The fascinating thing is that Hillary's comment could JUST AS EASILY be applied to the tactic Shuster is speaking of, but the Propaganda Parrots have done their job so thoroughly that the press has taken the default position that she was referring to the troop surge.

Now, will someone remind me again how Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson etc. are not a factor...

Pathetic nit picking. Progress is just a negative for the Dems.

Getting as many Americans killed as possible seems to be a positive to the GOP

It's as if they're afraid that returning soldiers will vote Democratic, so they'd prefer to have them killed instead.....

I think that is the nuttiest thing written in a long time. Congratulations.

AA, you're being much too kind to WZWriter. That wasn't just nutty... it's the ramblings of a sick mind.

Jeter, Solon is right you guys missed the point, totally. norotornomotor9010 starts off by saying: “Progress is just a negative for the Dems” . That is a stupid statement. So in turn Solon responds with: Getting as many Americans killed as possible seems to be a positive to the GOP also a stupid statement. Instead of getting the point you guys respond as follows:

Not one of you made the same response to nomo’s nutty, rambling of a sick mind but yet you find fault with Solon and WZ for making the same type statements about Republicans. Just because we disagree with the Republican stance on this civil war does not mean that we are spineless, cowards, don’t get the meaning of “victory (whatever the hell that is) don’t support our troops, are not patriotic and want more Americans to die to make our point about this civil war. Your outrage becomes shallow when you allow those ridiculous statements about Dems to pass but pounce on ridiculous statements made about Republicans.

Pearlene,

norotornomotor post wasn't, IMO, offensive in the same way as WZWriter's post. I'm not too crazy about Solon's post either, but he writes a version of it now & then, & I just let it go. Solon normally writes well thought out reasonable posts here, WZWriter does not. WZ's post are usually just snarky remarks.

I simply don't equate NoRo's remarks:

Pathetic nit picking. Progress is just a negative for the Dems.

To WZWriters:

It's as if they're afraid that returning soldiers will vote Democratic, so they'd prefer to have them killed instead.....

I'm sorry Pearlene I think WZWriter's post was disgraceful.

NoMRo's was a swipe against Democratic policy. WZ's suggested Republicans wanted to get soldiers killed so they couldn't come home & vote for Democrats.

I'm sorry Pearlene, I believe one is infinitely worse than the other.

You feel the one is WORSE but still the same basic thing. When someone talks about cut and run, dems and defeat or that progress is bad for Dems is that to in some way further illuminate a concept important for dialogue? Or is it meant to be rude and insulting? If you are conceding that is the point then just saying one is meaner really doesnt mean much in this context. IF the guy is going to just make rude and insulting mischaracterizations why should I be bound, while doing EXACTLY the same thing, by some stricture to be ONLY as mean as he is. I say if he starts with flamebait its on. I dont believe in slow escalation. Either we are being reasonable and actually discussing things or its time to go.

Solon,

NoRo's post was a politically motivated slap at Democrats, suggesting that Democrats would rather the surge fail than succeed. No where did he imply that Dems wanted troops to die. I'll agree that what he wrote was politically insulting to Democrats.

However, that hardly justifies WZWriter's post which was an outlandish accusation that Republicans would rather have soldiers die than come home & vote for Democrats.. 

Both are smears, but WZWriters is beyond the pale.

If a Democrat had written a post saying that Republicans only continue to support the war because to do otherwise undermined Bush & a Republican had replied to that post by suggesting that Democrats want more soldiers to die to make Bush look bad...well I'd say the Republican had written something totally disgraceful.

Solon, you & I are on the same side when it comes to the Iraq War, but I would never suggest that those that support the war do so in hopes that soldiers will die.

I'm sorry but what WZWriter posted was deplorable.

I do not like this war, but this story is silly.

Well, the subject of the story shows just how silly and useless the press has become. They allow themselves to be manipulated by Karl Roves Big Lie Machine.

MMFA is performing a service by pointing out the numerous examples of this. Even though they are trivial individually, taken as a whole, they form the putrid fabric of GOP Propaganda.

Well it seems to me that "tactics" could cover more than just the surge.

Perhaps Hillary should have been more specific. And perhaps Shuster should try to find out what she meant instead of mind-reading what she meant.

 - "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it's working - Hillary Clinton

Any success from a change in tactics is attributable to the CIC-Pres.Bush. He has shouldered all the blame for mistakes in tactics to this point...so the new tactics success is to his credit.

And probably the dumbest thing ever written here is that Pres.Bush is trying to get as many soldiers killed as possible...in order that they don't return and vote democrat...congrats to Heckel and Jeckel. 

I wouldnt say it was the dumbest thing ever written here, actually not even in the running. I would say it is just about EXACTLY as dumb as the rightwing rhetoric of cut and run and Dems wanting defeat and progress being bad news for Dems in fact that WAS the point. Good job missing the point moron

Heckel or Jeckel?

It was YOUR insult, you decide, it is clear though that YOU are the moron, no ambiguousness there.

au contraire...it was not an insult...it was a fact.

It's easy to post unfounded ideas on anonymous blogs...but try to defend that statement in face to face adult conversation and you will be laughed out of the room...

Unless your adult conversations revolve wholly around those with an irrational hatred for all things Bush. 

Wes,

I didn't see your reply until after I wrote mine above.  

You obviously had the same reaction as I did.

While my conservative views mostly conflict with the abundance of liberal posters here...I don't take fault with their legitimate right to them.

However, to even suggest that every morning while shaving, Pres.Bush is plotting ways to get the most Americans killed...so that they don't vote democrat...is juvenile...unfounded...and oh so ridiculous. 

And yet you DONT seem to have any problem with the cut and run Dems are invested in defeat, progress is bad for Dems rhetoric. See I dont think ANYONE even Bush wants to see Americans killed, I just think that is exactly as stupid as the rhetoric from the right so that is how I respond to that kind of rhetoric FOR THAT REASON. I am sure you would prefer if the rightwing silly rhetoric stand and the leftwing silly rhetoric not be said or be attacked. I dont see that as a positive development.

Alright it is just a FACT you are a moron. Try to sell the cut and run BS to reasonably intelligent people and YOU will get laughed out of the room. So again what I wrote was EXACTLY the same as what I responded to. Not my fault MORONS dont get it.

Sorry Charlie...only the finest tuna get to be Chicken of the Sea.

I have had the "cut and run" discussion with adults. It has usually evoked passionate discussion...but never once was I laughed out of the room.

To make the statement that the guiding principle of Pres.Bush is to try to get as many Americans killed as possible...insuring that they won't vote democrat...will get you laughed out of the room...unless you're dismissed as juvenile or...or...well you know what the or represents.

That would only be because leftwingers are more polite because it is EXACTLY as dumb, which is why I use IT to make that point. You can pretend it isnt but that is only feeding your delusions, no one in their right mind can believe Dems want defeat or that cut and run rhetoric is anything more thanthe same kind of stupid hysterical rhetoric as what I responded with.

 - leftwingers are more polite - solon

Oh my aching side...your own antics have dispelled that notion.

Since we've gotten your self-proclaimed hysterical rhetoric out of the way...I have a question about democrats being invested in defeat.

I don't believe that as a party the democrats are invested in defeat and welcome bad news from Iraq.

Here's the question...are democrats invested in winning the war in Iraq?

If your answer goes to the Harry Reid camp that it doesn't matter because the war is already lost...we don't have anything to discuss.

I wouldnt DREAM of claiming I am more polite. I do not speak for the left, I meant generally. See, you are a conservative and usually a reasonably intelligent one, you dont think Dems are invested in defeat, yet I dont see you attack those who SAY so just ME for MY insulting mischaracterizations. I am lying, in the only way I do, I dont believe what I am saying I am making a POINT with what I am saying that it is easy and worthless to assign venal motives instead of talking about the specifics and politics.

Are Dems invested in winning? As I have exhaustively repeated the military objectives have been met, there are none left, the remaining goals are political ones. They are also goals we pretty much all agree on and only the tactics are in question.

Let me see if I understand...without putting words in your mouth.

You believe that the U.S. military is no longer necessary in Iraq because we can accomplish nothing more?

You believe that the Iraqi government can handle their ongoing political problems without the security of U.S. forces?

You believe that if we pull out of Iraq and the Iraqi government cannot solve their political problems and falls into chaos...it's no threat to the U.S.?

I believe there is nothing more the US can accomplish in Iraq nor is there anything else we can accomplish militarily. NO ONE knows the answer to the rest of those questions. Not you, not me. What we CAN do is make an agreement WITH the government of Iraq allowing us to attack any terrorist strongholds or bases IN their country. WE cannot solve their political problems and that is what they have left. Also there is no moral rationale for staying THEY WANT US GONE, that is without dispute. There is no reasonable argument that we should be telling them we dont CARE what YOU want we are going to stay and help you anyway. I dont trust MY I Ching to tell me how it will turn out, nor yours, but WE have no political leverage to solve the only problems there are remaining political ones. If things devolve into chaos or not neither of us can say, IF it does whether that will last long we still cant say. What we DO know is by being there we are adding to the equation of violence. ONLY the Iraqis can solve their remaining problems and I think that will happen better with us GONE.

Solon, 

Not that I'm trying to pick an argument as I really don't take what you write seriously anymore anyway. However it is a stretch to believe your reasoning to make a dumb comment like you did as I didn't see anyone suggest in this thread regarding 'cutting and running'. Just accept the fact that your point was only clear in your mind. By defending the indefensible by trying to equate it with something else seems to me to be a losing proposition.  Adding insults at then end does not bolster your position but only makes you look a bit unhinged. 

Yeah I am sure you would prefer the stupid rhetoric from the right  not to be shown as such by an equal example from the other side. Try to imagine how little I care. Considering YOUR posts which NO ONE rational would take seriously, we can all see the agenda, excuse me if I dont go along with that agenda. I often make the point in exactly this way, I dont really care if you like it, I think it makes the point quite well. Yes the progress is bad for Dems is the same dumb rhetoric as cut and run and Dems want defeat so it gets the same treatment.

Careful now...remember that leftwing politeness doctrine.

That is a general rule. I dont feel bound by it. I respond in kind. I am reasonable to reasonable posts and I will get down into the mud if that is where the poster takes me. AA has a mixed record in this regard.

Not that I brought it up, but actually "cut and run" is very succinct and gets to the heart of the matter. My guess is you don't like it because the truth hurts. 

If you have problems with the Dems invested in defeat, perhaps you should bring it up with the House Majority Whip, Jame Clyburn. Here is a snippet from Monday, July 30, 2007; 6:26 PM Washington Post article: 

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."

So aim you sophomoric barbs at him if you must.  

Wrong, as usual.

If we are going to use cut and run, lets use an equivelent phrase, stay and bleed.

The Clyburn quote is taken out of context, as MMFA has pointed out. Here's what Clyburn said imediately after your quote:

So I think we, by and large, would do wise -- be wise to wait on the report. None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq. If we are going to get in position to yield a good result, I think Democrats want to see that. We love this country. We're as patriotic as anybody else about this. And we have loved ones involved in this issue just like everybody else. I've got family and friends involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so I certainly want to see a good result. But I'm certainly not going to just roll over because the president said. It is only because we get good intelligence from those people like General Petraeus who can be trusted to give us good information.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200708020011 

By the way, who is interested in defeat it Iraq?

Nightmarish political realities in Baghdad are prompting American officials to curb their vision for democracy in Iraq. Instead, the officials now say they are willing to settle for a government that functions and can bring security.

cnn.com

Those bad defeatist in the Bush adminstration! 

Of course you would see it that way. You warmongers LUST to get as many Americans killed as you possibly can. You need to hide that fact with those kind of false characterizations. Getting Americans killed is the only way to get your little thingys hard. You are so stupid you learned everything you know about foriegn policy by watching John Wayne movies. I fail to see however how YOUR stupidity is MY problem

I must have missed the part about him "shouldering the blame".

Did he actually accept responsibility for the way his war has turned out?

Every single day.

Well, since we know that he's not calling the shots anyway, his acceptance of any blame or responsibility is an empty gesture.

King , Junior has been lying about this war from the beginning. He only admitted that things were not going well (understatement of the year) this year.

This guy says it better than I can.

[link to pundits.thehill.com]

Good article. I completely agree with your assessment. Let me pull some quotes from it so others can see:

The president will win full support for the full escalation without any effective limitation in what would be the third disastrous Democratic failure in the new Congress, the first being its surrender on Iraq before the May recess, the second being its surrender on the Constitution before the August recess.

This need not be. However, at this time, it is the most probable outcome, unless something changes. Let’s first understand that this was never a surge; that was a propaganda term. It was an escalation currently on course to continue for at least a year and a half, and very possibly longer, if Congress submits again.

Let’s get this straight: Any success in Anbar is not because of the surge, but because of the deals made with Sunni insurgents who shortly before the deals were killing Americans, and who are now receiving American aid. This would have happened with or without the surge.

...

At every step, every American commander became the most brilliant, even when their private advice was ignored. Every successive American commander had his hour of profound deification, when they were the smartest, the best, the greatest. Generals Franks, Abizaid, Sanchez, Casey and now Petraeus were all deified by the propaganda machine and turned into public-relations pawns for continued disastrous war.

Our current commander, Gen. Petraeus, is a great military thinker from a great military organization, the 101st Airborne, with a near-perfect record of failure in Iraq. His original efforts early in the war led to ultimate sectarian conflict within his regional command. His next mission for training Iraqis to “step up so we step down” was terribly failed, obviously. He allowed American weapons to fall into the hands of our enemies through mismanagement during his tenure.

 ---

What I can't stand to see is the liberals and Dems falling for the administration propaganda all over again.