Letters to the Editor
-
Another error that needs correction.
On the topic of correcting errors, here's another one.
The Surge IS working. You were wrong.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2007-11-12-ied_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
-
Obstruct Much
One deceptive element to this spin, however, is that it blames Democrats for "failing to pass" bills that actually passed or would have passed--with majorities in both houses--but were turned back by the Republican threat of the veto.
One deeply frustrating journalistic frame that the Democrats haven't been able to bust out of is that it is somehow their fault when Congress doesn't do business, when it is often the Republicans who are obstructing the passage of legislation, not through absolute majority votes but rather through procedural methods, most often the filibuster.
To a certain extent, of course, it's the Democrats' fault for letting this spin go unchallenged. Like many, I believe they should force the Republicans to filibuster constantly and openly by passing bills, holding honest to gosh votes, and have Republican senators read out of the phone book, etc., for hours on end to prevent passage of a bring the troops home bill.
I also am furious the Democrats refuse to filibuster anything, like Mukasey's nomination.
Still, in the end, the Democrats are passing legislation on the war, or would, if not for Republican foot dragging. Congress's majority has spoken--but its minority has been barring the door. The press has repeatedly fallen short in reporting this story correctly.
The Politico fails once again. It's not just the math that's wrong. It's the story line.
-
To NotOrbitboy
What exactly do you mean by "working"?
If we measure everything in terms of whether there are American deaths, it's definitely working.
But I don't think we can say we have accomplished the "mission" in Iraq until the decrease in violence is accompanied by the Iraqis feeling safe to move about, having garbage pickup and water and sewer services, having electricity, having their educational institutions intact, having the middle class return to rebuild society.
This is out of our control. Nothing we have done has made it more or less possible. But we will be leaving a broken country when we leave Iraq, and not a beacon of Democracy that will transform the Middle East, which I understood to be the mission when it was first described by this administration.
I think he Democrats are realistically attempting to change our strategy from violence and aggressiveness to diplomacy. Who knows whether that will work, either, at this point. But there's no doubt that we have some sort of moral obligation to try because the Iraqi people are the current victims of the global war on terror.
-
NEWS FLASH - Mike Allen is a clueless hack
Ino ther news,water is wet.
-
I BELIEVE
The Politico DID mention the one bill that went thru...which was vetoed!
FTA: "Only one of those has passed both chambers, even though both are run by Democrats. That one was vetoed by Bush. "
At any rate, what is being bitched about is the fact that the Dems have NOT passed anything that could override the Presidential Veto...and as it stands now, appears will never be able to do so when it comes to funding the war.
Further, as the surge IS working, it appears they are losing the ground to stand on in attempting to circumvent the war by cutting the funding anyway.
-
It's probably
more like one out of five, if you actually read the bills he is talking about. Hell anyone can say anything they want, since no one (not even Congress) actually reads those things. You can make up anything about them and who is going to argue? The reality is very few of those bills directly tied funding to withdrawal...
-
Close Enough
Okay, so maybe 0-for-40 isn't quite accurate. But a bill that passed through both houses before being vetoed and rewritten to provide Bush everything he wanted on the war does not count as a whole victory. So let's say it's 0.5-for-40. Hardly seems worth an article on War Room to point that out.
As for the 29%ers who have been taught to say the words "the surge IS working" (teaching them to hold down their caps lock for the word IS apparently took a whole week), you might want to revisit the original point of the war. HINT: It was NOT so that fewer American GIs could be killed each month. If that were our overriding goal, we would have obviously done much better never to invade. No, as others have pointed out, it was so that we could establish a beachhead of democracy in the middle east, against which the other regional dictatorships (many of which owe their survival to our direct support) would fall.
It must be lovely to be a dittohead. Your memory only extends back a month.
-
@heyjude and paulpsd7
The purpose of the surge is to reduce violence. The USA Today article I cited documents reduced violence. I call that "working".
Nice use of caps paul.
-
O for 40, one for 40 (sort-of)...
What's the difference? I'd like to know how many of those "votes" had 12 Dems voting no and still not demanding a "colture vote". The recent Mukasey vote, for instance. The Democrats have failed through a lack of leadership, not through a lack of votes. The clear distinction that should be apparent, and necessary to give the electorate a clear ideation of difference has disolved into a membrane that is hard to penetrate. The fact that the "agreement" level and the subject matter of those agreements is nauseating clearly points out the dissolution of what once was clear moral and ethical distinction.
-
Is it me?
At the risk of being waterboarded by my friends here, is it just me or is there a sense that the Democrats are continuing to fight against a situation in Iraq *that is changing*? Isn't it changing? Are the Dems reflecting that change? Are we?
-
Nice try, NOB (if I may call you that)
NotOrbitBoy showed supreme ignorance when he said this:
The purpose of the surge is to reduce violence.
For NOB and any other seriously misinformed people, the purpose of the surge was to reduce violence SO that political reconciliation could occur, resulting in a stable government in Iraq. That was the whole goal. Partially meeting an objective while failing to meet the most crucial part (which, of course, is and always been out of our hands) means that ultimately, the objective hasn't been met.
Following this theme, I can imagine that if the surge hadn't actually reduced VIOLENCE, the 29%ers would be happy to trim down the original goal even more, to where the purpose of the surge is just to REDUCE. Reduce what? I'm sure they would have come up with something. Trans-fats. Carbon emissions. Anything would have sufficed.
With any long-term project, it's crucial to maintain a consistent set of goals and frequently evaluate whether they have been or are close to being met given current tactics. This strategy of Bush apologists to imagine new goals and pretend the old goals never existed, is one more reason why Republicans should be kept out of power, for the good of the country and the world.