No one will admit to it but Harry Reid was certainly quite gleeful when talking about the extra senate seats that the war will win for the Democrats. He also has shown that he has zero tolerance for any proposed solution other than withdrawal. One would think that if a person really wanted victory that when a new approach was proposed and a highly respected general said that it could work that a victory-minded person would be willing to give the approach the benefit of the doubt. One would think that a person wanting victory would celebrate successes rather than put a negative spin on anything that could possibly be viewed as a positive.</p>
<p>So, pardon me if I don’t quite buy that “no Democrat” is happy with the situation.</p>
<p>What an amazing distortion. I pointed out, quite rightfully, that McCaffery has been highly critical of the administration’s conduct of the war. And that McCaffery’s predictions about how things would go–predictions much derided by your neocon friends–have all come true, while the neocon pipedreams your side offers instead…not so much.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is another amazing distortion. The Joint Chiefs of Staff were all opposed to the surge–to a man. It’s cherry picking to find a general who agreed with it. Lord knows Bush had to fire enough of them to get someone who would agree to carry it out.</p>
<p>But don’t let reality interfere with your partisan propaganda and dreams of unlimited electoral success if only you weaken America enough.</p>
<p>This quote from the far right Washington Times gets right to the heart of why the Republicans in Congress support the occupation of Iraq. It’s not about the merits, national security, or anything else other than pure partisan politics: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If they really thought the war was in America’s best interests, rather than simply their party’s best interests, or–that there was any serious danger to the US if we heed the advice of generals on Iraq instead of the AEI–they wouldn’t be willing to sing a different tune as soon as they don’t get what they want on an unrelated matter.</p>
<p>The only thing shocking is that they’re so brazen about it.</p>
Really? So that’s why Reid called the chairman of the Joint Chiefs incompetant - because Pace agreed with Reid on the surge? Please find me a quote from Pace that he was against the surge.</p>
<p>As long as you are now seeming to declare that the Joint Chiefs have divine wisdom does that mean that you agree with their views on how to handle Iraq - which most certainly do not call for withdrawal of our forces. Or are you once again cherry picking some of their views and decrying their other views as lunacy.</p>
<p>
Oh please. There you go again with your amazingly distorted logic. It is the most insane piece of logic that I’ve ever heard that the Republicans support the war because it is best for their party. What planet do you live on? Do you read the news or follow the polls? This is the same lunacy that came out of the fool from Massachusett’s mouth (the senior fool) - that Bush concocted the war for political reasons. What nonsense. The only political benefactor of the war has been the Democrats and they are playing it to the hilt. </p>
<p>Now, if you want to accuse someone of playing politics with the war, the Democrats are obviously doing this. You’ve got Harry Reed chortling about how many senate seats the Dems will pick up because of the war. You’ve got John Kerry who you can predict his stance on the war by the latest polling report. And then the slate of presidential candidates who all voted for the war now can’t do enough to kiss up to the MoveOn crowd. Quite a display of political courage.</p>
<p>Here’s some more generals that you and Reid can add to your incompetent list. After all, they have just endorsed pro-war, pro-surge John McCain so they obviously aren’t really in touch with reality. Besides they all live in Iowa; how much can they really know besides corn?</p>
<p>Then why are they threatening to abandon their support for the war if they don’t get their way on immigration? If the war was of any benefit whatsoever to our country, rather than to them politically, they would support it no matter what.</p>
<p>In all your ad feminam attacks, you’ve yet to give any rational explanation why they would do such a thing. Is there some reason you can’t deal with the issues instead of the constant personal attacks? Oh, right. Reality does not support you on the issues.</p>
<p>FF, I don’t think the critics of the AEI and WH planning and handling of the war are right because they have “divine wisdom.” I think they’re right because all of their predictions have come true. Including the predictions you ignorant neocons laughed at.</p>
<p>The critics said that the neocon figure of 100 billion for the war was too low. It was.</p>
<p>The critics refuted that the neocon daydream that it would take fewer troops to occupy Iraq than to depose Saddam was wrong. The critics were right and the daydream was wrong.</p>
<p>The critics said that the surge would increase violence in Iraq, increase US casualties, strenghten Al Queda, and export violence to relatively peaceful parts of Iraq. It has.</p>
<p>Your neocons predicted that Iraq would meet all sorts of benchmarks if they only got a modest increase of troops for 3-6 months. The critics were, well, critical. It’s been 5 months and Iraq has not met one benchmark. And the people in Iraq responsible for meeting them? On vacation for another month.</p>
<p>Face it, FF, you’re backing people who have been wrong, each and every time. Their track record is awful.</p>
<p>Actually, this proves that you were wrong. If the Bush administration were already letting detainees go due to habeas corpus issues, as you claimed, there would be no need for them to challenge their status. The Bush administration certainly wouldn’t be fighting in the SCOTUS against granting them the right to challenge their detention.</p>
<p>You can’t have it both ways. The court case is only meaningful if you accept that the Bush administration is letting these people go for some other reason than habeas corpus tying the administration’s hands.</p>
<p>Please show me where judicial review is defined ONLY as a successful Supreme Court case.</p>
<p>Also, you argued that the Bush administration was freeing detainees because the detainees had habeas corpus rights because the MCA hadn’t been upheld by the Supreme Court yet.</p>
<p>That’s a very backwards interpretation of how the legal system works. A law is the law until it is overturned. It doesn’t suddenly “become” law by being upheld. </p>
<p>And clearly, it’s not matched by reality in this case. The releases have had nothing whatsoever to do with habeas corpus.</p>