The Final Rovian Paradox

[Jaime]

I don't know if Karl Rove engineered it, but I want to whole heartedly encourage all Democrats to please continue your present stance on the Iraq war and especially continue and even increase the attacks on the President as well as General Petraeus.

  You mere mortal political wonks are no match for the evil genious!!

[navyvet]

I don't know if Karl Rove engineered it, but I want to whole heartedly encourage all Democrats to please continue your present stance on the Iraq war and especially continue and even increase the attacks on the President as well as General Petraeus.

You mere mortal political wonks are no match for the evil genious!!

After last night's Presidential address, short-titled "War without end, amen, amen," it's going to drive the GOP back to its bastion in the states of the first secession. Brilliant. Virginia's going to wind up with two Democratic senators for the first time since the Civil Rights Act.

Fact is, Petraeus's boss at CENTCOM, ADM Fallon, thinks the general's a pompous toady.

[Jaime]

We'll see about that! 

But hey, you've got the hang of it. Run with it, please!

[Jimbob]

I live in a bluer than blue state with all the marks of democratic "leadership."  It forces me, an independent, to pull the Republican on every line.  You see, I see daily what they want to spread across the whole country, and I'd hate to see folks have to put up with this mess on an even larger scale.

[don has a plan]

By most accounts, Democrats should increase their number in the US Senate to 56 or 57 with next year's elections.  All Democratic Senators seeking reelection are safe (save Mary Landrieu), while several Republicans are either retiring or are facing uphill battles.

I haven't heard much about House races; they're harder to predict.  I'm interested in seeing whether Cindy Shaheen's campaign will resonate with California voters.  I think Speaker Pelosi should be worried, personally.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Ms. Clinton will be the next President.  All of the Republican candidates have hitched their wagons to Bush's war policy, which is woefully unpopular.  Ms. Clinton has too, in part, but she's left herself some wiggle room.

[Jaime]

Don, I hate to tell ya, but I don't believe Ms. Clinton will willingly hang defeat in Iraq around her own neck. By the end of her first term, the Left will be totally out of sorts with her because she will still have a large deployment of US Troops in Iraq, and correctly so. She will have a come to Jesus intelligence meeting that will convince her of the folly of pulling out too soon. Of course that doesn't mean she won't be blaming Bush the whole way. But remember, the left WILL be sorely disappointed by her. Ya'll better nominate the Breck girl if ya want out soon!

Oh yeah, a Clinton with some wiggle room................that's a new one!

[don has a plan]

Ya'll better nominate the Breck girl if ya want out soon!

Why would Democrats nominate Mitt Romney?


Anyway, what you said regarding Ms. Clinton staying the course, so to say, is exactly what I think will happen.  (Actually, I think that will happen regardless of who wins.)  But that's not what she--or any other candidate--has to say right now.  That's what I meant by 'wiggle room'.  Since she's gone back and forth on the war--voting for it, then opposing it, then voting to continue funding, then opposing it, etc--she can really support it though she espouses opposition.

So is the life of politics, I suppose.

I'll be voting Green, btw, so there's not much y'all in this one.

[Jaime]

I respect that Don.
BTW, what does the Green Party offer that you like on things other than the obvious environmental issues? (Don't mean it like it sounds, I really would like to know.)

[ravenlorre]

What happened to all the radical moderates out there?

We have become far too polarized in this country.  I am not even hearing very much about working together from either side (politicians used to have the decency to at least give on lip service on this topic)- instead, politics continues to be a blood sport, as it has for the past 30 years.

I think the "me first!" days of the 80's are over - "ME" has declared absolute victory.

blessings

[spurly]

If you listened to the President's speech last night he talked about working together with the Democrats concerning the situation in Iraq.  It is the Democrats who are refusing to work with the administration because they are hoping to score points politically.  It's sad, really.  Jack Reed's democratic response was so full of vitriol, I don't even think he listed to the President's speech before making his response.

[don has a plan]

I respect that Don.
BTW, what does the Green Party offer that you like on things other than the obvious environmental issues? (Don't mean it like it sounds, I really would like to know.)

Besides the environmental focus, I like the social justice aspects of the GP.  I also like that it's an international movement.  (The GP is active in several countries and holds parliamentary seats in a few.)  And the democratic reforms (binding 'none of the above' choice on the ballot, for example).

[ravenlorre]

If you listened to the President's speech last night he talked about working together with the Democrats concerning the situation in Iraq.  It is the Democrats who are refusing to work with the administration because they are hoping to score points politically.  It's sad, really.  Jack Reed's democratic response was so full of vitriol, I don't even think he listed to the President's speech before making his response.

Sounds like more finger pointing to me.

blessings

[spurly]

Nope, just an analysis of this last week's events.  General Petraus comes before Congress and lays out the strategy he and his military advisors believe will result in success on the ground in Iraq.  It's a plan with elements that the Democrats have been crying for - reducing the number of troops and transitioning our forces in Iraq to a support role and a counter-terrorism role.

Then President Bush makes his speech where he agree with General Petraus' assessment and states that he is going to enact his suggestions.  Then, as we see more success in Iraq, more troops come home, which is one of the things the Democrats have been seeking for the past year.

Senater Jack Reed doesn't acknowledge any of this but continues stating that they will fight with the administration to get their plan enacted instead of working with the administration in order to bring a successful solution on the ground in Iraq and to root the terrorists out of Iraq.  President Bush is calling on Congress to work with him and they are adamantly refusing to do so - for political reasons.  Using war for political reasons is wrong, the Democrats need to accept President Bush's invitation to work together.  America is more tired of the fighting in Washington D.C. than they are of the fighting in Iraq, which is just one of many fronts in the war on terror.

[Jaime]

  America is more tired of the fighting in Washington D.C. than they are of the fighting in Iraq, which is just one of many fronts in the war on terror.

Spurly you are absolutely correct. It's terrible the war against the war on terror in DC gets more attention than the real war.

[ravenlorre]

Nope, just an analysis of this last week's events.  General Petraus comes before Congress and lays out the strategy he and his military advisors believe will result in success on the ground in Iraq.  It's a plan with elements that the Democrats have been crying for - reducing the number of troops and transitioning our forces in Iraq to a support role and a counter-terrorism role.

Then President Bush makes his speech where he agree with General Petraus' assessment and states that he is going to enact his suggestions.  Then, as we see more success in Iraq, more troops come home, which is one of the things the Democrats have been seeking for the past year.

Senater Jack Reed doesn't acknowledge any of this but continues stating that they will fight with the administration to get their plan enacted instead of working with the administration in order to bring a successful solution on the ground in Iraq and to root the terrorists out of Iraq.  President Bush is calling on Congress to work with him and they are adamantly refusing to do so - for political reasons.  Using war for political reasons is wrong, the Democrats need to accept President Bush's invitation to work together.  America is more tired of the fighting in Washington D.C. than they are of the fighting in Iraq, which is just one of many fronts in the war on terror.

So what you are really saying is "I know you are but what am I?" or is it "I'm rubber you are glue, whatever bounces off of me sticks to you?" or perhaps "I am not a social train wreck, your just jealous?".  Wait-wait!  I got it "Let's tie the 911 terrorist attack to our agenda to attack Iraq - put it up for a vote; knowing that Congressman have to vote for it in order to remain in office - everyone knows that congress must support a President on issues of war - especially after an attack; than we can blame the opposing party for voting yes in case anything goes wrong."  Successful blaming strategy = Blank Check.

As soon as politicians stop reasoning like 5 years olds or Sean Hannity, they will realize that there is enough blame to go around, start working together and get us out of a poorly planned, arbitrary war that we involved ourselves in for profit alone.

blessings

[Jaime]

Problem is Ravenlorre, we are in a REAL war that we MUST win, and I'm not just talking about Iraq. Presidents several decades down the road are going to be fighting the Islamofascist, whether we are in Iraq or not. It ain't all about Iraq. We are positioning ourselves for advantages in battles years away.

[spurly]

Nope, just an analysis of this last week's events.  General Petraus comes before Congress and lays out the strategy he and his military advisors believe will result in success on the ground in Iraq.  It's a plan with elements that the Democrats have been crying for - reducing the number of troops and transitioning our forces in Iraq to a support role and a counter-terrorism role.

Then President Bush makes his speech where he agree with General Petraus' assessment and states that he is going to enact his suggestions.  Then, as we see more success in Iraq, more troops come home, which is one of the things the Democrats have been seeking for the past year.

Senater Jack Reed doesn't acknowledge any of this but continues stating that they will fight with the administration to get their plan enacted instead of working with the administration in order to bring a successful solution on the ground in Iraq and to root the terrorists out of Iraq.  President Bush is calling on Congress to work with him and they are adamantly refusing to do so - for political reasons.  Using war for political reasons is wrong, the Democrats need to accept President Bush's invitation to work together.  America is more tired of the fighting in Washington D.C. than they are of the fighting in Iraq, which is just one of many fronts in the war on terror.

So what you are really saying is "I know you are but what am I?" or is it "I'm rubber you are glue, whatever bounces off of me sticks to you?" or perhaps "I am not a social train wreck, your just jealous?".  Wait-wait!  I got it "Let's tie the 911 terrorist attack to our agenda to attack Iraq - put it up for a vote; knowing that Congressman have to vote for it in order to remain in office - everyone knows that congress must support a President on issues of war - especially after an attack; than we can blame the opposing party for voting yes in case anything goes wrong."  Successful blaming strategy = Blank Check.

As soon as politicians stop reasoning like 5 years olds or Sean Hannity, they will realize that there is enough blame to go around, start working together and get us out of a poorly planned, arbitrary war that we involved ourselves in for profit alone.

blessings

Ravenlorre, was your mind already made up and set in concrete before listening to General Petraus and Ambassador Crocker?

[ravenlorre]

Problem is Ravenlorre, we are in a REAL war that we MUST win, and I'm not just talking about Iraq. Presidents several decades down the road are going to be fighting the Islamofascist, whether we are in Iraq or not. It ain't all about Iraq. We are positioning ourselves for advantages in battles years away.

The war on terrorism cannot be won using traditional warfare. 

I admit that I have a tendency to get angry that we are in this situation - I was angry when I was accused by Republicans for being unAmerican when I opposed the war on the first day and I was angry when I was accused of not supporting the troops when I wanted to bring them home - so I am sure you can see how I may view this whole mess as someone else's?

That being said, I am willing to listen and buy into a bi-partisan plan to extradite ourselves from this mess, but I have no tolerance for finger pointing during the discussion.  I agree that we all need to focus on the present not the past - and I am willing to suppress my bias for the purpose of a fruitful exit strategy.

How are we positioning ourselves for advantages?

blessings

[zoonance]

Problem is Ravenlorre, we are in a REAL war that we MUST win, and I'm not just talking about Iraq. Presidents several decades down the road are going to be fighting the Islamofascist, whether we are in Iraq or not. It ain't all about Iraq. We are positioning ourselves for advantages in battles years away.

The war on terrorism cannot be won using traditional warfare. 

I admit that I have a tendency to get angry that we are in this situation - I was angry when I was accused by Republicans for being unAmerican when I opposed the war on the first day and I was angry when I was accused of not supporting the troops when I wanted to bring them home - so I am sure you can see how I may view this whole mess as someone else's?

That being said, I am willing to listen and buy into a bi-partisan plan to extradite ourselves from this mess, but I have no tolerance for finger pointing during the discussion.  I agree that we all need to focus on the present not the past - and I am willing to suppress my bias for the purpose of a fruitful exit strategy.

How are we positioning ourselves for advantages?

blessings

You make some clear and excellent points that help me understand some of the opposition better than simply "Bush lied" "Bush causes tsunami's" "Bush uses IM"   Thanks for your thoughts.

[ravenlorre]

Nope, just an analysis of this last week's events.  General Petraus comes before Congress and lays out the strategy he and his military advisors believe will result in success on the ground in Iraq.  It's a plan with elements that the Democrats have been crying for - reducing the number of troops and transitioning our forces in Iraq to a support role and a counter-terrorism role.

Then President Bush makes his speech where he agree with General Petraus' assessment and states that he is going to enact his suggestions.  Then, as we see more success in Iraq, more troops come home, which is one of the things the Democrats have been seeking for the past year.

Senater Jack Reed doesn't acknowledge any of this but continues stating that they will fight with the administration to get their plan enacted instead of working with the administration in order to bring a successful solution on the ground in Iraq and to root the terrorists out of Iraq.  President Bush is calling on Congress to work with him and they are adamantly refusing to do so - for political reasons.  Using war for political reasons is wrong, the Democrats need to accept President Bush's invitation to work together.  America is more tired of the fighting in Washington D.C. than they are of the fighting in Iraq, which is just one of many fronts in the war on terror.

So what you are really saying is "I know you are but what am I?" or is it "I'm rubber you are glue, whatever bounces off of me sticks to you?" or perhaps "I am not a social train wreck, your just jealous?".  Wait-wait!  I got it "Let's tie the 911 terrorist attack to our agenda to attack Iraq - put it up for a vote; knowing that Congressman have to vote for it in order to remain in office - everyone knows that congress must support a President on issues of war - especially after an attack; than we can blame the opposing party for voting yes in case anything goes wrong."  Successful blaming strategy = Blank Check.

As soon as politicians stop reasoning like 5 years olds or Sean Hannity, they will realize that there is enough blame to go around, start working together and get us out of a poorly planned, arbitrary war that we involved ourselves in for profit alone.

blessings

Ravenlorre, was your mind already made up and set in concrete before listening to General Petraus and Ambassador Crocker?

I think Petraus is just another casualty of the Bush administration; I do not blame him, specifically.  I have strong opinions about our involvement in Iraq - but I am open to learning, unbiased facts whenever they are available.  Dems and Reps are both guilty of spin - and I am tired of it all.

blessings

[ravenlorre]

Problem is Ravenlorre, we are in a REAL war that we MUST win, and I'm not just talking about Iraq. Presidents several decades down the road are going to be fighting the Islamofascist, whether we are in Iraq or not. It ain't all about Iraq. We are positioning ourselves for advantages in battles years away.

The war on terrorism cannot be won using traditional warfare. 

I admit that I have a tendency to get angry that we are in this situation - I was angry when I was accused by Republicans for being unAmerican when I opposed the war on the first day and I was angry when I was accused of not supporting the troops when I wanted to bring them home - so I am sure you can see how I may view this whole mess as someone else's?

That being said, I am willing to listen and buy into a bi-partisan plan to extradite ourselves from this mess, but I have no tolerance for finger pointing during the discussion.  I agree that we all need to focus on the present not the past - and I am willing to suppress my bias for the purpose of a fruitful exit strategy.

How are we positioning ourselves for advantages?

blessings

You make some clear and excellent points that help me understand some of the opposition better than simply "Bush lied" "Bush causes tsunami's" "Bush uses IM"   Thanks for your thoughts.

Thanks zoo,

I appreciate that you always seem to read posts thoroughly before jumping to conclusions - I am learning from you.

blessings

[Jaime]

How are we positioning ourselves for advantages?

Well, I don't think it is accidental that we have forces to the East and the West of Iran.

[ravenlorre]

How are we positioning ourselves for advantages?

Well, I don't think it is accidental that we have forces to the East and the West of Iran.

Oh no....

You are trying to make this about the End Times........ugh

I'll go and read Hal Lindsay / Left Behind if I want an end time fantasy.

This is why I would never vote for a Dispensationalist for President.

blessings

[spurly]

How are we positioning ourselves for advantages?

Well, I don't think it is accidental that we have forces to the East and the West of Iran.

Oh no....

You are trying to make this about the End Times........ugh

I'll go and read Hal Lindsay / Left Behind if I want an end time fantasy.

This is why I would never vote for a Dispensationalist for President.

blessings

Where did Jaime say anything about the end times?  I don't believe that is what he was referring to at all (he can correct me if I am wrong).  The end times bit was something you read into what he said.  Instead, Jaime was pointing out that Iran is a threat that we are probably going to have to deal with.

[Jaime]

No Hal Lindsey stuff here, Sorry. I made those statements without even one molecule of eschatology in mind. It's a matter of they are bad guys. We will have to deal with them. Republican or Democrat president in power.

[ravenlorre]

How are we positioning ourselves for advantages?

Well, I don't think it is accidental that we have forces to the East and the West of Iran.

Sorry - I jumped to conclusions.

What do you mean by this statement?

blessings

[Jaime]

How are we positioning ourselves for advantages?

Well, I don't think it is accidental that we have forces to the East and the West of Iran.

Sorry - I jumped to conclusions.

What do you mean by this statement?

blessings

I mean we have positioned ourselves to ultimately deal with Iran, the real terror problem in the Middle East. We also keep 2 to 3 carrier groups in the vicinity. So we are well positioned to interject force or just carry a big stick in the neighborhood. Also we are well positioned to reign in or slap Syria if need be. That kind of leverage is all that is going to work in ever solving the Israeli/Palestinian issue. The supposed catalyst for all Muslim anger towards the West.

[Mere Nick]

And the democratic reforms (binding 'none of the above' choice on the ballot, for example).

That sounds cool because there's no government like no government.

[Mere Nick]

No Hal Lindsey stuff here, Sorry. I made those statements without even one molecule of eschatology in mind. It's a matter of they are bad guys. We will have to deal with them. Republican or Democrat president in power.

It seems best to me that we encourage the folks in Iran who are getting fed up with Islam.  The Iranians also need to be reminded of how the Arab Muslims conquered them and the ruling mullahs are, in reality, collaborators of a sinister, foreign force that has kept them in chains over the last 13 centuries.

The real problem over there are the Wahabbis and Deobandis. 

I really get the sense that there is a growing number of Iranians who are fed up.

[Jaime]

No Hal Lindsey stuff here, Sorry. I made those statements without even one molecule of eschatology in mind. It's a matter of they are bad guys. We will have to deal with them. Republican or Democrat president in power.

It seems best to me that we encourage the folks in Iran who are getting fed up with Islam.  The Iranians also need to be reminded of how the Arab Muslims conquered them and the ruling mullahs are, in reality, collaborators of a sinister, foreign force that has kept them in chains over the last 13 centuries.

The real problem over there are the Wahabbis and Deobandis. 

I really get the sense that there is a growing number of Iranians who are fed up.

Yes, I agree Nick. The Iranian population probably hates their government and may likely be secretly pro-western. When I say we will have to deal militarily with Iran, I in no way mean we will carpet bomb population centers or anything like that. We may have to take out their nuclear facilities in order to keep their kooky leaders from doing something stupid. I believe with a little covert effort, the population of Iran could be encouraged to rise up and do something with their 7th Century rulers. It may be a case of us invoking Teddy Roosevelt's "Walk softly and carry a big stick" diplomacy. A big stick on each flank of Iran.

I do believe the Saudi Wahabi boil will eventually have to be lanced. But we have to neutralize the Iranian and Syrian "misbehavior" first because of the free world's dependence on Saudi oil. This will all be a very very long, tedious, costly and deadly process. But we have to prevail. Each missed opportunity will only prolong and worsen the inevitable.

Co-existence with terrorism is not an option. It must be WE WIN, THEY LOSE! I am confident that we WILL win.

If we had done a better job of making ourselves less energy dependent we wouldn't be in this boat. We've ignored the energy problem since 1973 when we were only 35% dependent on foreign oil. Now because we have been addicted to relatively cheap petroleum, we are 65% dependent. Pretty successful effort of hooking us by the energy pushers, and a dismal effort by us to fight it off.

[Jaime]

I respect that Don.
BTW, what does the Green Party offer that you like on things other than the obvious environmental issues? (Don't mean it like it sounds, I really would like to know.)

Besides the environmental focus, I like the social justice aspects of the GP.  I also like that it's an international movement.  (The GP is active in several countries and holds parliamentary seats in a few.)  And the democratic reforms (binding 'none of the above' choice on the ballot, for example).

Don my friend, I wish you and the Green Party much success because a Green Party vote means one less Democrat vote. And in a system with two major parties, that's a good thing for the other major party.