Why no one in the Democratic party is talking about Iraq.

[Briareos]

Simple reason. The surge is working violence against us and Iraqis has plunged. The left put all their eggs into the basket on the surge failing. Does Hillary or Obama want Republicans to bring up the Moveon Betray us ad and how much in the pockets of Moveon they are and then note how effective his plan was?

[NatGertler]

Simple reason. The surge is working violence against us and Iraqis has plunged. The left put all their eggs into the basket on the surge failing. Does Hillary or Obama want Republicans to bring up the Moveon Betray us ad and how much in the pockets of Moveon they are and then note how effective his plan was?You really may want to do a bit more research before you echo hollow talking points. The number of things that you got wrong in such a short message is staggering. Democrats are talking about Iraq. The surge was suppose to achieve political movement; it has not and thus is not "working". The Republicans aren't talking about Democrats at this point because they're too busy trying to decide who will be the presidential candidate for the Republicans.
And when it comes down to the actual one-D, one-R presidential campaign, don't be surprised if the R candidate doesn't talk about Iraq much then, either. It's not exactly a popular war with the flexible voters that they want to sway, and they may not want to celebrate this war which proved to have a false basis and is costing us trillions of dollars, destablized a region, and has left America less safe while ending the lives of about 4000 of our fighting men and women.

[badMike]

The surge was suppose to achieve political movement; it has not and thus is not "working".Well, isn't somebody the Debbie Downer here! Just turn that frown upside-down and you'll see the surge is working just peachy-keen. The Iraqi people are busy planting extra roses as I type this just so they can throw the petals at our soldiers' feet. They couldn't be happier. I've also heard that democracy will be spread all over the Middle East as of 5 p.m. tomorrow.

The surge is working. The surge is working. The surge is working. Hey, if you keep saying it, it will come true. Honest.

[Bob Violence]

Democrats generally agree they want troops out of Iraq. If they start arguing about how many and when, it could turn into a competition to appeal to the Democratic base, which would say "All of them, right now" and lock the winning candidate into a position that would be untenable in the general election.
The war will come more into focus in the general election when you have two opponents with radically different views.

[Spike-X]

violence against us...has plunged.

"Us"? Had Iraqi insurgents been attacking US soil prior to this? Or are you in the army now?

[Lord Destiny]

I don't understand why the Dems are so afraid to push the "get them home now" campaign promise.

"End the war ASAP" is pretty much the public opinion that gave the Dems victory in 2006. Polls overwhelmingly show support for that position.




That said, I think the Dems have no real intention of getting out of Iraq. They know that Bush has broken it, and the rest of America must pay to fix it. We cannot leave Iraq without U.S. dominance, otherwise we're going to have to deal with whatever gov't grows organically within--and I doubt anybody seriously expects THAT to turn out good.

The reason America should hand control of the WH to Dems is to switch to "good cop, bad cop." Bush was the bad cop. But now the good cops can come in and put a less oppressive face on Iraq's nation building. (It won't work with every Iraqi, but maybe enough to piece that hole back together.)

The real difference between Dems and GOPs regarding terrorism is that the Dems know victory is won by winning hearts and minds of moderates (which reduces the number and influence of extremists). GOPs think victory is won by more destruction, more killing (which maybe reduces the number of current extremists, but incites the growth of future extremists). I'd like to see the former get their chance beginning with this election.

[bartl]

I don't understand why the Dems are so afraid to push the "get them home now" campaign promise.

"End the war ASAP" is pretty much the public opinion that gave the Dems victory in 2006. Polls overwhelmingly show support for that position.
Those polls conflated two points of view; those who wanted the U.S. to just surrender, and those who wanted the U.S. to up the effort to a quick victory.

The Democratic victory in 2006 was more of a "throw the bums out" type of election, where the Republican establishment had dropped the ball on its own economic principles and fallen victim to Washington corruption, loading the pork barrel.

[Lord Destiny]

...the Republican establishment had dropped the ball on its own economic principles and fallen victim to Washington corruption, loading the pork barrel.

If you're refering to the previous 12 years of GOP control of Congress, that wasn't so much "falling victim to" as "finally taking their turn in" pork barrel spending.

Once in power, the GOP wasted no time in handing out public tax money--and at a greater rate than the Dems. Once they got a GOP president, we really got a look at what they're capable of. Historic levels of spending abuses (compounded by borrowing that money from our grandkids). The federal budget had become an American Express card that they never had to pay off. How ironic that these same politicians slapped working Americans with tighter bankruptcy laws...

Voters should put aside partisanship and learn a very valuable lesson: election victories have to be paid for, and with taxpayer money. Party doesn't matter. The only thing that changes is who gets paid.

If the GOP believed their rhetoric about small gov't and limited spending, they had total power to change it. They didn't. They cut spending on Dem programs, but the overall yearly bill to the taxpayer only went up.

The Dems long ago stopped being a labor party. And since 1994, the GOP has shown they long ago stopped being the fiscal restraint party.

[Lord Destiny]

Does Hillary or Obama want Republicans to bring up the Moveon Betray us ad and how much in the pockets of Moveon they are and then note how effective his plan was?

You sound Republican, so I understand why you might think every interest group is stocked with major cash. The Heritage Foundation, they're loaded.

But, dude, Moveon.org?

It's a website.

[Briareos]

You sound Republican, so I understand why you might think every interest group is stocked with major cash. The Heritage Foundation, they're loaded.

But, dude, Moveon.org?

It's a website.

um Soros has given them tens of millions.

[rick]

um Soros has given them tens of millions.

No he hasn't and I challange you to prove me wrong by showing when and where he gave these tens of millions.

I'll wait, but I of course don't expect you to be able to prove any of your BS.

You never have before.

[rick]

Simple reason. The surge is working violence against us and Iraqis has plunged. The left put all their eggs into the basket on the surge failing. Does Hillary or Obama want Republicans to bring up the Moveon Betray us ad and how much in the pockets of Moveon they are and then note how effective his plan was?


Tell it to the 40 US troops who died in Iraq last month.

You sad little man.

[Briareos]

No he hasn't and I challange you to prove me wrong by showing when and where he gave these tens of millions.

I'll wait, but I of course don't expect you to be able to prove any of your BS.

You never have before.

He does it all through middle man groups. He gives to other groups who give to moveon.org

[badMike]

He does it all through middle man groups. He gives to other groups who give to moveon.orgOk, name the middle man groups then.

[Briareos]

Ok, name the middle man groups then.

Center for American Progress and America Coming Together

He did this to hide his involvement with Media Matters as well. It's a big web of left wing think tanks and interest groups giving money to each other so people don't realize it comes from only a few wealthy people.

[Spike-X]

Not like that grass roots Republican support, eh?

[bartl]

No he hasn't and I challange you to prove me wrong by showing when and where he gave these tens of millions.

I'll wait, but I of course don't expect you to be able to prove any of your BS.

You never have before.
OK, I'm going to put a link here. I have no idea about the accuracy, or lack thereof, of the information presented here, but I would hope that arguments won't take the form of "that guy is a liar; you can't believe anything he says!"

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TpZZGTGVePE

Bart

[badMike]

OK, I'm going to put a link here. I have no idea about the accuracy, or lack thereof, of the information presented here, but I would hope that arguments won't take the form of "that guy is a liar; you can't believe anything he says!"

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TpZZGTGVePE

BartOh, I don't think anybody is lying. Whenever Briareos comes on here parroting from right-wing blogs or Fox News, it's usually garbage I've heard before. I kinda had a brain fart and forgot about that Bill O'Reilly video and his stupid flowchart, which of course he never gets around to actually trying to prove his claims. And I LOVE that bit about how a website that anybody can read for free is somehow mysteriously "funneling" it's information to PROMINENT MAINSTREAM SOURCES!!

Bill O'Reilly must honestly be a complete moron who wouldn't know what an Internet was if it bit him in the ass. But, I don't think he's lying. I think he honestly believes stupid nonsense and there's a difference in there.

[Paul McEnery]

Center for American Progress and America Coming Together

He did this to hide his involvement with Media Matters as well. It's a big web of left wing think tanks and interest groups giving money to each other so people don't realize it comes from only a few wealthy people.

See, there's the assumption here that there's something to hide or feel guilty about.

But Media Matters is a good thing.

Unless you're a big fat liar and don't like being exposed.

Oh wait. Now I see what your problem is.

[Briareos]

See, there's the assumption here that there's something to hide or feel guilty about.

But Media Matters is a good thing.

Unless you're a big fat liar and don't like being exposed.

Oh wait. Now I see what your problem is.


Except that Media Matters has been shown to repeatedly take people out of context or just plain make up things about conservatives.

[Lord Destiny]

Center for American Progress and America Coming Together

He did this to hide his involvement with Media Matters as well. It's a big web of left wing think tanks and interest groups giving money to each other so people don't realize it comes from only a few wealthy people.

I get a kick out of conservatives who characterize liberals using conservative terminology. For example, there are liberal "think tanks"? If so, they're nothing like conservative think tanks. The Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute actually WRITE the legislation at times, and consider it their job to EXPLAIN that legislation to members of Congress! (I've heard spokespersons make that very claim.)

Liberals are primarily interest groups. There is no substantive ideology that binds them together, except that they run counter to conservative ideology.

Labor unions and the ACLU, for example, have little in common--except that their primary foes are conservatives who want to suppress the worker economically and abridge their rights to defend themselves.

In short, these interest groups are created to right wrongs in society--wrongs that conservatives just happen to profit heavily from. (And if you're a conservative who doesn't profit from these wrongs, what's yer problem?)

Whatever effect one thinks Soros's money has had, Soros himself is by no means a prominent leader in left-thinking. He's no Karl Rove.

In fact, liberals in general don't "lead" leftist movements. They typically agree to be a front man for a cause that's well underway. Liberals much more prefer their politicians to be LISTENERS rather than LEADERS. We already know what we want, we just need someone in gov't to help make it happen.

[NatGertler]

OK, I'm going to put a link here. I have no idea about the accuracy, or lack thereof, of the information presented here, but I would hope that arguments won't take the form of "that guy is a liar; you can't believe anything he says!"Except that as he doesn't particularly back up or source his material there, the value of his argument is dependent on his veracity... and he doesn't have an exemplary record in that regard.

In this case, he's presenting the sort of argument that really doesn't need more than a simple "nuh-huh!" (http://mediamatters.org/items/200704270006?src=item200709270015) to logically counter.

[bartl]

Except that as he doesn't particularly back up or source his material there, the value of his argument is dependent on his veracity... and he doesn't have an exemplary record in that regard.
That's pretty much why I posted it with the disclaimer that I didn't know whether or not it was correct.

Or, to put it another way, if Bill O'Reilly was in an argument with a paper bag, how long would it take before he said, "Well, you have your opinion, and I have mine!"?

[Paul McEnery]

Except that Media Matters has been shown to repeatedly take people out of context or just plain make up things about conservatives.

Um, no, it hasn't.

[Paul McEnery]

Except that as he doesn't particularly back up or source his material there, the value of his argument is dependent on his veracity... and he doesn't have an exemplary record in that regard.

In this case, he's presenting the sort of argument that really doesn't need more than a simple "nuh-huh!" (http://mediamatters.org/items/200704270006?src=item200709270015) to logically counter.

My mistake.

Nuh-huh!