Winning Ugly

[Odin]

Well, according to their rhetoric, the Republicans want out too ("as they stand up, we will stand down," etc.). It's just a question of timing.

Everyone accepts that we will leave forces on the ground. Everyone accepts that we will also perform some sort of partial withdrawal. The two parties are closer than they sound, once you get past the rhetoric and look at the positions.

Thats just it Lemur, in the republicans case Im not sure its rhetoric at all, I think a lot of them believe the war was justified, its just a matter of political survival at this point to be "anti bush" no matter the issue.

The Democrats well, what exactly is thier position (and Im not being cute or trying to play on a popular anthem of the right). Considering thier majority and the propensity of the media to lean left, I would think thier position on Iraq would be crystal clear, even through the meyer of party rhetoric.

[Lemur]

The Democrats well, what exactly is thier position (and Im not being cute or trying to play on a popular anthem of the right). Considering thier majority and the propensity of the media to lean left, I would think thier position on Iraq would be crystal clear, even through the meyer of party rhetoric.

I expect there are two reasons we can't figure out what exactly the Dems intend with Iraq:

1. They can't see a painless path to a better situation.
2. Presenting the voters with the full range of ugly options would be political suicide, or so they believe.

Neither party has the guts to admit publicly how bad our choices are. It's too bad, because the American people would be better off knowing the real score. Of course, I'm not up for any sort of election to anything, so it's easy for me to say that. Much harder for someone with an office to lose.

[Odin]

I expect there are two reasons we can't figure out what exactly the Dems intend with Iraq:

1. They can't see a painless path to a better situation.
2. Presenting the voters with the full range of ugly options would be political suicide, or so they believe.

Neither party has the guts to admit publicly how bad our choices are. It's too bad, because the American people would be better off knowing the real score. Of course, I'm not up for any sort of election to anything, so it's easy for me to say that. Much harder for someone with an office to lose.

Well that strikes me as logical in its application to the political situation of the future ( IE 08 president), in the end someone has to bite the bullet. Its not always easy being the majority....

[spmetla]

I honestly think the dems are so strong in their rhetoric just because they want to deal with Iraq as little as possible if they win the presidential election. I think they realize that if no major withdrawal happens before they get elected into power then whoever the president will be, will like Nixon realize that immediate withdrawal is not feasible. Bear in mind that part of the reason Nixon was elected was because he promised to end the war in Vietnam.

[drone]

I'm surprised we have 15-20 people in this country who are actually trying to win the 2008 presidential election. Screw the perks, whoever wins is going to be stuck with an hopeless situation, and will be reviled no matter what their Iraq policy turns out to be. I foresee a one-termer coming up, unless he/she can walk on water, turn water to wine, raise the dead, AND balance the budget. Some of the younger candidates should probably sit this one out, let one of the older guys fall on this sword.

[Odin]

I'm surprised we have 15-20 people in this country who are actually trying to win the 2008 presidential election. Screw the perks, whoever wins is going to be stuck with an hopeless situation, and will be reviled no matter what their Iraq policy turns out to be. I foresee a one-termer coming up, unless he/she can walk on water, turn water to wine, raise the dead, AND balance the budget. Some of the younger candidates should probably sit this one out, let one of the older guys fall on this sword.

Ah true, but lest we forget Mr Bush will still be about the public speaking circuit and an easy mark for blame. I think its safe to say Bush is going to carry this baggage for a long long time, and his successor would be wise to capitalize on it.

[Lemur]

Ah true, but lest we forget Mr Bush will still be about the public speaking circuit and an easy mark for blame. I think its safe to say Bush is going to carry this baggage for a long long time, and his successor would be wise to capitalize on it.

I don't think "it's all Bush's fault" will carry much political weight after the '08 election. There will be hard choices to make, and the absolute worst one will be to change nothing. I think drone is right. The '08 presidency will most likely be a poison chalice, and if we didn't have 15-20 blindly ambitious people, we wouldn't have a 44th commander-in-chief.

[Whacker]

I don't think "it's all Bush's fault" will carry much political weight after the '08 election. There will be hard choices to make, and the absolute worst one will be to change nothing. I think drone is right. The '08 presidency will most likely be a poison chalice, and if we didn't have 15-20 blindly ambitious people, we wouldn't have a 44th commander-in-chief.

Well, it really isn't all Bush's fault, as I read it. Cheney has a very big hand in this, and again (if my reading is correct) was pretty much the sole reason that the CIA 'determined' that there were WMD's in Iraq. Supposedly, Cheney sat in on all high level meetings and purposefully pushed for the worst possible outcome or conclusion, a few high level CIA types who bit the bullet during the post-invasion fallout cried foul on this.

The American people don't want to know how bad it is. The American people don't go about their daily lives worrying about the safety of US service members. The American people want what the president wants (in Iraq), they just want it now.

Very few people care about what they don't hear on the news. Most people are busy living their lives and don't want to be reminded about the ugliness of the world; and there's nothing wrong with that. If this problem was solved in an ugly manor most people wouldn't care in less they were reminded about it.

Yea, sure I just took a snipet out of your post but it's a point I feel strongly about.

Strongly disagree. My family and friends talk about this regularly, and we all agree that the situation is horrible, and we should be out of there soon. I t comes up every so often at work and we discuss it. I overhear people talking about it when I go out to do random stuff like errands or eat. It's definitely in the forefront of American's minds right now, esp. more so for those who have friends or loved ones stationed over there. My dad and I seem to see eye to eye on this which is a first, he's more deeply republican (though thankfully not a christian nutcase) than I am.

We still think "peace" in Iraq is a farce, mainly because of religious (and cultural) differences. We are dealing with centuries, if not millenia, of hatred and loathing, coupled with a willingness to use violence to achieve ends... equals an impossible situation. No, I'm not saying all Iraqis are like this at all, or that it's only Iraqis who are causing the mayhem, but there does certainly seem to be a much higher level of radicals, violent-minded, and "separatist" individuals and groups who are willing to pursue ends such as those. "Peace" may be possible, but probably only under a similar type situation that Iraq was in during Saddam, where you have a totalitarian regime that rules with an iron thumb. Democracy just isn't going to work, as far as we can tell. Thus why we think we should withdraw very very soon, as the goal of implemented a democratic government is doomed to fail. So is the "win ugly" strategy.

[drone]

Ah true, but lest we forget Mr Bush will still be about the public speaking circuit

Sorry, I just had visions of Bush doing public speaking. That concept just seems hilarious.

True, 44 will always be able to blame Bush for getting us into this mess. What we really need though is someone who doesn't care about re-election, and just does the best thing for the country. Not going to happen, but maybe after six months on the job, he/she will realize that their political career is over, and just do what needs to be done. Regardless, the Prez will have to fight a divided Congress, with each party desperately trying to lay blame on the other for the inevitable fiasco. Not a good situation for him/her, or us either.

[Tribesman]

It might be irrelevant anyway , the mandate is up for renewal soon and the Iraqi government has tabled a bill to remove all coilition forces from the country .

[Vladimir]

Neither party has the guts to admit publicly how bad our choices are. It's too bad, because the American people would be better off knowing the real score.

"People always love victories brother."

The American people don't want to know how bad it is. The American people don't go about their daily lives worrying about the safety of US service members. The American people want what the president wants (in Iraq), they just want it now.

Very few people care about what they don't hear on the news. Most people are busy living their lives and don't want to be reminded about the ugliness of the world; and there's nothing wrong with that. If this problem was solved in an ugly manor most people wouldn't care in less they were reminded about it.

Yea, sure I just took a snipet out of your post but it's a point I feel strongly about.