Iraq could lose us races in 06' folks...we need to be realistic and smart.

[Clarkie1]

That's all I'm sayin'...

"For Democrats, who need 15 seats to regain control of the House, presenting a clear “bring the troops home” policy carries risks.

The risks are most pronounced in a dozen or so districts, mostly in the South and in rural areas, where conservative-to-moderate Democrats are running. Exhibit A: Rep. Jim Marshall, the Democrat who represents Georgia’s Tenth Congressional District, serves on the Armed Services Committee and has made six trips to Iraq.

Marshall, who dropped out of Princeton University in 1968 to enlist as an Army Ranger and go fight in Vietnam, told MSNBC.com Wednesday that many people in his district have misgivings about the Iraq operation. But “there are many who would be utterly dismayed if we withdrew precipitously… A large percentage in my district would be of the view that setting a timetable for withdrawing or specific dates for withdrawing is not in the interest of getting to the best possible end state in Iraq.”

Marshall said “the challenge is to create a security system that works without religious or tribal or family passion – and that takes time.”

<snip>

Due to redistricting controlled by Georgia Republicans, Marshall’s district has shifted from a 52 percent Republican district to one closer to 58 percent Republican. He will face a well-funded opponent next year, former Rep. Mac Collins."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10366278/page/1/

[rodeodance]

1. I fear he is right. Many many do not want the US to 'lose face"

...Marshall, who dropped out of Princeton University in 1968 to enlist as an Army Ranger and go fight in Vietnam, told MSNBC.com Wednesday that many people in his district have misgivings about the Iraq operation. But “there are many who would be utterly dismayed if we withdrew precipitously… A large percentage in my district would be of the view that setting a timetable for withdrawing or specific dates for withdrawing is not in the interest of getting to the best possible end state in Iraq.”

[rodeodance]

3. and whether we like it or not-the 'victory for the US' message is working.

[Straight Shooter]

30. Yes. Much better that our soldiers lose their face, their arms and legs.

And of course their lives.

I cannot understand people who value the ego of the U.S. over the lives of its citizens. Who cares if we "save face" or not? We are the meanest cruelest super power in the world. A famous quotation: "Let them fear, as long as they obey." The world kowtows to us because of our military might, and of course our so-called economic power. We could lose face over and over and that wouldn't matter. The U.S. is the biggest bully with the fiercest firepower.

We lost face when we invaded Iraq on a false premise. The world will never respect us again, not that we deserved much of that respect after Iran-Contra anyway.

[okieinpain]

37. because america is populated by a bunch of lazy fucks that

think sticking to their daddy's traditions, make them right. like it or not that's what you're stuck with. me personally I don't give a rats ass about saving face, I think we broke it, now we have to fix it. I don't want my kids to go, but I would go if it keeps my kids from having to deal with the so-called adults fuck up.

[Michigander4Dean]

2. Iraq will NEVER lose us a single seat

Diebold will.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. To hell with politics as usual. It's past time to get out of Iraq..NOW.

Another politician playing politics with lives.

[derby378]

5. Two words: Cindy Sheehan

Her vigil down in Crawford would never have taken off like it did if this whole "Victory in Iraq" charade was so popular. Cindy proved that Nero was vulnerable on the topic of occupation - he couldn't even meet her face-to-face.

[Poppyseedman]

12. Your dreaming............Cindy had plenty of support in the MSM

her support among the general public is considerably less.

Most people are sympathetic to her loss, but look at her as bit off because of it.

The democratic leadership is making serious errors with the "Iraq" rhetoric. It is definitely not helping in the 06 house races.

The American people don't want a another "Vietnam like" pull out.

[derby378]

22. Let me put it this way...

Our troops are now dying for a constitution that strips Iraqi women of some of their civil rights and leaves them at the mercy of sharia courts.

Casey Sheehan was one of those soldiers who unwittingly died for such a sham constitution.

Cindy's vigil strikes at the very heart of the reasons for even being in Iraq in the first place. The war is a lie. The occupation is a human rights travesty. Playing footsie with the GOP over Iraq cost us elections in 2004. Time to stop the hemorrhaging once and for all. Support our troops - bring them home NOW. Where they belong.

[LittleClarkie]

17. Two more words: Jack Murtha. And another couple: Paul Hackett

He was talking just the way several of our Dems are talking now. And almost won in a very Red area.

It may be a gambit. And it may be a gambit we could lose. But there's a good chance that truth is just what folks want to hear.

[derby378]

25. My point exactly

There is no war in Iraq. It's nothing more than a turkey shoot.

And where are those WMDs, anyway?

[rodeodance]

6. "Will Democrats offer voters clear Iraq choice?"--is the headline.

Will Democrats offer voters clear Iraq choice?
Opposition party wrestles with consequences of withdrawing U.S. troops
FORD
On Iraq, Rep. Harold Ford Jr., D-Tenn., said, "We’ve got to figure how we can get out in way that we maintain some dignity and honesty."
Mark Humphrey / AP


MSNBC
By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
MSNBC
Updated: 5:10 p.m. ET Dec. 7, 2005



WASHINGTON - Will Americans have a clear choice between two different Iraq policies — one Republican and the other Democratic — when they head to the polls next November?

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi cast some doubt on that notion Wednesday. And that's partly because President Bush, she predicted, will come around to a Democratic view.

Before Thanksgiving, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. a long-time proponent of robust military spending and a longtime ally of Pelosi, test-marketed the idea of a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq.

[rodeodance]

8. "Democrats Fear Backlash at Polls for Antiwar Remarks"---headline

I posted earlier also.



Wed Dec-07-05 05:31 PM
Original message
Democrats Fear Backlash at Polls for Antiwar Remarks





http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
Democrats Fear Backlash at Polls for Antiwar Remarks

By Jim VandeHei and Shalaigh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 7, 2005; A01

Strong antiwar comments in recent days by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have opened anew a party rift over Iraq, with some lawmakers warning that the leaders' rhetorical blasts could harm efforts to win control of Congress next year.

Several Democrats joined President Bush yesterday in rebuking Dean's declaration to a San Antonio radio station Monday that "the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

The critics said that comment could reinforce popular perceptions that the party is weak on military matters and divert attention from the president's growing political problems on the war and other issues. "Dean's take on Iraq makes even less sense than the scream in Iowa: Both are uninformed and unhelpful," said Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), recalling Dean's famous election-night roar after stumbling in Iowa during his 2004 presidential bid.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), the second-ranking House Democratic leader, have told colleagues that Pelosi's recent endorsement of a speedy withdrawal, combined with her claim that more than half of House Democrats support her position, could backfire on the party, congressional sources said........

[Clarkie1]

9. If Bush withdraws from Iraq quickly because of "political pressure"

and it falls to chaos, they will blame it on us.

And they will tighten their grip on power even further.

[eyesroll]

7. In this case, I'd rather lose seats than more lives.

If withdrawing troops from Iraq is the best way to save lives (both American/coalition AND Iraqi) without causing more misery, then that's what we should be doing, whether it wins us elections or not.

[Clarkie1]

10. It's not the best way to save lives.

American AND Iraqi.

Not at this time.

[Erika]

19. Let them fight their own civil war if we leave

We fought ours. We've gotten rid of Saddam, put billions and billions of our dollars into their economy, and most devastating, we've lost well over
2100 lives.

Murtha knows when to cut your losses and fold your hand. W should listen to him.

[GrumpyGreg]

11. I think the pendulum is swinging our way. I just hope it swings

far enough.

[stepnw1f]

And It's Picking Up Momentum

Hell it might just swing right off its base this time. So much corruption..

[Clarkie1]

14. How Dems conduct themselves re: Iraq will determine how far it swings.

We need to be seen as knowledgeable and concerned leaders (far more so than *), not shrill and naive idealists calling for immediate withdrawl without consideration to anything else.

[Erika]

13. Murtha ,decorated Marine and hawk, says it's time to pull out

Then it is time to pull out.

The U.S. won't lose face if we leave Iraq, W will. He is the one who got us into this mess. This was not an honest war and to expect positive results is insane.

[Clarkie1]

21. We can still influence the results.

To think otherwise is unrealistic. What influence will have have if we begin immediate, unconditional withdrawl?

If the elected Iraqi government asks as to leave, we must. We will see what they want.

[stepnw1f]

15. A Decorated VET Asks "Politics or Lives"

What looks worse?

[mmonk]

16. I agree

stay the course. What's a few more lives when we could score a few seats.

[Clarkie1]

23. That is not what I am saying.

Staying the course will not succeed, we need to set a better course.

[Sapphocrat]

18. Why must it always boil down to...

...a choice between meaningless politicking and doing what's right?

Rhetorical question. *sigh*

[Clarkie1]

24. What is right is not turning Iraq into a partisan issue.

Doing what is best for the Iraqi people, given the situation as it exists TODAY, is what is right.

If the elected Iraqi government asks us to leave immediately, we must. They haven't said that. We will see what they say after the Dec. 15th election.

[Erika]

26. We are not the Iraqis Nanny government.

Again, they need to learn to fight their own wars and get their own peace. We got rid of Saddam, gave their economy billions upon billions of our dollars, and well over 2100 lives.

[Clarkie1]

36. Yeah, we need to be out for ourselves...

to hell with the Iraqi people if they don't "get their peace."

Great foreign relations, that. Great way to improve our tarnished image in the world community at large. Go in, fuck up, and they say hey sorry we fucked up but we are going to have to just leave you all fucked up because we are getting impatient with this whole fucked up mess and you never gave us flowers like we wanted.

Maybe an elected Iraqi government ought to be part of the equation determing how long we stay and how quickly we withdraw?

Nah...that would give the Iraqi government legitimacy; that doesn't fit our agenda, does it?

[mmonk]

27. Uh

"What is right is not turning Iraq into a partisan issue."

Too late.

[Clarkie1]

29. Bush made Iraq a partisan issue.

With leadership, Dems can show America another way.

[Sapphocrat]

28. That's exactly what I mean. n/t

[norml]

20. If there was the slightest possibility that their PNAC plans might turn

out well, then you might be right, but since there isn't the slightest possibility that the situation will do anything other than deteriorate under their direction you are wrong.


Not everyone in our party must agree on everything.

Some may choose to be pro Iraq War.

For me the choice is clear.

U.S out of Iraq now.

And no Iran or Venezuela war either.

[benddem]

31. Watch the polls

right now they are on our side. Against the war is the place to be.

[Clarkie1]

32. Define "against the war."

That is extremely vague.

Against going there in the first place?

Against having any troops there now?

Against "staying the course?"

Against trying to leave Iraq as stable as possible?

[mmonk]

33. Why can't victory be

removing Saddam Hussein (purported threat), handing the reins over to the Iraqis declaring them "liberated", leaving to the periphery, and asking countries to fill the void? Permanent bases are going to be permanent trouble. Especially when 80% of the population says it's time for us to go and the new government has asked for a timetable for our exit.

[Clarkie1]

34. That is why Clark and others have called for no permanent bases. eom

[mmonk]

35. I know Clark is a good man.

I was one of the draft Clark people. I just don't want the truth of the neocon vision (and everything related to it) to remain a mystery to the average voter. Clark warned about the neocons, even before he ran. He and others need to speak the truth on the media every chance they get.

[bemildred]

38. Staying in Iraq is neither realistic nor smart. nt

[ToeBot]

39. So we wait for the body count to get high enough...

that even the Republicans can't deny the situation? This strategy of "staying the course", hoping the Republicans drown in the blood of American troops, is so incredibly wrong that it boggles the mind; to think that anyone, of any political persuasion would consider it is utterly reprehensible. If a representative believes that this invasion is a winnable situation for the United States, they are a fool and shouldn't be elected. If they don't march in concert with the Republican party line, then the only conscionable position is to demand withdrawal. ASAP