More evidence the surge is working - the Dems are losing their composure
Interesting. It is notable as an insight that the Democrats don't want the surge to work and don't want to see our political and military objectives in Iraq and the broader Middle East to work. Against all expectations, they apparently are beginning to.
UPDATE: Another example of Dem dismay.
UPDATE: Another example of Dem dismay.
Labels: Iraq war
posted by Matt Friedeman at
7:06 PM
3 Comments:
I really dislike this kind of politics. People disagree on how to get something done. Its just that simple. If someone accussed you(Matt) of wanting public education scores to go down so you could have a bigger platform for your ideas you would think that is crazy. So, if public education succeeds or when it succeeds, is that bad for you? There are tons of examples where it does succeed, has that altered your position on being against it? Well, that is how the Dems look at the war. We do not agree with the present course of action. Its really just that simple. This is the type of argument that really makes no sense and just adds to the strife that is between the groups. If everyone agreed, we would not have different parties. What is going on in Iraq is a mission. If we withdraw, we have not lost, we would have changed the mission. That is all. Its close to shameful for this discussion to be framed as heroes and cowards or those that want America to win and those that want America to lose. That is a small minded argument. Some of us care that this conflict is putting a tremendous strain on the military and the families directly involved. Not to mention is was a conflict of choice not necessity. Also not to mention it allowed the very groups that attacked us to get away, increase their recruits and grow bigger and stronger. News flash.....you all are not always right. There are other ways to be smart and to be brave other than the ways that you all think is best. Not to mention, you all have been wrong a great deal up to this point.
(I was going to post this under the Hanlon/Pollack piece but you've posted something else on the "surge").
In the post "Great news from the - get this! - NYTimes" dated Monday, July 30th, the guy from WorldMag states, "Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, both of the Brookings Institution, have often been vehemently against Bush and his work in Iraq. Until now. They just got back from that beleaguered nation, and they have this to say:"
This is somewhat deceitful. These guys have been pro-war all along. An internet search would show this.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/30/brookings/index.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/31/ohanlon/index.html
Thanks.
Annonymous, that is a good example of what I mean. The public knowing what you said would give them a totally different perspective on the story. I truly believe that all of these guys promote the parts of stories that they want to boost their own positions. I just dont see how in good conscious they can turn around and say they are fair and balanced. Be biased, but just give all the facts.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home