know the facts behind the situation being questioned?

Chuck

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." --James Madison
"Living Documents" suffer this distortion

So, your opinion is that poll results are inaccurate because

a) people are dumb
b) the media is manipulating poll results

?

Did this same logic apply when Bush had a 75% approval rating and 75% of people supported the Iraq war? Or are polls only junk when they disagree with your policy ideas?

"a" is generally correct. "b" is absolutely correct. The conclusion is that polls are irrelevant even if they are correct. I don't give a rip what anybody's approval rating is.

The Democrats are going to do publicity to the detriment of the war effort and the larger war on terror. It's unfortunate that Bush won't follow Lincoln and have the bas***ds arrested and held without bail. Preferably in Gitmo so they can inspect it.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

Gosh, why do we even bother to screw around with this democracy thing, then? Obviously, the best solution would be to make you emperor for life.

You can blame the Democrats all you want, but the reality is that Republicans have been 100% in control of this war for almost 4 years. Republicans failed to implement a winning strategy. Republicans failed to make the case for "the long war" approach. The voters got their say and they voted in the Democrats.

Democrats are going to start obstructing Bush on Iraq, but they are doing it because the voters told them to.

The only good news for you is that I'm already old.

You've got a surprise coming if the bas***ds with D's behind their names actually are successful in obstructing this war. I have no problem blaming Bush for the RoE, which is what will make the difference this time around, assuming they really do liberalize it.

Democrats do a couple of things when it comes to foreign policy and especially when it comes to military force. They waste time and blood. We're fighting this war the way we've been fighting it because the Administration was afraid of the treatment they'd get in the media and from the Democratic megaphones. They were wrong. Bush should have called them out years ago and questioned their patriotism, their judgment and their fitness for office. People like Durbin and his buddies on the left should be shot (legally, not assassinated) they are bane on the American landscape.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

Bush has not shown himself to be particularly concerned with "the media and the Democratic megaphones" on other issues (tax cuts, PATRIOT act, energy bill, bankruptcy reform), I fail to see why he would be concerned with this one. Bush spent 6 months travelling around the country, trying to drum up support for Social Security privatization, even though that was wildly unpopular among Democrats.

The reason that we fought the war like we did is because that's how Bush (and Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc) wanted to fight it. People can have opinions on what we should have done differently, but that needs to be taken up with the President. Trying to blame the Democrats for Iraq is pure fantasy.

how your side fell into line when his approval ratings were 75%, and how you quietly accepted the results of elections as binding and final.

Well, no. Given that you never did that, I don't see how you can with a straight face expect us to do what you refused to do.

Well, that's not really what I said. You have the cause and effect backwards. I'm not saying that people should agree with the Democrats because the Democrats are in charge, I'm saying that the Democrats are in charge because people agree with them.

Your side lost power in Congress, but you are still free to take your fight out into the land of public opinion. That's what the Democrats have been doing for the past several years. Convince people that you are right and the Democrats will have no choice but to vote how you want.

The problem you have is that, at least on Iraq, you can't convince enough people that you are right.

have never been a CEO. As such, they have zero frame of reference as to what that entails. While I have 30 years experience as a CEO but have never been a parent, I have zero frame of reference as to what that entails. FYI, while I get as much information from them as I can, as a CEO I don't give a rats a** about "polling" my employees about a what action to take or, for that matter whether they "approve" of the actions I take. I suspect that most succesful parents do the same in dealing with their kids.

If you want a president to govern by polls, re-elect Bill Clinton by voting for his wife.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

While I have 30 years experience as a CEO but have never been a parent, I have zero frame of reference as to what that entails.

Right, but I'm sure you've at least seen and held an infant in your lifetime. A more appropriate statement would be, "While I have 30 years experience as a CEO but have never served in the military, I have zero frame of reference as to what that entails".

surrogate infant on your way out of here.

iEnvisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

That would apply if we worked for President. Or if he was our father. Alas, it doesn't work that way, so your analogy is flawed.

The reality is that public opinion does matter.

But, by all means, please encourage the President to continue doing really unpopular things. Certainly, this will no impact whatsoever on election outcomes in 2008.

it is just the collective product of stupid and/or ignorant people. Much like the Democrat Congressional majority.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

While I would not go so far as to call our electorate, uhhh, particularly well informed (what percentage of people still think that Saddam was involved in 9/11?), your refusal to admit that public opinion matters and your continued characterization of anything that doesn't agree with your preferred policy as "stupid" or "ignorant" just sounds like sour grapes.

Here's a thought... just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't make them an idiot.

Re-read the subject line or get a grownup to help.

Sour grapes is saying things like "We should have won, we were cheated." See Al Gore, etc. Saying that public opinion is flawed because people are too stupid and/or ignorant to form rational opinions is either cynical or a statement of unfortunate facts.

You have a lot of catching up to do.

As for your "thought", so far that seems to be the case. Thank you for your positive reinforcement.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

I would answer that question "NO". Not because I oppose the war, rather because we have restrictive RoE and have not declared the Sunni Triangle a free fire zone, nor have we bombed munitions plants in Iran.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

That's exactly why these "do you approve of Bush's handling of (whatever)" are faulty. It lumps people at both ends into the one the MSM wants people to perceive.

I'm sure they also have a poll showing 90% disapproval of Bush's handling of No Child Left Behind and would use that to argue 90% of the people agree that he didn't fund it enough.
--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.

I won't disagree with the problem you present, but I think the end result is the same.

If we aren't clearly winning the war by 2008, we are going to be out of there, because no candidate is going to be running on a "stay in Iraq" platform.

Given that, and given that Bush doesn't seem particularly interested in making significant strategy changes or in taking advice from anyone outside his circle of trust, the only logical reason I can see that someone would be unhappy with Bush's handling of Irag but still want us to stay there for two more years, is if they feel that we will win in that timeframe in spite of his leadership.

If you think that his poor leadership will prevent us from making enough progress in the next two years to assuage the electorate's fears, and you think that public dissatisfaction will lead to a quick pullout after the next election, I don't see any logical reason to support continuing the war in Iraq.

While the WH has focused on winning the war abroad, the Demcorats have focused on defeating them here at home, and in the absence of any resistance they have been largely successful. It's almost immaterial what happens in Iraq at this stage.