Clyburn: Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War

RightinNYC · 07-31-07, 12:38 PM

Clyburn: Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War - washingtonpost.com

Quote:

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

...

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

...

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

Take a moment and think about what that's saying right there. Really think about it, and then ask yourself what that means a very politically minded dem politician would be hoping for.

ARealConservative · 07-31-07, 01:13 PM

the democrats will do everything in their power to ensure the Iraq war remains a positive election issue for themselves.

SouthernDemocrat · 07-31-07, 01:37 PM

This is nothing but a huge what if. The chance of a very positive report from Petraeus come September is non-existent.

oldreliable67 · 07-31-07, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat

This is nothing but a huge what if. The chance of a very positive report from Petraeus come September is non-existent.

While I tend to agree with you that, to quote Clyburn, a "strongly positive" report from Petraeus is highly unlikely and possibly even "non-existent", I think you're missing the point here just a bit. The problem is that for any Dem, much less the number 3 Dem (Clyburn is the House majority whip), to consider strongly positive news from Iraq as "a real big problem for us," well, that is in and of itself a problem, besides being quite unfortunate.

As for the odds of a strongly positive report, I seriously doubt that an experienced commander like Petraeus would fall into that trap. Given his training and experience, one should expect realistic, objective, and factual, with a likelihood of being more conservative than aggressive or optimistic. Petraeus is quite politically sophisticated and certainly aware of the pitfalls of giving the politicos an opening if subsequent events prove him wrong. If anything, I expect Petraeus' report to be somewhat conservative in its estimates of the effectiveness of the surge, and for its subsequent prospects.

Just my opinion. YMMV.

RightinNYC · 07-31-07, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat

This is nothing but a huge what if. The chance of a very positive report from Petraeus come September is non-existent.

I repeat:

Quote:

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

Regardless of whether it happens, you don't think there's something ****ed up with a leadership member of the Democratic Party saying that a positive report from Iraq would be "a real big problem for us"?

You don't find that incredibly disturbing?

Stinger · 07-31-07, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

Take a moment and think about what that's saying right there. Really think about it, and then ask yourself what that means a very politically minded dem politician would be hoping for.

You beat me and probably several others on this. It is simply digusting. I hope the moderates out there how can put party aside look at this and reevaluate which party puts a higher value over our security than their own political power.

Talk about NOT supporting the troops.

Stinger · 07-31-07, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat

This is nothing but a huge what if.

It is a clear statement of where the Democrats interest lies. They have invested everything in our military's defeat and that is what they are trying to accomplish, else it will be a very big problem for them.

Quote:

The chance of a very positive report from Petraeus come September is non-existent.

Seems there is some disagreement on that as the NYT published Monday

A War We Just Might Win

Michael E. O’Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kenneth M. Pollack is the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/op...rs&oref=slogin

SouthernDemocrat · 07-31-07, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

I repeat:

Regardless of whether it happens, you don't think there's something ****ed up with a leadership member of the Democratic Party saying that a positive report from Iraq would be "a real big problem for us"?

You don't find that incredibly disturbing?

I don't think they want to lose. I think that being proven wrong would be a problem for them politically.

This is all quite the "If" though. It's like saying "Jesus returning this year could cause Jews and Muslims to rethink their position".

Sure, a positive report would split Democrats on the need for a draw down right now, but considering the state of affairs in Iraq today, what is the chance that things are going to turn around that much in less than 2 months?

Phileas Fogg · 07-31-07, 06:39 PM

The Democrats have placed themselves in a position that requires defeat in Iraq for their own success. Some how, Liberals have equated a lack of support for Bush, with a lack of will to defeat a sworn enemy of our country. This poor understanding of Americans, this wholesale abandonment of our national security, this disdain for our military, and our veterans is traitorous and disgusting.

I am a Republican, I do not support Bush, but I do support the war. Not just our troops, I am fully and whole heartedly in favor of blowing these mentally ill, socially backward, murderous barbarians into as many tiny pieces as our high tech weapons will allow. It is their poor collective self image that demands they kill innocents. It is their distortion of religion and their inhibited view of the world that makes the middle east a dangerous and angry place.

They attacked US, and they declared war on US. How can liberals possibly believe we just need to be nicer to them? Truth is they know it's not true, but they also know it's the hole they dug, and they have to claim it's OUR fault, or they loose. They have to lie to America, and pretend their spin has some reality in the world, because it's the retarded logic they went with early on, and now they own it.

Look at any Anti-American Socialist or Communist backwater on the planet, who's rooting for these socialist idiots and backward thinkers? Liberals.

TOJ · 07-31-07, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phileas Fogg

The Democrats have placed themselves in a position that requires defeat in Iraq for their own success. Some how, Liberals have equated a lack of support for Bush, with a lack of will to defeat a sworn enemy of our country. This poor understanding of Americans, this wholesale abandonment of our national security, this disdain for our military, and our veterans is traitorous and disgusting.

I am a Republican, I do not support Bush, but I do support the war. Not just our troops, I am fully and whole heartedly in favor of blowing these mentally ill, socially backward, murderous barbarians into as many tiny pieces as our high tech weapons will allow. It is their poor collective self image that demands they kill innocents. It is their distortion of religion and their inhibited view of the world that makes the middle east a dangerous and angry place.

They attacked US, and they declared war on US. How can liberals possibly believe we just need to be nicer to them? Truth is they know it's not true, but they also know it's the hole they dug, and they have to claim it's OUR fault, or they loose. They have to lie to America, and pretend their spin has some reality in the world, because it's the retarded logic they went with early on, and now they own it.

Look at any Anti-American Socialist or Communist backwater on the planet, who's rooting for these socialist idiots and backward thinkers? Liberals.

Wow, talk about coming into the room with both guns blazing. Hello, nice to meet to you too.