<p>Best interview I’ve seen with Senator Clinton (and I think I’ve seen them all). From this morning, on her health care proposal, interviewed by conservative former Republican congressman, Joe Scarborough:</p>
<p>drb, thanks for the reprint of “The War as We Saw It” letter from those 7 brave and intelligent service men. Their statement was probably as honest and illuminating an assessment of the morass that is Iraq as I have ever read. Too bad the surviving five couldn’t have been authorized to testify before congress. (Following the good General, of course;)) I doubt anyone in chambers would have felt the need to “suspend disbelief”, or power up the bullsh#t meters if they had.</p>
<p>ID, the “Betrayal of Trust” ad you posted could be a two-edged sword for the Dems. The ad talks about a Democratic Congress that was elected to bring home the troops – but they have completely failed to do that. It wouldn’t be hard to take that one on.</p>
<p>I also think that the phrase, “Betrayal of Trust” is destined to follow “Where’s the beef?” in the annals of stupid phrases. It’s clearly going to lose any impact.</p>
<p>poetsheart, I agree that the letter from the 7 service men is worth reading. The situation on the ground is only really understood by those who are there. </p>
<p>I am a little troubled by this comment,
Doesn’t that mean insubordination if they don’t follow orders? I hate violence, but I don’t see how you fight a war without the use of force. I don’t want to say anything more that is negative about these men. They deserve our respect.</p>
<p>Before any of you attack this article, please take the time to read it and look at the photographs, especially of the children. I am not naive enough to think that most of Iraq is like this, but what a success story this is! And you’ll never hear it through the main stream media. </p>
<p>When you argue in favor of abandoning the mission in Iraq, think of these photos – they are real people, and it cannot be right to leave them to the retribution of Al Qaeda now.</p>
<p>From Post 83…the “Betrayal of Trust” ad you posted could be a two-edged sword for the Dems. The ad talks about a Democratic Congress that was elected to bring home the troops – but they have completely failed to do that</p>
<p>Generally people will vote for someone who tried to do the right thing and failed, over someone who refuses to do or try to do the right thing.</p>
<p>Tommy, some folks don’t understand that you to effect change you have to have to work around presidential vetoes and that you need a working majority in the Senate (not necessarily 60 votes) to work around Joe Lieberman and the occasional defection by 2-3 Democratic Senators from Red States protecting their flank. </p>
<p>Some people actually say “oh” when you tell them this…shows how little many people understand our political system.</p>
<p>SJM, all the feel good stories and photos Simpy. Don’t. Matter. </p>
<p>They’re irrelevant to the broader outlines and causes of the instability. It’s like finding working electricity and nicely decorated state rooms on the Titanic as it’s going down. </p>
<p>Worse, besides being irrelevant, they sucker people into supporting Bush and his Iraq policy–<em>his</em> policy, not Gen. Petraeus’, Bush’s semantic games to off-load responsibility to the contrary–because they provide an illusion of progress that’s based on a foundation of sand. </p>
<p>We’re having some signs of “progress” because we’re doing things like banning all but official auto traffic in cities of 250,000 and arming Sunni militias that have no loyalty to either the USA or the Iraqi Shiite-dominated central government because they offer tactical advantage in Al Anbar province but don’t mean diddly anywhere else and in fact most likely set up bloodier Sunni-Shiite conflicts in the future. (I.e., the central government is not at <em>all</em> happy about us arming Sunni militias in Al Anbar.) </p>
<p>Oh…and in Baghdad, areas where the violence has dropped are largely those that have been successfully ethnically cleansed by the Shiite militias? That’s something you don’t read or see in the “Shut Up and Clap Louder” Bushevik media sources.</p>
<p>It’s fine if you believe there is progress that justifies the current mindless stay the course Bushevik policy stance (wide or not). </p>
<p>But that is exactly why the Busheviks are going to be removed from power and be rendered simply irrelevant to the formulation of American policy, free to work on their canasta and bridge games. The 2006 elections were only Act I of a five-act play. May you enjoy the second act.</p>
<p>“But that is exactly why the Busheviks are going to be removed from power and be rendered simply irrelevant to the formulation of American policy”</p>
<p>It has nothing to do with term limits, huh?</p>
<p>The Republican arrogance is amazing. They lied and misrepresented our way into Iraq, bungled the planning and the subsequent execution, have tried rolling out a new justification every few months (notice how you don’t hear a word about “we’ll stand down when they stand up” anymore? even the Bushevik dead enders see that’s not going to happen), and engage in a propaganda war with the American people to convince us that we really are on the right track…and then they expect us to trust them to clean up the mess?</p>
<p>ZM, not at all. Bush is leaving but his ideological heirs aren’t going to get power and quiet a few Bushevik enablers in the House and Senate are going to lose their jobs.</p>
<p>Freddy and Rudy and Johny and Milty are stuck trying to appeal to the Bush-loving GOP in the primaries and then trying to desperately tack to the center in the general election. I don’t think they can fool enough of the people this time. Bush’s approval rating was at 52 percent in the 2004 elections, now it’s in the mid-30’s…and Bush is going to be welded at the shoulder, elbow, hip, and knee to the Republican nominee. I’m looking forward to Bush and the nominee appearing together at the GOP convention in Minneapolis next year…a photo that will be used in lots of ads. (I wonder if the conventioneers will be given free tours of the Larry Craig Memorial Bathroom Stall on their way through the MPLS airport.)</p>
<p>From Post above…It has nothing to do with term limits, huh?</p>
<p>I would be willing to set aside the term limits requirement the Republicans instituted if G. W. Bush would run at the head of the Republican ticket again.</p>
<p>I think the success in Anbar Province is worth noting. There were plenty of people who said it could never be stabilized and that AQI would prevent any cooperation. The fact that it has turned around so completely is news worthy.</p>
<p>So here’s a question for you who think that Bush’s influence will continue in the next elections cycle – do you really think that conservatives will vote for Hillary? I really don’t see that happening. Just because Bush has low approval ratings (Congress’ ratings are even lower, by the way) doesn’t mean that true conservative will embrace a Democrat.</p>
<p>"do you really think that conservatives will vote for Hillary? "</p>
<p>Haha. No way in heck. By the way, SJMOM, you are one tough cookie! (Said with admiration) You seem to have had a target on your back here on CC this week and you’ve just kept on going.</p>
<p>From post 93 .I think the success in Anbar Province is worth noting.</p>
<p>I agree . so the question is why have we had some success in Anbar how can we replicate it why has it taken so long to establish a successful way of dealing with the locals .is it destine to be a successful way of dealing with the locals for the long term. </p>
<p>I mean there is more to it than to just say of after 5 years we have a success in about 20% of the area and a very much smaller percent of the population . </p>
<p>What is the plan for success in the future?</p>