Search

From the NY Times:

Advisers to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains.

It would be nice if the Left and their Democratic puppets could actually root for victory in Iraq and be the leaders in applauding our obvious successes in our war against terrorists.

Rather than simply “acknowledging gains” in Iraq, the left and Dems are soon going to have to come up with new ways to spin victory in Iraq, as we are well on our way to exactly that.

How sad is it that one of the worst things that could happen to the Democratic party would be a clear victory in Iraq?

____

OTHERS:

Rob at Say Anything: “And, of course, when I say the war isn’t going how Democrats want I mean we aren’t losing.”

Jay Reding:

The situation is getting better in Iraq, but the narrative in Washington remains the same. As our troops and their Iraqi allies rack up more and more victories against terrorism in Iraq, the Democrats keep wanting to pull the rug out from under them. It’s one thing to advocate for surrender in a war that’s going badly—it’s entirely another to do the same in a war that’s being won. The fact that the Democrats can’t seem to understand that demonstrates just how much the narrative has overwhelmed their common sense.

Don Surber:

We are winning in Iraq.

Will someone please inform the Democrats?

5 Responses to “Democrats Grudgingly Admitting Gains in Iraq”

It’s one thing to advocate for surrender in a war that’s going badly—it’s entirely another to do the same in a war that’s being won.

Of course, there is no appropriate time to leave Iraq in the mind of George Bush. I’m not sure what happened to the ‘humble foreign policy’ that Bush campaigned on but it looks an awful lot like an empire to me.

could it be that 9/11 happened?
perhaps you should revisit some chinese or roman history and then you will realize, there are some substantial differences.

The terrorist attacks of September 11 mean that the United States should indefinitely occupy Iraq? I don’t remember the public outcry for that outcome.

perhaps you recall the congressional approval? maybe you should write your representative.

President Bush didn’t campaign on “preemption” either, but after 9-11, it became his approach, to deal with those who presented a clear threat of further attacks. I for one support preemption over feckless hand-wringers, who watch as we are attacked all over the globe with only some meandering speeches as a response, a few cruise missiles launched at aspirin factories.
Doesn’t sound like empire to me, it sounds like nation building after the destructive forces of war, kind of like the Marshall Plan after WWII. Empire, what a tired expression. The U.S. is a liberator, not an occupier. Do we have interest in the ME? Absolutely! We can and must protect our interest. Of course, I realize there are those that say, they don’t need oil…because they ride the bus.

Got something you want to say?

Quicktags:


Notes:

You have 10 minutes after you submit your comment to edit it. Simply click the E(dit) link above the countdown-counter at the bottom of your comment. You can only edit a comment from the same IP address from where the original comment was submitted.

If your comment does not appear immediately, it has been sent to the moderation queue for approval.

Your comment either contained more than 2 hyperlinks, or it used a word(s) that are on my Spam blacklist. Comments awaiting moderation will usually be approved within a day.

And, being that it's my blog and all...I reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.