Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (61552)	8/2/2007 5:26:23 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Defeaticrats Between Iraq and a Hard Place Posted by Mark Noonan Blogs for Bush August 2, 2007 08:49 The nightmare scenario for the Democrats is, after investing themselves in American defeat in Iraq (and no matter how you slice it, the Democratic party has been irretreivably linked to the "Iraq is a failure" meme since at least 2005 - no way to get away from it now), that America should emerge victorious - and, especially, emerge victorious as we move into a hotly contested 2008 election year - Thomas Sowell notes things about Democratic defeatism: <<< If victory in Iraq was oversold at the outset, there are now signs that defeat is likewise being oversold today. One of the earliest signs of this was that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said that he could not wait for General David Petraeus' September report on conditions in Iraq but tried to get an immediate Congressional mandate to pull the troops out. Having waited for years, why could he not wait until September for the report by the general who is actually on the ground in Iraq every day? Why was it necessary for politicians in Washington to declare the troop surge a failure from 8,000 miles away? The most obvious answer is that Senator Reid feared that the surge would turn out not to be a failure -- and the Democrats had bet everything, including their chances in the 2008 elections, on an American defeat in Iraq. Senator Reid had to pre-empt defeat before General Petraeus could report progress. The Majority Leader's failure to get the Senate to do that suggests that not enough others were convinced that declaring failure now was the right political strategy. An optimist might even hope that some of the Senators thought it was wrong for the country. >>> Sowell goes on to note that even in the MSM, it is getting harder and harder to suppress the truth about Iraq - and how American, Coalition and Iraqi forces are rapidly gaining full control of the situation. The MSM is, of course, just covering itself - this way they can point back to their few victory stories right before actual victory and, ignoring all their defeatism, claim that they gave a fair and balanced view of the war. The MSM does carry a lot of water for the Democrats, but there is a limit - and that limit is being reached. As Leo noted below, Murtha is now reduced to saying that men who have recently been in Iraq no less about the true situation than he does - "I don't care what they saw, I'll tell you what they should have seen", is Baghdad Murtha's latest rhetorical line. I'll add, for our lefties who claim we're being disrespectful of an American war hero, that Benedict Arnold was also a war hero - before he turned traitor...and, in a way, Arnold showed more basic decency than the Murthas of the Democratic party - at least Arnold joined the British army and put his life at risk for his new side in the war...Murtha, and the rest of the Defeaticrats, don't even have the guts to help the side they are cheering on from the sidelines. We could end up in 2008 with a bewildered Democratic party - led, no doubt, by a staunch anti-war candidate, but who really can't come up with a coherent message because the war he was going to run on as lost, has been won... blogsforbush.com realclearpolitics.com