Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

If Iraq is key to Bush's terror 'war' . . . we're losing

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 01:29 AM
Original message
If Iraq is key to Bush's terror 'war' . . . we're losing

"It is no coincidence that two nations that are building free societies in the heart of the Middle East - Lebanon and Iraq - are also the scenes of the most violent terrorist activity,'' Bush said in his weekly radio address. "We will defeat the terrorists by strengthening young democracies across the broader Middle East.'' Sunday, August 20, 2006:

If Democrats are going to continue to acknowledge Bush's 'terror war', they should oblige him and aggressively tie it to the quagmire in Iraq and his wallowing failures elsewhere in the world.

Bush 'cut-and-ran' from the hunt for bin-Laden in Afghanistan to invade and occupy Iraq. As Bill Clinton pointed out the other day, Bush has far more military and other resources in Iraq than he does in Afghanistan where al-Qaeda was based. If Iraq is now the center of his 'terror war', than Bush should know that effort is hopelessly bogged down in the bloody civil war that surrounds the US military's Green Zone.

Bush sent out Major General William Caldwell to spread the rumor that al-Qaeda was planning to enter the Iraqi political arena, and was planning to highlight and exploit the failures of the US occupation. He gave no specific details, but he insisted that their platform would include Iraqi complaints about unemployment, security, and shortages of electricity and fuel.

"Al Qaeda in Iraq wants to present itself as a legitimate organization and is striving to increase its operational power by building a political base with a military wing," Caldwell said.

"Al Qaeda in Iraq, through the media and other grassroots propaganda," he claimed, "will promote a theme that portrays the Sunnis as under attack by coalition forces, and the government of Iraq as being corrupt."

The general and the administration are working to conflate legitimate concerns about the occupation and the brutality and oppression surrounding our country's involvement there with al-Qaeda in an attempt to paint opposition to their bloody imperialism as akin to terrorism and terrorists. Bush has been flying around the country, with Dick close behind, playing the War president to Cheney's messianic campaign of fear and smear.

"There is no consensus that Republicans are better on terrorism than the Democrats, as once was clearly the case," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.

"Republicans have done such a good job framing the invasion of Iraq as part of a "war on terror," he said, "that bad news from Baghdad is casting doubts on the anti-terrorism effort."

Pews Research's polling shows that Americans are taking Bush's cue and looking at mis-adventures like the Iraq occupation as they judge his 'terror war.'

The report states that, "while more Americans say the U.S. is losing ground in preventing a civil war in Iraq, basic attitudes about the conflict are largely unchanged." From the report:

"The strong focus on news from abroad is having little impact on the public political opinions. President Bush's job approval rating stands at 37%, virtually unchanged from July. His personal image continues to be far less positive than it was about a year ago about half the public says he is not a strong leader, not trustworthy, and unable to get things done. Moreover, the renewed emphasis on terrorism has done little to boost the president's standing on that issue. The survey, which was largely conducted after the Aug. 10 revelations of the terror plot against airliners, shows that 50% approve of the president's handling of terrorist threats, little changed from June (47%)."

There is no evidence that terrorism is weighing heavily on voters just 2% cite that as the issue they most want to hear candidates discuss, far fewer than the number mentioning education, gas prices, or health care. And while roughly a third of Americans (35%) say they are very concerned that, if Democrats gain control of Congress, they will weaken terrorist defenses, even more (46%) express great concern that Republicans will involve the U.S. in too many overseas military missions if the GOP keeps its congressional majorities.

"America's security depends on liberty's advance in (this) troubled region.'' Bush said in his radio address.

We're "fighting them there" as Bush has said, "so we won't have to fight them there." But, the perpetrators who they say are responsible for mastermining the collapse of the Trade Towers were in Afghanistan when he broke off from the hunt and invaded Iraq.

The Bush regime, backed by all of his republicans, 'cut and ran' from Afghanistan and let bin-Laden and his accomplices get away. That's why our nation is still at risk; not from 'terrorists' in Iraq, but from an al-Qaeda organization and network which was emboldened by bin-Laden's escape, and is further encouraged to act against the US, our allies, and our interests by Bush's failure to catch them 5 years after he promised to apprehend them, "dead or alive."

Now his regime is sending signals that they will accept "alternatives to democracy" in Iraq. That's a far stretch from the rhetoric that Bush used to get us into this occupation and will keep us there while he looks for some 'victory.' If our troops are now going to be fighting and dying to protect and defend anything less than democracy there, that's yet another definition of proper use of the defensive forces of our nation's military by this dissembling administration.

It's a huge admission that they are willing to compromise on the most basic of principles that our defensive forces operate under. It's one thing to muckrake with our military under the guise of a threat to our nation's security, but that excuse went out the window years ago. The most salient excuse Bush has used is the defense of Iraq's 'democracy'. Now, it seems, they have abandoned this last lie as Iraqis continue to throw off any product of Bush's imperialism he repeatedly claimed was in the Iraqi's interest.

By his own declaration, Bush has framed the continuing failure in Iraq as a referendum on his handling of issues of national security and foreign affairs. He wants more time to fit the square peg of terrorism into the circular hell-hole in Iraq.

Nobody 'stays the course' in the face of failure as consistently as Bush does. Nobody does it better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 01:49 AM
Response to Original message
1. Brilliant...
By his own declaration, Bush has framed the continuing failure in Iraq as a referendum on his handling of issues of national security and foreign affairs

...simply brilliant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FlavaKreemSnak Donating Member (288 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 04:22 AM
Response to Original message
2. They can just say it shows what hard work the war on terror is

Also I know that not everybody agrees but we are winning the war in Iraq if you count how many Iraqis we are killing versus how many Americans are getting killed. Plus we have been occupying it for like 3 years. It is a total mess. So nobody can say Iraq won, I mean they don't even have anything to win with, so America won the war.

The problem is that they think the Iraqis should be grateful, and I don't think that is going to happen, I don't think even they believe that, but they say it so they can keep up their thing about anybody that fights back against or America is a terrorist. That is really the only thing they can count on to keep up the war on terror, because people in any country will fight back if they get invaded and occupied.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Killing more Iraqis than they could Americans is not a victory
No more than our country's killing of more Iraqis than died in the collapse of the Twin Towers is a win. No one in the administration would dare come foward and claim that their 'victory' lay in the number of dead Iraqis.

Their last remaining justification for the Iraq occupation is their blather about creating democracy and spreading the influence of that democracy across the Middle East. They've done the opposite in that their aggression has sparked a crescent of Shia influence which is undermining their own ambitions in Lebanon, and against Iran and Syria.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FlavaKreemSnak Donating Member (288 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. OK but do you think your point of view is the mainstream one?

I mean if you notice when the polls go up it is always when the news says that we have killed a bunch of Iraqis. I mean maybe to people here that is not the thinking but remember the people that Bush wants to attract do not have the same point of view. And also they can say that they are spreading democracy anywhere they have put a pro-American leader, because democracy means having a pro-American leader to them and anybody in those countries that disagrees is a militant and a terrorist so we have to help those leaders keep them under crackdown. I know the point of view might be different here and in those countries but the countries can't vote and they will say that everybody on DU is an extreme radical anyway. I mean you are not the one they are hoping will like them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I know these folks who voted for him
they couldn't care less if Iraqis lived or died. But , you have to remember that many of these 'blue states' have smaller populations and the numbers who serve and die in thes Bush wars (especially from rural areas) are disproportionate to the rest of the country. These folks can't understand what it is our soldiers are still doing there, and Bush hasn't come up with any good explanation. He's gone back to terror, but it's clear that if it's our homeland we need to be securing, then it would be wise to have soldiers here to defend it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FlavaKreemSnak Donating Member (288 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:21 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. They say they are defending our freedom

I know when they have them on CNN and Fox etc saying that it is easy to say, OK they got picked because they believe it, and there are some of the families that go to marches etc and try to tell people it is bogus, but I bet you and me and everybody here knows somebody who has some relative, or the relative of somebody at school or a neighbor etc that is there or already got killed. And so we have almost all heard real life people CNN never heard of say that they are defending our freedom.

And to defend the homeland they can steal that Democrat plan of national service and say all of our young people can have this privilege to serve their country and defend freedom and help America prevail in the war on terror right here at home. I think that is what they will do, just watch. And so anybody that disagrees with it will look like they are against defending freedom and against the war on terror
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
orpupilofnature57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 04:31 AM
Response to Original message
3. It's worked for Him, Twice
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. The polls show that folks are paying more attention this time around
most folks are bewildered why we are still spending time in Iraq propping up that government in the name of democracy. Kohut's poll shows that they are more wary of Bush's continuing militarism than they are about some deficiency Democrats might have in the Nat. security area. We need to continue to hammer Bush for Iraq and cast the failure there as a reflection of his failure all around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
6. McCain says we're losing but we need to escalate
Edited on Sun Aug-20-06 02:18 PM by bigtree
McCain: U.S. not winning in Iraq

Aug. 20, 2006 at 2:41PM

U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., says the United States is not winning the war in Iraq and he still thinks more troops are needed on the ground.

McCain, a possible GOP presidential candidate in 2008, appeared Sunday on NBC News' "Meet the Press."

Asked whether the United States was winning the war, McCain said, "I don't think so, but I'm not sure that it's turned into a civil war ... I think it's been well documented now that we didn't have enough (troops) there from the beginning, that we allowed the looting, that we did not have control, particularly ... (in areas such as) the Sunni Triangle, which led to us paying a very heavy price."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
Sunday, August 20th, 2006

Andrew Sullivan

Pollster John Zogby opined: President Bushs numbers mainly reflect the countrys thinking on the War in Iraq, and most people have made up their minds that the War overall has not been worth the loss of American lives. Terrorism is an important issue to Americans, but when it comes to judging Bushs presidency, their decision is based largely on Iraq.

Pessimism about Iraq has deepened on every front since the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Last weeks Pew poll found that 63% believed that the US was losing ground in preventing a civil War in Iraq. Among Republicans, the numbers have dropped 16% on this question in the past two months alone. More worryingly, a clear majority now believes that Bush is not a strong leader and not trustworthy, two key qualities Bush once had commanding support on.

And anti-incumbent feeling is stronger than at any time since the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994. One poll last week had Bushs ratings at a new low of 34%. Crunch time approaches.

If the Republicans are to recover by November 2008, let alone November 2006, they have to get Iraq behind them. They have to show progress or provide some credible strategy for victory that is not simply more of the gruelling same. Bush doesnt have one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jun 02nd 2020, 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC