Democrats hard at work blowing the 08 election Part II

[Bozo Erectus]

A few weeks ago I made Part 1, and one of the things I mentioned about how theyre blowing it, is that theyre trying to take control and responsibility for Bush's war, when all they had to do was let the clock run out on his administration, and then the Democratic President could begin the withdrawal.

I was right, and they arent done blowing it yet. The national conversation has shifted from the failure of Bush to achieve any of his goals for the war, and is now centered on how the surender monkey Democrats are ruining chances for victory by threatening funding for the war. The question is no longer about how Republicans led the country over a precipice, the question now is, "Why do Democrats want to abandon the soldiers in Iraq and leave them without ammo?"

Even if they back down now and finally shut up, the damage has been done. It would be seen as a victory for Bush. How he was strong and resolute, and prevented them from abandoning the troops.

Why are Democrats so clueless about how to use the media?

 

[IglooDame]

Don't ask me, I'm still pissed at them for not forcing out AG "I can't remember meetings about firing prosecutors because it was Meth Awareness Day" Gonzalez.

Then again, Bush just complimented him and gave him an award, so all is not lost.

 

[Mark1031]

YOu really think the American people are that stupid? I know I know. But when they are paying attention to something like Iraq I do not think they are as easily manipulated.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Don't ask me, I'm still pissed at them for not forcing out AG "I can't remember meetings about firing prosecutors because it was Meth Awareness Day" Gonzalez.

Then again, Bush just complimented him and gave him an award, so all is not lost.

We're so poorly served in America by our 'leadership'. Both parties. The biggest deficit in Washington isnt about money, its a competence deficit. Republicans are so stupid they cant lead a war to get out of a wet paper bag, and the Democrats are so stupid, they make sure to position themselves to take the blame for it.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

YOu really think the American people are that stupid? I know I know. But when they are paying attention to something like Iraq I do not think they are as easily manipulated.

If they arent so easily manipulated, why then is the war conversation now centered around the cowardliness and cut and run mentality of craven commie liberals, and not centered around the fact that Republicans rammed an ill conceived, poorly thought out war and even more poorly thought out peace down our collective throats, and now dont even have the common decency to admit they were wrong, and instead have the unbelievable balls to say that we have to stay in Iraq anyway, because the troops would be so sad if we left?

 

[Mark1031]

If they arent so easily manipulated, why then is the war conversation now centered around the cowardliness and cut and run mentality of craven commie liberals, and not centered around the fact that Republicans rammed an ill conceived, poorly thought out war and even more poorly thought out peace down our collective throats, and now dont even have the common decency to admit they were wrong, and instead have the unbelievable balls to say that we have to stay in Iraq anyway, because the troops would be so sad if we left?

Because the American public does not control what Bush and Republicans say but what Bush and Republicans say gets on the news. You really want to elect Dems who do nothing because of fear of republican criticism? I don;t.

 

[MobBoss]

If they arent so easily manipulated, why then is the war conversation now centered around the cowardliness and cut and run mentality of craven commie liberals, and not centered around the fact that Republicans rammed an ill conceived, poorly thought out war and even more poorly thought out peace down our collective throats, and now dont even have the common decency to admit they were wrong, and instead have the unbelievable balls to say that we have to stay in Iraq anyway, because the troops would be so sad if we left?

Come on bozo. The rhetoric is just too much. You blatently mislead in several areas. The USA, to include both Dems and Republicans have had a policy of regime change for Iraq for the last 15 years or more. This wasnt the republicans 'ramming' this down anyones throats, congress voted and a friggin ton of republicans and democrats alike votes "YES LETS DO THIS". The entire country, all sides, were pretty much all on board with it.

We were already over there once, unless we do it right this time, we will be over there again within a decade. May as well do it right this time, regardless of how painful it is.

 

[Little Raven]

Man, Bozo, it's gonna be a LONG two years at this rate. You need to pace yourself, buddy. Too much stress is bad for the heart.

You've got to stop sweating the details so much, and look at the big picture. Sure, there have been a few gaffes, (Hello, Mr. Reid.) but the operation remains intact. In fact, it's going swimmingly. Now is not the time to discuss what a lousy situation the Republicans put us in. That will come later. Now is the time to try to do something to put an end to the war. They don't want to try too hard, of course, because it's important that they fail, but it's vital that they make the attempt.

Remember, the best defense doesn't hold the line. It allows the enemy through...and then destroys them utterly.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Why can't we have multiple parties?

I hate the democrats and i despise the republicans.

 

[Shadylookin]

well they were elected so that they would end the war. If i remember correctly there scheduled withdrawn would have started a few months before the 2008 election so really it's a ploy to get reelected. As long as they stick to not passing any funding that doesn't have a withdraw date it should work out for them.

 

[nc-1701]

No, you misunderstand Bozo the Democrats have to do this. It's what they promised, and the platform they ran on in '06. In hort we have a battle between the Democrats in the house, and Bush. Neither can let the other win, so we have a stalemate there will be no funding that both sides can agree too.

Eventualy I predict Bush will hjave to use SCOTUS in an attepmt to force Congress to give him money, but in the end this is an all or nothing fight on both sides. If the Democrats win then the Republican partys will be devastated for along time to come. If the Democrats give give, and let Bush win then the Democrats may well lose in 08'.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Because the American public does not control what Bush and Republicans say but what Bush and Republicans say gets on the news. You really want to elect Dems who do nothing because of fear of republican criticism? I don;t.

Republican criticism is one thing. Trying to use the media to sway public opinion, and completely misjudging the media, and the public, is another thing altogether. Thats what the Democrats are doing. They behave as if the media was invented last week, and theyre just now trying to learn how to use it Meanwhile, the Republicans, who we constantly accuse of being stupid, play the media like a violin.

Come on bozo. The rhetoric is just too much. You blatently mislead in several areas. The USA, to include both Dems and Republicans have had a policy of regime change for Iraq for the last 15 years or more. This wasnt the republicans 'ramming' this down anyones throats, congress voted and a friggin ton of republicans and democrats alike votes "YES LETS DO THIS". The entire country, all sides, were pretty much all on board with it.

The country is always on board for whatever the media and the administration in power tries to sell them. Especially when they arent directly involved, arent sacrificing for it, and are also getting a tax cut in the bargain. As to the Democrats who voted for the war, I would have voted for it also, because back then, we had know idea just how incompetent the Bush administration is. If we had known that the Republicans were capable of winning a war and losing a peace, out of sheer stupidity, no Democrat would ever have voted for it.

We were already over there once, unless we do it right this time, we will be over there again within a decade. May as well do it right this time, regardless of how painful it is.

May as well do it right? MB, dude, the war is over. We lost. Im sorry.

Correction: Our military won the war. Our Republican leadership lost the peace.

Man, Bozo, it's gonna be a LONG two years at this rate. You need to pace yourself, buddy. Too much stress is bad for the heart.

Tell me about it. Youre right, at this rate, I'll be flatlining before the primaries.

You've got to stop sweating the details so much, and look at the big picture. Sure, there have been a few gaffes, (Hello, Mr. Reid.) but the operation remains intact. In fact, it's going swimmingly. Now is not the time to discuss what a lousy situation the Republicans put us in. That will come later. Now is the time to try to do something to put an end to the war. They don't want to try too hard, of course, because it's important that they fail, but it's vital that they make the attempt.

What they should be doing is talking about all of Bush's failures, not about cutting funding for the war. Let the Commander in Chief be the Commander in Cheif, especially when its war he insisted on, and also insisted on complete control without any interference from people who disagree with him.

Remember, the best defense doesn't hold the line. It allows the enemy through...and then destroys them utterly.

I agree completely. Thats why I think the Democrats need to stop talking about cutting funding for the war, and instead continue talking about all of the Bush administrations mistakes. This talk about cutting funding is hurting Democrats, not Republicans. If a Republican wins in 08, more people will continue dying. Job #1 needs to be winning in 08, and they arent going to accomplish that if they continue talking about defunding the war.

 

[Little Raven]

What they should be doing is talking about all of Bush's failures, not about cutting funding for the war.

They can't do that. If they do nothing, then what's the point of voting for them? If they had not won the Senate, then maybe that would be a viable strategy. But with Dems in control of both houses, people expect to see some action, if only for the sake of appearances.

Job #1 needs to be winning in 08, and they arent going to accomplish that if they continue talking about defunding the war.

Don't worry, you and Pelosi have the same goal. She just has a better understanding of how to get there. In order to win big in '08, Democrats have to make a lot of noise, and, in the end, accomplish little more, because they just don't have the votes. That means letting Bush win this round, but only after they put up a bit of a show. So enjoy the matinee. The feature event won't be starting for almost a year.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Why are Democrats so clueless about how to use the media?

More like (that in general) the American media is so right-wing and wants 4 more years of Republicans that they will attack the Democrats regardless.

 

[MobBoss]

As to the Democrats who voted for the war, I would have voted for it also, because back then, we had know idea just how incompetent the Bush administration is. If we had known that the Republicans were capable of winning a war and losing a peace, out of sheer stupidity, no Democrat would ever have voted for it.

Well, its apparent that you are only interested in supporting conflicts in which everything goes RIGHT. Its been 4 years, and yes, mistakes have been made. So what? Mistakes are made in every war. EVERY war. Honestly, things could be far, far worse. The insurgents CANNOT force us from doing our mission in Iraq - they just dont have the capability.

May as well do it right? MB, dude, the war is over. We lost. Im sorry.

Bozo, bozo, bozo. You are like the marine in Aliens crying 'game over dude'. There are some facts that you refuse to see. Only attitudes like yours (or Harry Reids) have lost this war - the enemy does not have the capability to defeat us. And that is just a fact. Yes, soldiers are dying over in Iraq - but being in danger is their job and it is a dangerous job. And although we are experiencing losses over there it is nothing compared to other wars and conflicts in our past.

To think that you and people like you will cave in to defeat in the face of a bunch of insurgents using IEDs and Sniper rilfes is pretty darn pathetic. If we allow this, I gurantee you, such tactics will only be used against us more often.

If we allow the dems to pull us out we become exactly what Osama Bin Ladin called us - paper tigers with no stomach to fight. Sure we got the best army in the world, but no endurance to finish what we start. Pa-the-tic.

Correction: Our military won the war. Our Republican leadership lost the peace.

I dont think that is a nuance our enemies will care one whit about.

What they should be doing is talking about all of Bush's failures, not about cutting funding for the war. Let the Commander in Chief be the Commander in Cheif, especially when its war he insisted on, and also insisted on complete control without any interference from people who disagree with him.

Talking about another persons failure offers no answers to what we do now. What they should be doing is talking about what they are going to do differently. Apparently no one likes talk of defeat and losing and pulling out before the job is done - and yet that is the Dems only course of action. Thats all they offer.

If the Dems want to win the presidency perhaps they should offer courses of action that dont result in the embarassment of the USA. But they wont do this for the sole reason they only see their existence as the polar opposite of the republicans.

I agree completely. Thats why I think the Democrats need to stop talking about cutting funding for the war, and instead continue talking about all of the Bush administrations mistakes.

Again, that gives them NO answer to the question: How are you going to fix it? Constantly referring to others mistakes merely makes them negative whiner babies, as if they never made any mistakes before....rofl.

People dont want negatives - people want viable courses of action.

This talk about cutting funding is hurting Democrats, not Republicans. If a Republican wins in 08, more people will continue dying.

Clue to you Bozo, if a dem wins as well, people will continue to die.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

well they were elected so that they would end the war.

Were they? I know thats what Democrats dont stop saying, but is it factual? Maybe they were elected merely to send a message to Bush, instead of cutting funding. Possible, IYO?

If i remember correctly there scheduled withdrawn would have started a few months before the 2008 election so really it's a ploy to get reelected. As long as they stick to not passing any funding that doesn't have a withdraw date it should work out for them.

If funding is cut before or during the 08 campaign, the Democrats will lose the election.

No, you misunderstand Bozo the Democrats have to do this. It's what they promised, and the platform they ran on in '06. In hort we have a battle between the Democrats in the house, and Bush. Neither can let the other win, so we have a stalemate there will be no funding that both sides can agree too.

This is the thing though: if Democrats keep sendiong funding bills with withdrawal dates, Bush will keep vetoing them, and you'll start seeing heart wrenching hardluck stories from Iraq, where the troops are suffering hardships because of the intransigent, cowardly Democrats. You heard it here first. Remember.

Eventualy I predict Bush will hjave to use SCOTUS in an attepmt to force Congress to give him money, but in the end this is an all or nothing fight on both sides. If the Democrats win then the Republican partys will be devastated for along time to come. If the Democrats give give, and let Bush win then the Democrats may well lose in 08'.

Whats wrong with waiting for a Democratic President and a Democratic congress in 08, before talking about withdrawal?

They can't do that. If they do nothing, then what's the point of voting for them? If they had not won the Senate, then maybe that would be a viable strategy. But with Dems in control of both houses, people expect to see some action, if only for the sake of appearances.

The action was the Democrats winning control of both houses. That was the first shoe to drop. But the 'strategy' of the Democrats so far is only ensuring that the second shoe will never drop (a victory in 08).

Don't worry, you and Pelosi have the same goal. She just has a better understanding of how to get there.

Oh LR! If only I could believe that! If only it was so.

In order to win big in '08, Democrats have to make a lot of noise, and, in the end, accomplish little more, because they just don't have the votes. That means letting Bush win this round, but only after they put up a bit of a show. So enjoy the matinee. The feature event won't be starting for almost a year.

Right, make alot of noise, make all the noise possible. However making noise does not equate with making your central platform the cutting of funding and the assumption of Commander in Chief responsibilities by the congress.

More like (that in general) the American media is so right-wing and wants 4 more years of Republicans that they will attack the Democrats regardless.

America is much more right wing that the Democratic party understands. The Republicans understand it though, which is why, the last election not withstanding, they keep winning elections against all odds.

 

[nc-1701]

This is the thing though: if Democrats keep sendiong funding bills with withdrawal dates, Bush will keep vetoing them, and you'll start seeing heart wrenching hardluck stories from Iraq, where the troops are suffering hardships because of the intransigent, cowardly Democrats. You heard it here first. Remember.

Exactly, we have a complete deadlock, but I don't think it will look to bad for the Democrats. Bush will get blamed for being an REMF IMHO. The Democrats will be sure to give lots of funding, but it will all be conditional so Bush can't use it... There forcing Bush into a corner...

Whats wrong with waiting for a Democratic President and a Democratic congress in 08, before talking about withdrawal?

They were elected on the anti-war platform, and they have the integrity to fight for what they promised to do. For that I respect the only party to do that in some time

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Well, its apparent that you are only interested in supporting conflicts in which everything goes RIGHT. Its been 4 years, and yes, mistakes have been made. So what? Mistakes are made in every war. EVERY war. Honestly, things could be far, far worse. The insurgents CANNOT force us from doing our mission in Iraq - they just dont have the capability.

Ok, lets start by defining some key things:

1. What is our mission in Iraq?

2. Who are the insurgents? Are they Baathist elements of the former regime? Are they Sunni militias? Are they Shia militias?

3. What is the Sunni vs Shia conflict all about?

4. Is that internecine Islamic conflict something which Americans should be involved in, and attempt to resolve?


I look forward to your answers on those four questions, MB.

Bozo, bozo, bozo. You are like the marine in Aliens crying 'game over dude'. There are some facts that you refuse to see. Only attitudes like yours (or Harry Reids) have lost this war - the enemy does not have the capability to defeat us.

Once again, victory isnt about our military winning on the battle field. Theyve already done that. Our military has performed admirably and heroically. the mess we're currently in isnt because of a failure on their part. Its because of a failure of the civilian Republican leadership back in Washington.

And that is just a fact. Yes, soldiers are dying over in Iraq - but being in danger is their job and it is a dangerous job. And although we are experiencing losses over there it is nothing compared to other wars and conflicts in our past.

I agree with that wholeheartedly. Our losses so far are minimal, compared with other conflicts we've had to endure (unlike this one, which was optional). However, I dont think that most parents of fallen soldiers will be consoled by that. Because this war didnt have to happen. There were no WMDs, remember?

To think that you and people like you will cave in to defeat in the face of a bunch of insurgents using IEDs and Sniper rilfes is pretty darn pathetic. If we allow this, I gurantee you, such tactics will only be used against us more often.

Maybe if you were on the frontlines you would have a different opinion about that. I know someone who is. He's just a poor, dumb kid who was in such financial difficulty, that he had no choice but to sign up for the war, in order to help his family. Explain to his family how intelligent Bush is, and how wonderful the war is, if, God forbid (knocking on wood), he's killed, or maimed in this stupid war.

If we allow the dems to pull us out we become exactly what Osama Bin Ladin called us - paper tigers with no stomach to fight. Sure we got the best army in the world, but no endurance to finish what we start. Pa-the-tic.

Heres what I see as being pathetic: starting wars without a coherent plan, and embarking on a peace, without a coherent plan.

I dont think that is a nuance our enemies will care one whit about.

I dont give damn what they care about. I would never send young men to die using the logic "Sorry buddy, youve got to die, because you living is just what our enemies want."

Talking about another persons failure offers no answers to what we do now. What they should be doing is talking about what they are going to do differently. Apparently no one likes talk of defeat and losing and pulling out before the job is done - and yet that is the Dems only course of action. Thats all they offer.

I respect the authority of the Commander in Chief. I believe that Bush should be allowed to fight his war unfettered, until the clock runs out on his CIC authority. Do you disagree with that?

If the Dems want to win the presidency perhaps they should offer courses of action that dont result in the embarassment of the USA. But they wont do this for the sole reason they only see their existence as the polar opposite of the republicans.

The only reasonable course of action is to elect a Democrat in 08.

Again, that gives them NO answer to the question: How are you going to fix it? Constantly referring to others mistakes merely makes them negative whiner babies, as if they never made any mistakes before....rofl.

As I say: want to stop the war? Elect a democrat in 08.

People dont want negatives - people want viable courses of action.

I agree: Elect a Democrat in 08....

Clue to you Bozo, if a dem wins as well, people will continue to die.

How will Americans continue to die in Iraq if we are no longer occupying that country?

 

[JollyRoger]

George W. Bush, January 2006: "There's progress. And it's important progress and it's an important part of our strategy to win in Iraq."

Bush, November 2005: "Iraq is making incredible political progress."

Bush, October 2005: "Iraqis are making inspiring progress."

Bush, September 2005: "Iraq has made incredible political progress."

Bush, April 2005: "I believe we're making good progress in Iraq."

Bush, March 2005: "We're making progress."

Bush, September 2004: "We're making steady progress."

Bush, July 2003: "We're making progress. It's slowly but surely making progress."

If the Dems were competent, they should be able to spin the above as the incompetence that it is. However, the media is pretty bubbleheaded and everytime Bush makes such a statement, they extoll on how much resolve he is showing, without ever reporting that this is the same tease and denial that we shouldn't put up with from a cheerleader girlfriend, much less a cheerleader of a War President.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

If the Dems were competent, they should be able to spin the above as the incompetence that it is. However, the media is pretty bubbleheaded and everytime Bush makes such a statement, they extoll on how much resolve he is showing, without ever reporting that this is the same tease and denial that we shouldn't put up with from a cheerleader girlfriend, much less a cheerleader of a War President.

Jolly, Ive realized that we expect too much from the media, maybe because of the hype associated with Watergate. Ultimately, the media is just a tool, which is used best by those who understand it best. Democrats demonstrably have no idea how to use the media. They won Congress in the last election because of the obvious Republican incompetence, not because of their skill at directing public opinion (which is non-existent, obviously).