Democrats Announce 08' Surrender in Iraq

[Radio Frequency X]

Demos propose to Surrender in Iraq

WASHINGTON - House Democratic leaders intend to propose legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the fall of 2008, and even earlier if the Iraqi government fails to meet security and other goals, Democratic officials said Wednesday night.

The conditions, described as tentative until presented to the Democratic rank and file, would be added to legislation providing nearly $100 billion the Bush administration has requested for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the officials said.

The legislation is expected on the floor of the House later this month, and would mark the most direct challenge to date the new Democratic-controlled Congress has posed to the president’s war policies.

Is a US surrender in Iraq going to help or hurt the democrats in the 2008 presidential election?

 

[MaddLlama]

Ouch

My first reaction is to say it's suicide for the democratic campaign, but I'd like to see how it plays out. Who knows, everything is so fuxxored that it may be the best course of action. Nobody's going to like it, though, since it hurts our delicate American pride. And, if it does go down like that, then the failure of the war will be on the Dems shoulders. Funny how that works out.

 

[YmirGF]

From the same story:

Tentative language
The officials who described the details did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to speak before the measure is presented to the rank and file. They stressed that the specific provisions in the legislation were tentative pending approval by the caucus.

In all fairness to the Democrats we should wait till the final wording is out before passing sentence... err judgment.

 

[McBell]

Seems like this article is an attempt to slant it before it even gets officially released.
And based on the responses thus far, it has worked.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Seems like this article is an attempt to slant it before it even gets officially released.
And based on the responses thus far, it has worked.

I'm not sure why liberals are nervous about this, unless they fear a collapse of the Presidential hopes (the two front runners are in the Congress and will have to vote). This is what the Democrats wanted, and now their leaders are reciprocating. Why aren't liberals jumping up and down with excitement? I honestly don't understand. I really want to know.

 

[Mathematician]

The quicker we're out of the Middle East, the better.

By the way, the mainstream Democratic congressman hardly represents the liberal base.

 

[Reverend Rick]

By the time the election gets here, Hillery and Obama will be old news. Starting the election this early will just result in something going wrong for whomever runs for the highest office.

 

[kiwimac]

The US lost the war a long time ago. Strange that the Democrats should be punished for admitting that isn't it?

 

[Ody]

The US lost the war a long time ago. Strange that the Democrats should be punished for admitting that isn't it?

We lost the war of resolve.

 

[kiwimac]

Nope,

Not resolve, common sense. Your country had NO reason to go into Iraq other than oil.

 

[Fluffy]

Regardless of whether the Democrats are right in their decision, I am glad that both parties are coming down firmly in very different directions on this issue. Moderation politics is the true enemy of democracy and it is good that the people of America are presented with a proper choice.

I remember the choice we had when coming up to the war.
Labour: Let's invade Iraq
Conservatives: Sounds like a great idea to us

 

[Comprehend]

Does it matter to anyone that congress can't actually pass legislation that requires the troops to withdraw? Last I checked, there is a separation of powers clause in the Constitution. The President has executive power and is commander in chief.

What Congress CAN do is to take away the funding for the war and that would be political suicide. The Dems have already thrown tizzy fits about the troops not being properly equipped and underfunded. The Bush admin could use emergency funds and political manuvers to make the Democrats look terrible on this.

It is just a political stunt, much like when the republicans passed legislation to build a wall on the border with mexico. yeah, good one.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

Nope,

Not resolve, common sense. Your country had NO reason to go into Iraq other than oil.

Aside from childish conspiracy theories, the Democrats feel that they were mislead and they want to strike back at Bush. The best way to strike back at Bush is to force a US surrender in Iraq, because then Bush will always have a legacy of failure. Plus, the Democrats need Iraq in pieces as many Democrats have already met publicly with the Syrians and Iranians who want to own Iraq themselves. If the Democrats help the Iranians then maybe the Iranians will help the Democrats in the years to come. Both Syria and Iran have voiced an interest in bringing peace to Iraq, and that is what the Democrats need in order to declare their own victory in the middle east. Ironically, the Democrats cannot win anything themselves. They will truly depend on the enemies of the Republicans.

The problem for the Republicans is that the United States already won the war. However, after winning the war they stayed and occupied a sovereign nation. If America has learned anything from the great many failures of French, Spanish, and English colonialism, it should have been that occupation doesn't work. Go, win the war, and leave. Why anyone bothered with "hearts and minds" is so utterly beyond my comprehension. The Republican Administration has lacked honesty, leadership, and a sense of direction and the American people are simply tired of following blindly behind the blind.

So its a difficult position for the American people, who lack politicians with any real interest in the good of their citizens. All they want is to secure victories for their party, to gain power, to get money, and to have control over the political culture in the country.

 

[Fluffy]

Heya RadioFrequencyX

If America has learned anything from the great many failures of French, Spanish, and English colonialism, it should have been that occupation doesn't work.

And its own colonialism. America had an empire as well but it wasn't as big. I'll be going to an old American colony in about 3 months.

However, after winning the war they stayed and occupied a sovereign nation.

I would agree but I think that staying was initially necessary having dismantled the infrastructure of the country. It is pointless leaving if a terrorist group takes over since that will simply necessitate a second invasion or, at least, stores up further trouble for the future.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

I would agree but I think that staying was initially necessary having dismantled the infrastructure of the country. It is pointless leaving if a terrorist group takes over since that will simply necessitate a second invasion or, at least, stores up further trouble for the future.

If occupation is necessary then we shouldn't invade at all. Just bomb, assassinate, and so forth. Its important to go after the governments, not the people, and the people of Iraq are suffering greatly.

 

[MaddLlama]

If occupation is necessary then we shouldn't invade at all. Just bomb, assassinate, and so forth. Its important to go after the governments, not the people, and the people of Iraq are suffering greatly.

The problem wasn't that we shouldn't have occupied in the first place, the problem was that the occupation was organized and run by the inept. Have you read Imperial Life in the Emerald City?

 

[Radio Frequency X]

The problem wasn't that we shouldn't have occupied in the first place, the problem was that the occupation was organized and run by the inept. Have you read Imperial Life in the Emerald City?

No, but if it says that the generals on the ground were incredibly naive, then I agree with its premise.

 

[Flappycat]

Demos propose to Surrender in Iraq



Is a US surrender in Iraq going to help or hurt the democrats in the 2008 presidential election?

They're not proposing a "surrender." This politically inflammatory rhetoric does not alter the truth that the military campaign in Iraq is not working. What the Democrats are proposing is a different approach. The only people who are talking about "surrender" are those who are insisting upon continuing a course that will inevitably lead to failure and embarrassment.

 

[PureX]

Demos propose to Surrender in Iraq



Is a US surrender in Iraq going to help or hurt the democrats in the 2008 presidential election?

Well, the truth is that we lost this "war" when we began calling it a "war", and then occupied Iraq. It never was a war. It was an occupation, and there was never any way to win an occupation. I think if the democrats can finally make this clear to the public, the public will finally recognize the full extent to which they've been duped, and for absolutely no good reason except the massive profits for Chaney's cronies at Halliburton, an absurdly pro-zionist agenda of a bunch of behind-the-scenes manipulators in the republican party, and the complete idiocy of a "born again" president who makes his decisions based on messages from God and an unbelievably naive infatuation with some childish concept of "loyalty". It was basically the perfect storm of greed, selfishness, and stupidity that has cost the United States enormously.

The problem is, that the people of this country, especially those who voted for these neo-con con-men, will not want to accept their own culpability in the fiasco they helped make possible. And so they will want to "blame the messenger" rather than accept the message that they, themselves, are partly to blame. So they will not take kindly to the democrats forcing us all to accept that we basically defeated ourselves through our own greed and stupidity.

That and the democrats have had a lot of trouble in the past, choosing candidates that can actually articulate an idea. Unfortunately, the big-money patrons behind the scenes of both parties are working hard to insure that the American people stay in the dark about what they're really doing (robbing us all blind), and so they have managed to force both parties to run inarticulate hand-puppet candidates who they can trust not to discuss the catastrophic effect of their legalized bribery and the government sanctioned monopolies being created as a result. And believe me, they are working all the harder right now to make sure they keep getting everything their way. They will work very hard, and spend vast amounts of money trying to turn anything the democrats say against them. They know that they will have a much easier time robbing us all blind if they can keep the republicans in office. That's not to say that they don't own many of the democrats, because they certainly do. But traditionally, the democrats have represented ideals that these robber-barons can't abide. And they'll do anything to make sure those ideas do not get clearly expressed in the open forum of a presidential campaign. Using the fiasco in Iraq as a distraction, and as a dividing point between the voters will be a very handy way for them to keep the focus off of America's internal problems, most of which these robber-barons are responsible for.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

They're not proposing a "surrender." This politically inflammatory rhetoric does not alter the truth that the military campaign in Iraq is not working. What the Democrats are proposing is a different approach. The only people who are talking about "surrender" are those who are insisting upon continuing a course that will inevitably lead to failure and embarrassment.

We're already at the embarrassment level at this point, but be certain that this is a surrender. It's not a loss. We won the war, but because we occupied the country, we're stuck fighting the insurgency. If we leave now, we will be surrendering to the insurgency. That's just a cold hard truth. Just because its surrender, doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it, but liberals need to begin using the English language instead of the one they make-up for their sound bytes.