Ending The Iraq Debacle Is What The American People Want

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 11:11:35 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In discussing the coverage of Senator Harry Reid telling the truth about Iraq, Atrios has two posts that understand that Democrats' ending the war is what the American People want:

People hate Bush and hate this war and the more the Democrats are associated with that view the more support they'll have.

Exactly and this applies to funding the Debacle as well. If Democrats will embrace Reid-Feingold it will be a political boon to their fortunes. Let the GOP and Bush wail that Dems want to end the war, or in the false rhetoirc they will use - "abandon the troops." The American People want to abandon IRAQ.

Whatever the merits of the policy, understand that, the American People want out. Atrios, citing Bill Schneider with the data I have posted here previously:

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST (voice-over): Americans do not want to fight an unwinnable war. That's why back in 2005, President Bush said --
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And we'll accept nothing less than complete victory.

SCHNEIDER: The president speaks about the war a little differently now.

BUSH: It's really important as we -- that we have a sober discussion and understand what will be the consequences of failure.

SCHNEIDER: Pessimism about Iraq has continued to mount, even before the news of Wednesday's bombings in Baghdad. In a CNN opinion research center poll taken last week, 69 percent of Americans said things are going badly for the United States in Iraq. That's the most negative assessment yet recorded, up from 54 percent who though things were going badly last June and 62 percent in October. The public's view -- it's not working. Senator Reid put it bluntly.

SEN. HARRY REID, (D-NV) MAJORITY LEADER: As long as we follow the president's path in Iraq, the war is lost.

SCHNEIDER: Senator McCain objected.

VOICE OF SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, (R-AZ) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: That's not the view of the men and women who are putting their lives on the line as we speak.

SCHNEIDER: Do Americans believe the U.S. is winning the war in Iraq? Last month they said no by better than two to one. Do Americans believe the U.S. will win? No. Do Americans believe the U.S. can win? The public is split. They're not sure. So Reid said --

REID: But there's still a chance to change course and we must change course.
SCHNEIDER: Which side does the public take in this standoff? It's not even close. Sixty percent of Americans say they side with the Democrats in Congress, thirty-seven percent with the president.

The Democrats are on the verge of kicking away a politically realigning issue.

As Atrios says, the stupidity, it burns.

< When A Journalist Editorialized On A War | Iggy Pop Turns 60, Still Rocking On >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Ending The Iraq Debacle Is What The American People Want | 25 comments (25 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Also, note that Reid's statement (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by Warren Terrer on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 11:50:24 AM EST

appears to have been "As long as we follow the president's path in Iraq, the war is lost." Yet the pundits are all following the GOP spin (lie) that all he said was 'the war is lost'.

I went back and re-watched (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by andgarden on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 12:11:00 PM EST

the 60 Minutes profile of Nancy Pelosi from the fall. She explicitly understood your "politics of contrast." Somehow I think that percieved political expediency has caused her to lose sight of that.

"You know, we're professionals. We're professionals. You could go through a long list of things his surrogates have said about me. I know they have to do what they have to do, and they know I have to do what I have to do. And what I have to do is make a distinction in the public that's between the Democrats and the Republicans in order to win," Pelosi says. "This isn't personal."

Why hasn't it been embraced," already? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Lora on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 12:55:56 PM EST

What's the hold-up on Reid-Feingold, then?

For once I'd like the DC (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by mentaldebris on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 01:22:32 PM EST

Democrats to change course and stop their quest to once again snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.

60% - SIXTY PERCENT!!!!

What on earth makes them think they even have to give an inch to BushCo? The veto would paint him as unreasonable, not the other way around. The public are watching actions and ignoring pundits on this one. It would do the Democrats good to follow the lead of the public majority and stop listening to the squeaky-wheeled minority once and for all.

: Yes, 60% mind completely made up (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 02:12:55 PM EST

to 37% mind completely made up and 3% probably want to stay the heck out of this disaster! Sixty to thirty-seven and we are convinced that we must scrape, we must grovel, we must beg and plead and break ourselves against the unyielding wall that is our own lack of self confidence and self worth.

[ Parent ]

Jarober (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by Che's Lounge on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 10:40:07 PM EST

If we had anything like a united front on Iraq, the enemy would be losing morale, not gaining it.

This country overwhelmingly supported the invasion and occupation all through 2003. The small minority of us who objected were derided on the internet, and suppressed by the drumbeat media. Think Phil Donahue.

Your massive failure in Iraq is a result firstly of an insufficient amount of troops, then of a failed post war strategy. IMO even that would not have worked. You RWNJ's thought the anti-war movement was a small, insignificant bunch of unpatriotic sympathizers who comprised a minority opinion. You had all the backing you needed from the sheeple. Your leaders f**cked up. Now you blame us for railroading Bush's war. How tidy for your world. Since 2003, 50% of the american public has reversed their opinion on the continuation of the occupation. Are you suggesting that my comments here have helped make that happen?

Sorry bud, but I'm not your boogey man. Better check under the bed one more time.

Two things (1.00 / 2) (#16)
by jarober on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 08:31:33 PM EST

To Molly - no, it's not a bloodbath at the moment. The current wave of bombings is an attempt to counter the surge, and to demoralize. It has no military significance; it's an information war operation, and the target is people like you - and most everyone else on this forum. If we leave, it will look like Cambodia or Rwanda - not like the current nightmare.

To this:

"to talk with countries like Syria, Iran, etc. (as Pelosi and others are trying to do) and bring them together to plan how to keep Iraq from falling deeper into chaos that will spill beyond its borders into regional conflagration. All of Iraq's neighbors have an interest in that, except perhaps Israel. "

You must be kidding me. Iran is funding an awful lof of the chaos, because it serves their interests - as it serves Syria, who is also helping with weapons. Iran wants to see the country split, where they get to hold the Shia south as a puppet state - and boy, if that works out, it will be a real good thing for the rest of the world, having that oil controlled by them. Stability is what we would like - it's not at all what Syria or Iran want.

Also, at this point - why should they negotiate? Leading Democrats like Reid are signalling surrender. What that actually does is prolong the chaos, as the bad actors are more and more sure each day that they can outlast us. If we had anything like a united front on Iraq, the enemy would be losing morale, not gaining it.

: Nobody is buying anymore jarobster. (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by Edger on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 08:35:15 PM EST

You're a few years behind the times.

[ Parent ]
: you just causally blew off 68,000 people (5.00 / 4) (#21)
by Molly Bloom on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 09:29:33 PM EST

What makes you different than Saddam?
Why don't you consider 68,000 dead a bloodbath?

[ Parent ]
: Iran may be taking advantage (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by Alien Abductee on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 10:45:59 PM EST

of the current chaos, but they have no interest in having it spill across their own borders. The US is who destabilized the region by taking out Iraq as the counterbalance to Iran. Duh.

[ Parent ]
: The whole belief that this Administration is tough (none / 0) (#19)
by Freewill on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 08:46:57 PM EST

on defense should now be viewed as ignorant, cheap, idiots!

"Iran wants to see the country split, where they get to hold the Shia south as a puppet state - and boy, if that works out, it will be a real good thing for the rest of the world, having that oil controlled by them. Stability is what we would like - it's not at all what Syria or Iran want."
Wow, and to think our current Government never ever thought that this could become a reality when they decided to start this whole damn mess. How long have they been planning such an evasion of Iraq? Please don't tell us they started planning just after 9/11 because that is full of crap!
Why would we ever put ourselves into a position that could potentially embolden Iran and Syria? Why did we risk all these marbles in the first place at the same time as our current Government was doing everything on the cheap?
Strange way to be tough on National Defense!

[ Parent ]

So... (none / 0) (#5)
by jarober on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 02:07:05 PM EST

So let's say you get what you want, and we defund and pull out. In the wake of that, you'll see a bloodbath on the scale of Cambodia or Rwanda, as full scale Sunni/Shia violence erupts, likely drawing in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

When that happens, you can try to point fingers and say "we should never have gone in" all you want, but that's a dumb remark at this point. Whether we should have gone in or not no longer matters - we are in. All that matters from here on out are the consequences of our future actions. What you want to do is pretend that we can pull out and call "do over", returning to to the 2003 status quo ante. That's not possible.

I would say that all depends on how (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 02:22:08 PM EST

we pull out of there. Look, the Dems didn't lie their burros off and terrorize the people of America just so they could steal the treasure and the troops, run around to the other side of the globe and proceed to play Large Board RISK with real blood splatters. All that we can do is our best to end what should have never happened. All we can do is mend to the best of our abilities what should have never been broken and was broken by the biggest pack of sociopathic liars since the Nixon Administration.......oops, sorry, forgot......it was "The Nixon Administration Part II, A Second Shot at Kingly Executive Power".

[ Parent ]

Bloodbath? (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by Molly Bloom on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 03:24:23 PM EST

What do you call approximately 62,281 to 68,289 dead?

Bloodbath??!!

On Monday 9 April 45 lose their lives. Tens of thousands of peaceful protesters waving Iraqi flags and calling for US forces to leave Iraq march into Najaf, marking the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. Torching American flags, Shiites and Sunnis voice their anger and frustration over the US government's record in Iraq since it led the invasion in 2003. The march comes as a response to a call by Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who has demanded that US forces leave the country.
Sadr's statement to the crowds read: `So far 48 months of anxiety, oppression and occupational tyranny have passed, four years which have only brought us more death, destruction and humiliation...Every day tens are martyred, tens are crippled, and every day we see and hear US interference in every aspect of our lives, which means that we are not sovereign, not independent and therefore not free. This is what Iraq has harvested from the US invasion' (Los Angeles Times, April 10 2007). The speech, delivered by cleric Abdelhadi al-Mohammadawi, was interrupted by chants of `Leave, leave occupier' and `No, no, to the occupation.'
On Tuesday 10 April 85 civilians are reported dead, 19 of them police recruits blown up by a suicide bomber at a police station in Muqdadiya. A shocking 34 are reported dead in a US/Iraqi raid in Baghdad, while 16 are found bound, tortured and executed in Baghdad, Falluja, Mahaweel and Kirkuk.
On the most peaceful day of the week, 42 die on Wednesday 11 April. The dead include 5 policemen, a mother and her son killed in Mosul, a teacher shot dead in Baghdad, a radio journalist and her husband. Over 30 more bodies are found, while 18 unidentified bodies are buried in Kut.
Over 50 are killed on Thursday 12 April. A suicide truck bomber kills 11 and blows up al-Sarafiya bridge in Baghdad. Up to 8 are reported killed when a bomb explodes in the Iraqi Parliament, inside the Green Zone. Among the dead on Thursday, 3 people killed during a US raid in Haditha and 13 bodies discovered in Baghdad and Kut.
Around 70 more are killed on Friday 13 April. Among the dead, an imam killed with his brother on their way to the mosque in Mosul, a woman and her child blown up by a roadside bomb in Baghdad, 2 interpreters killed in an attack on US soldiers, and over 20 bodies found in Baghdad and Mosul.
Saturday 14 April is the worst day of the week, when around 110 die. A suicide bomber blows up a car at a busy bus station in Karbala, killing 47 civilians, 16 of them children. A further 4 are killed in clashes with the police after the bombing. Another car bomb kills 10 at Jadriya bridge in Baghdad, while police find 28 bodies in Baghdad, Kirkuk, Kut and Mosul.
The week ends with nearly 100 victims of violence on Sunday 15 April, 80 of them in Baghdad. Among the victims 3 children, blown up by car bombs that kill 18 in the Shurta al-Rabia area of Baghdad.

Wake up. Smell the coffee. There is already a bloodbath in Iraq. Our staying longer won't make it better. How long do you propose we stay and how many dead Americans are acceptable to stop the bloodbath that is already happening?

[ Parent ]

: it's a bloodbath when saddam does it ... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Sailor on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 09:31:09 AM EST

... it's collateral damage when we do it.[/sarcasm]

[ Parent ]

That's why it's important (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by Alien Abductee on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 03:25:56 PM EST

to talk with countries like Syria, Iran, etc. (as Pelosi and others are trying to do) and bring them together to plan how to keep Iraq from falling deeper into chaos that will spill beyond its borders into regional conflagration. All of Iraq's neighbors have an interest in that, except perhaps Israel.

[ Parent ]

First, we never should have gone in (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 04:01:03 PM EST

no MATTER WHAT HAPPENS.

Do you accept that now? IT is a dumb remark for those who supported going in, namely you no doubt.

Accept that statme nt now and then we can talok.

Unitl you do what is the point?

[ Parent ]

: Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 09:25:33 PM EST

At this point Jarober, your batting average is in the garbage. Recant your initial cheerleading for the war and it may help color your argument.
We are waiting......
As far as I see it, the chances of the violence dying down are greater once we leave. Once big daddy leaves Iraq then the kiddies will come to the table and take back their country. The religious and seciar leaders can work out an agreement where all Iraqis benefit.
Iraq can work out how to spend the oil money and figure out which stratgic alliances are in their own best interests. At this point they have no choice as we are occupying their country. Every day that we remain in Iraq decreases the likely hood that we will part on good terms.
Once we are gone al qaida in Iraq will wither away. The remaining terror will largely be a US funded venture. Just like in Iran.

[ Parent ]

How Would NOT Funding Work, Exactly? (none / 0) (#8)
by CauseDisturbance on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 03:05:14 PM EST

Hey Armando:

I really like your idea but I think it needs to be fleshed out to convince the usual party pragmatists.

Have you worked out the details of how not-passing legislation works? I'm just wondering if there might be a flaw in your plan. I'm not aware of one, but I'm not an expert on legislative procedure.

Are you saying that the Democrats should fund everything else through the normal procedures but leave Iraq funding out and have it be effectively defunded when the funding runs out? Is that possible within current budget making procedures?

I hear what you're saying about not needing a majority to not do something, but do we need a majority to keep the Republicans from doing something? Is one possible flaw that the blue dogs join with the Republicans and form a majority coalition against us?

One possible solution might be a senate filibuster to prevent any Iraq funding from passing. But filibusters are difficult. Can we simply rely on other procedural tactics? Can the Leadership just not schedule a vote?

Do nothing means do nothing. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Edger on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 07:13:42 PM EST

The idea at it's most basic is simple. Do nothing. Simply do not fund it beyond a date certain. Pass a minimal appropriation, enough to cover it till date certain and not beyond, then have Pelosi et al state publicly that that is it. No more money after date certain. Period.

[ Parent ]

Yes (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 08:07:42 PM EST

See the links and my 8 million posts on the subject.

[ Parent ]

Closer to nine, no? ;-) (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Edger on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 08:09:53 PM EST

Well (5.00 / 3) (#15)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 08:11:21 PM EST

Let's round it off at a gazillion.

[ Parent ]

: Mebbe a bit more than that (5.00 / 3) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 10:02:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]

It needs one other thing. (5.00 / 4) (#17)
by Edger on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 08:33:44 PM EST

A Democratic Leadership that WANTS to end the debacle - which needs enough pressure from enough people for them to realize that the consequences next year of not "not" funding it are something they can't escape.

[ Parent ]