We are witnessing the death throes of a dying political coalition. The Democrats can’t hold it together, the coalition is too diverse and their payroll is too big to cover. When the dust settles we’ll have a new poltical landscape.

My only fear is a man on horseback selling nostrums from the saddle.

Slaughtering going up there.

You think the definition of traitor wouldn’t apply to him because his “intent” was to make sure the US got out of the war and got out before it lost?

“It is unquestioned that we have long term security interests in seeing Iraq become stabilized, peaceful, and yes, one day, a functioning democracy. The President’s current path does not take us there –

And our fifth step rebuilds our overburdened military to give them the manpower and support they need to face the daunting challenges that lie ahead. We call for an end to the deployment of non-battle ready forces and we include billions to improve the military health system.

The strategy that Reid outlines is EXACTLY the strategy the Rumsfeld (remember him?) implemented. Troops lived in megabases, deployed down known routes (thus more likely to have IEDs) to engage with the enemy, kill a bunch of them, and return to base. Rinse, cycle, repeat.

In November this plan was a “failure”, and the Democrats called for Rumsfeld’s head. THe implementation on the ground changed-troops were added and are now deploying side by side with Iraqi forces. Now that this new strategy is in place, Reid is recycling the old strategy again (the one that he claimed was a failure six months ago), and saying that it is the only thing that will work. He is either an idiot for not recognizing that he is proposing Rumsfeld’s plan again, or he is a reactionary opposing whatever is being done in Iraq now. Neither option makes him look very good.

Due to the strictures of modern campaigning it will take a congressional alliance to break the impasse. The current leadership in both parties will attempt, as they have in the past, to capture and strangle bi-partisan initiatives while paying them lip service so it will take some exceptional efforts like Lieberman’s to make it work.

So if you believe that Reid’s plan is just recycled Rumsfeld (which I am not conviced of), I guess you would agree that it might be many things (iditotic, reactionary) but that it is “bordering on the traitorous,” would that be correct?

“Intent in law is the planning and desire to perform an act.”

Americans siding with Dems against Bush

NBC/WSJ poll: Skepticism on Iraq policies reflected in 2008 candidates

By Mark Murray
Deputy Political Director
NBC News

Updated: 6:56 p.m. ET April 25, 2007

WASHINGTON - As the Democrat-controlled Congress
and the White House clash over an Iraq spending
bill, with President Bush vowing to veto it
because it contains withdrawal deadlines, the
latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds
that a solid majority of Americans side with the Democrats.

In addition, a nearly equal number believe that
victory in Iraq isn’t possible, and about only
one in eight think the war has improved in the
three months since Bush called for a troop increase there.

Source: MSNBC,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18312789

You’re an idiot, DeShawn. Manstream media like Wall Street Journal are vicerally anti-Bush and out to “get” the Repubs. Rags like the Wall Street Journal cannot be trusted with any polls.

Ha, ha, ha!

Are the neocons calling the Wall Street Journal “not to be trusted” these days?

So this is where things have come to?

Ha, ha, ha!

Going from what ONE person wrote to typify an entire group smacks of a bigot. Perhaps you should rephrase your response.

All a poll shows is that Reid and those like him influence popular opinion here. Words have consequences. They demoralize our side and give props to the enemy.

That’s possible. But it could be the other way round, too — it may be popular opinion which is finally emboldening the Democrats to finally stand up and show some spine on this issue.

Rather than the democrats influencing popular opinion, it is very likely that it is popular opinion which is influencing the democrats.

That’s possible. But, when “popular opinion” in the beginning was saying “stay the course”, it was the democrats, enabled by the MSM, who were saying “we can’t win”. If democrats reflect “popular opinion”, why did they oppose it back then?
And who, if not the democrats, enabled by the MSM, convinced those Americans initially “in favor” of the war that it “is over” now?

AB, the traitorous part of Reid’s comments aren’t the advocacy of the plan he opposed a few months ago (that part’s just duplicitous), it’s saying exactly what our enemies hope people like him say.

Reid’s comments improve enemy morale and convince ordinary Iraqis who might be inclined to help us not to do so. If “the Americans have lost” (like the Senate Majority Leader says they have) then telling US soldiers where the weapons caches are stored is suicide. Why help the Americans if they’ll abandon you to your enemies in October?

And no, Petraeus did not say the war is lost–he said that the military alone won’t be sufficient to win. There’s a HUGE difference.

As expected, we still haven’t heard AB’s response to Diane Feinstein’s little corruption scandal. I notice people like him change the subject every time they haven’t been provided with a talking point.

I didn’t say that that the democrats “reflect” popular opinion. I said that the fact that popular opinion is not against the war, is finally emboldening the Democrats to do the right thing (i.e. publicly stand up and take a firm stance) which they were afraid of doing so far because of potential political fallout.

Remember that I’m no fan of the Democrats. (I volunteered for the Ralph Nader campaign in 2004.) The Democrats (especially the Democratic National Committee) are a sorry lot who are only marginally less in bed with Big Money compared to the Republicans. For this reason, the Democrats, especially the Clintons, would have avoided opposing the war if they could. However, now the groundswell of public opinion against the war has become so strong that the Democrats are being pulled, kicking and streaming, to oppose the war.

The Democrats know that if they don’t oppose the war, they risk losing votes to third-party candidates in 2008 who will oppose the war.

I said that Reid has to be an idiot or a reactionary. Neither one of those makes him a traitor, and proposing that paticular plan does not make him a traitor either. After all, it was essentially our war strategy until six months or so ago. If his reason for proposing this course of action is for pure political gain (and I believe it is because it is the Rumsfeld strategy repeated), then that is unethical and spineless. Backbone is defunding a war you believe is lost. Spinelessness is declaring a war lost but continuing to pay for it in blood and treasure.

Marty

I meant:

I said that the fact that popular opinion is now [I’d mistyped “now” as “not”] against the war, is finally emboldening the Democrats to do the right thing (i.e. publicly stand up and take a firm stance) which they were afraid of doing so far because of potential political fallout.

Do you think that ordinary Iraqis are so stupid that they can’t see that the war is unwinnable by the US? They probably figured this out quite some time before Harry Reid spoke about this. (Any sane person would figure this out after seeing that the much-touted “surge” was failing to control the violence.)

What makes you think that “Iraq the Model” represents all (or even the majority) of Iraqis?

Take a look at other blogs written by ordinary Iraqis, such as the young Iraqi woman who posts as “Riverbend”:

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

Seems to express quite a different viewpoint to “Iraq the Model”.

I make no claim as to which is more plausible than the other. I’m merely pointing out that there is more than one view coming out of Iraq, and there is no a-priori reason to think one of them as more plausible than the other.

Some Iraqis think the US can win and would like it to, some think the US can win but would rather it didn’t, some think the US can’t win but wish they could, and some think the US can’t win and are glad that they can’t. We can all find examples of Iraqis to support our own viewpoints.

The problem is that Iraqis who want us to win and still actually think we’ve got a shot are discouraged by Sen. Reid’s comments. Not all Iraqis fit into this category, but there are enough of them to matter. Sen. Reid is encouraging those Iraqis who might help us out not to.

I’m certain that this isn’t Harry’s intention–he probably thinks he’s doing the right thing. However, Harry Reid’s noble motives don’t matter; friendly Iraqis being told by powerful Americans that we are about to abandon them does.

And that was the point, about the blogosphere giving props to the MSM. Dianne Feinstein has nothing to do with it, it was just a dodge.

And I know that the Feinstein comment was a dodge (I can admit it when people on my side use techniques I don’t like, pace Lee). I find that people on both sides are reluctant to acknowledge evidence that doesn’t make them look good.

From what I can tell, Feinstein’s actions exemplified “the culture of corruption” the dems ran against this last election, so people on Feinstein’s side don’t like to talk about it. Harry Reid’s land deal also looked pretty shady, and the only defense I’ve seen his supporters present is to pretend it didn’t happen.

These cases aren’t relevant to every discussion, but they do make it harder for the Dems to claim the moral high ground.

I can’t say I never “dodge,” but I really try not to. I believe what I believe in large part because my ideological opponents so often refute the points I make by evading them–if there were a valid refutation, they would present it.

Re Feinstein: Let’s not forget we are talking about politicians here. My problem with this group is that they treat unseemly political behavior (or even normal political posturing) as if it were exclusively the domain of the Democrats, and that’s simply not the case.

As if to prove my point, I wasn’t aware of the Reid land deal so I googled it and came up with this:

Why has CNN devoted 50 times as much coverage to Harry Reid’s land deal as Dennis Hastert’s?

I don’t want to get into the details of these things, I am just pointing out that no party is above them.

U.S. Constitution: Article III

Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The question is whether or not he is “adhering to their [our] Enemies“.

To demonstrate the point, one would have to find utterances by White-Feather Harry that indicate that he considers the jihaddi opposition in Iraq to be justified.

Can’t say as I know.

Certainly it walks like a duck.