Democrats Invested in Defeat, will be Defeated.

Democrats try to refocus after Iraq gains

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082102025_pf.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do you have something to discuss, countezero? I'll try and help you with this basic element of posting in a discussion forum:

1. Are you convinced that "positive signs" pertaining to security in Iraq are not similar to the slight reprieve in attacks that has come every year of the occupation during the hottest days?

2. Do you think it is improper for Democrats to ask that the national debate focus on remaining prospects for a political solution in Iraq, given the growing awareness that there can be no American military solution to Iraq's problems?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Bottom line: No scholarly articles can replace real boots-on-the-ground knowledge. Participating in a heavily secured, carefully orchestrated sight-seeing visit to Iraq does not make you a military expert any more than a trip to Yankee stadium qualifies one to be a baseball broadcaster for ESPN. That should be obvious by now".

"But the media continually treats troops as wallpaper footage to run in the background while the latest talking-head pseudo-expert pontificates. And the White House hasn’t learned the lesson, either, judging by the so-called “Petraeus report” coming out in September. The White House announced last week that this report won’t actually be written by Gen. Petraeus. Once again experienced military leaders will be overruled by air-conditioned bureaucrats and Beltway experts"

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,146609,00.html?wh=news

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How does a link to an opinion piece prove anything?

 

How about just addressing the article? the Dims have been caught again, on the wrong side of the facts.

By Jonathan Weisman and Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, August 22, 2007; A04



Democratic leaders in Congress had planned to use August recess to raise the heat on Republicans to break with President Bush on the Iraq war. Instead, Democrats have been forced to recalibrate their own message in the face of recent positive signs on the security front, increasingly focusing their criticisms on what those military gains have not achieved: reconciliation among Iraq's diverse political factions.

 

Right, posting news items to generate discussion is a totally illegitimate way to begin a thread...

At this point and time, I am. Everything I have read indicates military progress is being made.

I don't think it improper. The political situation is obviously a large part of the ultimate solution in Iraq. However, the Democratic leadership pronounced the surge a failure before it began and that it wasn't even worth attempting. Now they are saying the surge is working.

Now here's a few questions for you:

1. Should the Democrats be held accountable for their past remarks?

2. Does the contradiction between what they said then and what they are saying now bother you?

3. Does it bother you that the Democrats political hopes and political strategies seem to depend on the defeat of the United States?

 

I'll try and help you with this basic element of posting in a discussion forum

countezero: "Right, posting news items to generate discussion is a totally illegitimate way to begin a thread..."

Posting links without any point of discussion has been discouraged by mods. To me it's indicative of a laziness that borders on rudeness: "Read this- but don't ask me why."

"Everything I have read indicates military progress is being made."

Then either you are very selective in your reading, or others are controlling your literary diet. You commented on the story posted here. Are you claiming that it supports your position, or did you neglect to read the article under discussion there?

"the Democratic leadership pronounced the surge a failure before it began"

Nonsense. There has been no coherent position on the "surge" from Democrat leadership. -But early on, Democrat statements were mostly supportive of the entire adventure.

"Should the Democrats be held accountable for their past remarks?"

Yes. They should also be held accountable for having never formulated, and never offered for debate, an alternative strategy concerning Iraq.

"Does the contradiction between what they said then and what they are saying now bother you?"

Absolutely. It bothers me that the Democratic Party has yet to become coherent on this subject, while thousands die, and the strategic/geoeconomic position, security, and prestige of my country keep being eroded by this misbegotten war.

"Does it bother you that the Democrats political hopes and political strategies seem to depend on the defeat of the United States?"

That's both slanderous and untrue. There has already occured a Democrat ascendency even before the American public and its Democrat component have even approached an emotional capability to confront our lack of moral mandate in Iraq. Democrat activists and politicians are as patriotic and nationalistic as their Republican counterparts. That is no small part of the cognitive dissonance of coming to terms with our serious national mistake in occupying a highly-sectarian Arab country that is now a catalyst for wider unrest.

You seem to be operating under the influence of memes originating from hacks like Limbaugh and Hannity- "Defeatocrat" etc. and it is clouding your reasoning. Please try reading a little more widely. Try deliberately thinking more independently. This debate goes much deeper than manichean fixations over Republicans vs. Democrats. This is a national debate over whether we are to endeavor to reshape the political landscape of the entire world by force. This is a defining national debate over whether forced nation-building is a cause worthy of, and in keeping with our character and political heritage.

 

Something for nothing

A general commentary, but to start ... uh, somewhere:

In some cases it's lazy and expedient, and sometimes it's a way of generating discussion to criticize without offering anything affirmative of one's own outlook.

Like this:

Media Matters. "Wash. Post falsely suggested Obama, Clinton made inconsistent statements on Iraq troop buildup". August 22, 2007. See http://mediamatters.org/items/200708220013 ​

Now, if I left it at that, what would people think the point is? Actually, what's interesting is that, while the article focuses primarily on a graphic posted at the Washington Post's "The Trail" blog that inaccurately represents Senators Clinton and Obama in a comparison of current and former statements regarding the war, it also makes the point that the very Post article we're considering provided cropped versions of Clinton and Obama's remarks. That point, however, is left hanging; what the hell are we supposed to think about that?

Of course, speaking of inaccurate representations, how about the title of the topic?

Topic title: "Democrats try to refocus after Iraq gains"

Article title: "Democrats Refocus Message on Iraq After Military Gains"
Article subhead: "Criticism Shifts to Factional Unrest"​

Who all bit?

At any rate, there's not much to be found in the Weisman/Kornblut article. Rather, it's politics as usual. The Democratic presidential candidates are posturing, and Democrats in general are preparing for the Petraeus report.

In the meantime, some seem to be arguing that it's not the surge that's working, but rather tactics, and also that part of the issue is an amnesty agreement, or even an agreement last year between tribal leaders in the Ramadi area to oppose Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia. A MediaMatters criticism of MSNBC's David Shuster points out:

The New York Times article in question reports:

We should be careful to not treat things so simply as to believe one generally empty piece in the Washington Post means much more than we choose to put into it.

Of course, to cycle back to the beginning, it would be easier to comment on the relevant points of the topic, but aside from a curiously-compressed title, there's no topic to start with.

(I guess I could point out that with the Post and MSNBC distorting Hillary Clinton's message--and Barack Obama's, in the case of the former--it must be getting harder and harder for people to assert a liberal bias about the news. But that's most likely a topic of its own. Oh, right, I think it already is.)
____________________

Notes:

Weisman, Jonathan and Anne E. Kornblut. "Democrats Refocus Message on Iraq After Military Gains". Washington Post. August 22, 2007; page A04. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082102025_pf.html

Pavlus, Sarah. "Wash. Post falsely suggested Obama, Clinton made inconsistent statements on Iraq troop buildup." Media Matters for America/MediaMatters.org. August 22, 2007. See http://mediamatters.org/items/200708220013

Chiachiere, Ryan. "MSNBC's Shuster misrepresented Clinton's assessment of Anbar". Media Matters for America/MediaMatters.org. August 22, 2007. See http://mediamatters.org/items/200708220008

Semple, Kirk. "Uneasy Alliance Is Taming One Insurgent Bastion". NYTimes.com. April 29, 2007. See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/world/middleeast/29ramadi.html ​

 

My, how kind you are...

No mod has ever told me that. The only people who I can recall that have complained about it to me are you and Ganymede. Frankly, I ignored you both...

Yes, I know. I'm a sheltered fool (because I don't agree with you). I don't read all that much and I don't have access to a lot of information. Oh, and I live in a thatch hut with a dirt floor, too...

I read it. It's an opinion piece based on the anecdotal evidence of seven people. There are opinion pieces all over the place, which I talk about in the thread you mention. For example, I posted such a piece a few weeks ago on this site that said exactly the opposite. However, to be specific, most news accounts I have read say the surge is going well. And the Democrats and the Republicans agree it's going well. That alone speaks volumes.

Bullshit. Let's revisit: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070613203802.7yla5iav&show_article=1

I agree.

I don't think it is. They campaigned and won (in part) in 2006 based on the failure of the war effort. That means they were invested in defeat. If things went well, they wouldn't have been able to stump...

I never said they weren't. In their heart of hearts, I think they believe that what they are doing is right. But what they are doing is heavily invested in defeat. If you think I'm making this up, consider how they would look if the sun rose tomorrow and Iraq became a pacified bastion of Democracy. Their future electoral chances would be doomed, and the politicians who preached "stay the course', much the chagrin of the media and the Dems, would be rewarded for being correct...

Sorry, I don't listen to either.

Just for you, I'll try. But remember, thatch hut and all...

I never suggested it didn't. But this section of the website is about politics and this thread is about political maneuvering by a political party. Given that, it's difficult to not couch arguments in political terms that rely on the dichotomy of the American system.

 

How about it? I cut and pasted the link, so when I had to type a title for this thread I had to go on memory and try and refashion the headline. I did the best I could (based on my memory) and cut a few words out to keep the title of the thread short. I think the title I chose is an accurate paraphrase of the title of the story, but you think I'm a dishonest hack, so here I am misleading people again, right?

Look at the titles.

Mine: "Democrats try to refocus after Iraq gains"
Theirs: "Democrats Refocus Message on Iraq After Military Gains"

And I'm obviously liable for subheads, right? OK. You're the Mod, you tell me how I am supposed to fit two subheads into the limited space available for thread titles...

Right, by doing 180's...

Right, but we should look to Media Matters instead, a blatantly biased and partisan organization? That's a laugh...

 

How about you all discuss the topic and stop caterwauling about what you assume Counte's motives to be. I see no harm in posting a link to an article. If you all want to do so, and it's relevant to the forum, then go ahead. If you don't like Counte or the topic, then please excercise your right not to post.

~String

 

There's your best, and then there's the rest (of reality)

You answered your own question.

Look, I know we've been having difficulty agreeing on the importance of context, but between the headline and the subheader, it's obvious that you screwed the article with your topic title. How did you answer your own question? What your memory provided is telling; it completely missed the theme of the article.

Some are responding to press, and some are responding to public sentiment; in neither case are they responding to truth, although it's hard to fault them for that failure. Truth is something that, even by its most vague definition, has been lacking throughout this administration and its wars.

I tend to think MM splits hairs sometimes; after all, it doesn't matter what someone actually says. All that matters is what you think, right? Or, to be more realistic, all that matters is how people interpret things. For instance, it took me a couple of readings to figure out what the hell Obama was saying, and still it didn't match anything I saw at MM or in various analyses I looked through. In the end, Hillary's walking the sort of fine line the Clintons are known for, and Obama is showing his inexperience by making valid points in ways that the press is virtually guaranteed to botch, and the public is virtually guaranteed to miss. Consider the Post article:

The war party is already gearing up: they know what's in the report. Richard Klass asserted, on August 7, that the September reports (Petraeus and Crocker) are already written. This isn't much of a surprise in itself; not much will change in terms of the political benchmarks with the Iraqi Parliament in recess, and the long-term situation in Iraq can't be expected to change dramatically--barring, of course, some ridiculously huge event like a nuclear explosion--over the period. But something that is unsettling, and that apparently Weisman and Kornblut did not consider relevant, is last week's story from the Los Angeles Times:

It would seem to me that what Democrats are doing is what we all should be doing: bracing for more politics as usual.
_____________________

Notes:

Weisman, Jonathan and Anne E. Kornblut. "Democrats Refocus Message on Iraq After Military Gains". Washington Post. August 22, 2007; page A04. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082102025_pf.html

Barnes, Julian E. and Peter Spiegel. "Top general may propose pullbacks". LATimes.com. August 15, 2007. See http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pullback15aug15,0,4840766.story ​

See Also:

Klass, Richard. "The September Reports are Already Written". HuffingtonPost.com. August 7, 2007. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-klass/the-september-reports-are_b_59499.html ​

 

Bullshit. My headline was essentially the same as the Post's, sans a few words. Again, for the record:

Mine: "Democrats try to refocus after Iraq gains"
Theirs: "Democrats Refocus Message on Iraq After Military Gains"

Both say the Democrats are trying to refocus after gains in Iraq that have come about from the surge.

In the future, to avoid all this petty, childish nit-picking, I'll endeavor to write the headlines down and post them so long as their length is allowed. Will that satisfy your itchy trigger-finger, Tiassa? Or can you really not be satisfied with your time here unless your fingers are pecking away at the keyboard, trying to discredit someone?

So what's the truth? Presumably, you know it? Again, in cased you missed it:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070613203802.7yla5iav&show_article=1

And it's funny. Anecdotal evidence of soldiers on the ground in one thread is OK, but anecdotal evidence from others who have been to Iraq isn't, in this particular case. This typifies the point I was trying to make about people with fixed positions who dig up testimony to support their viewpoint.

That's all that matters to Media Matters, which as I asserted, is a biased and partisan organization that shouldn't be cited if you expect people to take you seriously, which I presume you do?

That link was a bunch of crap. It was an opinion piece posted on a biased website and written by a man who asserted no sources for his claims. What's even more amusing, is he suggests he has read the draft of the report. Yeah, that's believable.

And they "know what's in the report?" How is that possible, when we have your L.A. Times story claiming the final report will be written by the administration?

 

No, they don't say the same thing. Refocusing the message is something that happens regularly in response to changing circumstances. Refocusing in general implies something completely different, that the Democrats have come out of focus and are refocusing.

Consider the general notion that the war is a disaster. People might focus on sectarian violence one week, and on the failing Iraqi government the next. Refocusing the message to highlight each aspect is an effort to stay relevant. Refocusing the party implies a change of underlying themes; this does not seem to be happening.

I would be more worried about the Democrats if their perspectives didn't evolve in relation to new developments.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I don't think honesty is too much to ask of you. Are you really not satisfied unless everyone thinks you're absolutely, infallibly correct?

Uh ... whatever you say? (Is that better?)

Well, if you think there's no difference between the idea that it's the number of troops and the idea that it's what we do with the troops, there's not much I can do to help.

That he's read the report? Where do you get that? From the fact that he's making predictable predictions?

Well, it could be that the administration already has the drafts? I guess I should have quoted more of the article; I'm sorry I didn't realize how unfair it was to ask you to read something:

 

String: "I see no harm in posting a link to an article. If you all want to do so, and it's relevant to the forum, then go ahead."

I hope String's invitation is not taken up. If threads are increasingly started with nothing more than a link, it would noticeably detract from this forum.

Countezero: "No mod has ever told me that."

Please consider the implications, even if a mod has not been prepared to explain this to you. As with most subtle points of respect, consider honestly how you would perceive it if others routinely did the same.

String: "How about you all discuss the topic and stop caterwauling about what you assume Counte's motives to be."

No topic for discussion was provided by the creator of the thread, except maybe in an arguable demonstration of unrevealed intent. Because the title of the referenced article was curiously modified, it provided at least some grist for discussion. All we were offered beyond that was an article that is "generally empty" as Tiassa remarked.

----------------------

countezero: "Everything I have read indicates military progress is being made."

Then either you are very selective in your reading, or others are controlling your literary diet. You commented on the story posted here. Are you claiming that it supports your position, or did you neglect to read the article under discussion there?

"I read it. It's an opinion piece based on the anecdotal evidence of seven people. There are opinion pieces all over the place, which I talk about in the thread you mention. For example, I posted such a piece a few weeks ago on this site that said exactly the opposite. However, to be specific, most news accounts I have read say the surge is going well."

What you write off as mere specificity also involves degrees of honesty. After parsing the title of an article you've had no comment on, you insisted that you did not change the meaning. You claim to be a journalist, yet project a lack of respect for integrity in writing. You play the victim when called out on this, and String has come to your defense.

Dishonest words can be dangerous: Some casual observers will lap them up if they have the right superficial presentation providing a medium for the acceptance of underlying dishonesty as truth. The occupation of Iraq has been a study in disingenuous rhetoric being given the benefit of the doubt by those too apathetic to look deeper than the rhetorical surface.

Intellectual dishonesty and laziness is not without victims. Such failings have directly resulted in a conjuring of hell on Earth. Dishonesty brought about the disaster in Iraq, and dishonesty now attempts to justify its perpetuation. When a self-described journalist tries to underhandedly insinuate and then hide from exposure, it's sometimes a tough crowd around here. If we are learning from the harsh lessons of history, then our wider national debate must become equally intolerant of such subterfuge.

--------------------------

There has been no coherent position on the "surge" from Democrat leadership.

Countezero: "Bullshit. Let's revisit: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1"

I am interested in exploring that some more later- but I've got to go right now.

 

I think they say essentially the same thing and that your delving into protracted nuance in an attempt to castigate me. The essence of the story is that the Democrats are having to find a new focus after good news from Iraq.

But if you want to act like a jerk and crawl up asses, then by all means, let me reciprocate. The original headline said "Democrats Refocus Message on Iraq After Military Gains." My headline said "Democrats try to refocus after Iraq gains." I cut the word military, leaving gains by itself. It's clear from the article that the politics of Iraq aren't where the gains have been made, so I see no dishonesty there.

I added "try to." I don't see a problem there, either. It's obvious they're "trying" to do something, haven't finished achieving it yet and that the verdict over whether they will or not hasn't been rendered yet.

As you point out, the Post headline stresses they are refocussing their "message." To that you added, " Refocusing in general implies something completely different, that the Democrats have come out of focus and are refocusing." I would agree with that, and I see no problem with that sentiment and the headline. In order to refocus, one has to come out of the previous focus, do they not? Or am I to understand that one seemlessly shifts from focus to focus without ever having to abandon a previous viewpoint or appreciation?

In closing, it's offensive to me that you are trying to prove that something I dashed off in a few seconds while I was at work is evidence of an intentional attempt to be dishonest and mislead people. You may chortle all you like, but I make a living trying to be fair and accurate and trying to inform people. I take my job and that responsibility seriously, and I feel certain you could poll the politicians I deal with on either side of the aisle, and all would attest to my inegrity and my professionalism. To have to come to this site and deal with childish asses (like you) who make uninformed attacks on my credibility because I paraphrased a story's headline (a story which I posted complete and without comment) forces me to question why I come here at all. You like to throw the term "hate-monger" around. Given your barbaric attempts to smear me in the past few weeks, I would apply that term to you and your disruptive efforts. You're obviously a smart person, Tiassa. But you can't keep from acting like a knuckle-dragging, intellectual thug whenever someone doesn't completely agree with you, and I for will not succumb to your clumsy rhetorical blows. So you can take your personal assessments of me and blow them out your pompous ass.

I would, too. But there is a difference waiting to see what happens and basing an opinion on whatever does in fact come to pass and condemning something before it happens and then doing a complete about-face because the doom and gloom didn't pan out...

In every single thread of late, you've accused me of being dishonest. It's getting old. There is a difference in being inaccurate and being dishonest. In all your dealings with me, you have failed to try to understand this distinction, choosing to leap to the later without even considering the former. Regardless, in this case I think I was accurate and honest, and I think that your leap to criticize the removal of two words for brevity's sake is nothing more than another example of your shoddy attack tactics on this site and your obvious personal dislike for me.

This would be a prett boring place if everyone agreed with me all the time, so that's not what I seek. However, what I hope to avoid in our mutual disagreements are petty personal attacks and smears. You don't have to agree with me, but don't attack me or my credibility and make spacious claims about my motives or my mindset, neither of which you could possibly know about.

You're avoiding the point I was making, so I will make it again: Media Matters is ridiculously partisan and biased organization, how can you expect us to take anything it posts seriously?

He talks about the report's contents...

Based on what? His own partisan intuition? He's a pundit working for a biased website, what's he going to say?

I read it. And people claiming to know what's in a report that hasn't been finalized yet is ridiculous. Assuming the part about the draft is accurate, what the article is alleging is akin to claiming to know what happnes in a novel because you read the author's outline or rough draft...

 

So if we stretch our military to the breaking point, it is possible to prevent some acts of violence in Iraq. I don't see how that changes the basic messages the Democrats have been saying all along.

 

yes we may have made some small steps in the right direction but are they reasons to stay in iraq no we do not have the numbers to do so our ground forces are already at the breaking point. hell even patraus has said we need to focus on how we are going to get out

 

Who argued that it did?

 

? ! You have outdone yourself, string. That was beautiful.

The topic is whatever the people who make the first substantive posts make it. In this case, the topic appears to be the context in which "Iraq gains" are to be interpreted, and Democratic leadership (we are obviously not including Kucinic et al) statements on the war placed.

If someone wants to create a thread with the topic "Why I cannot recall reading negative or cautionary reports on the surge" or " what will the Democratic leadership do if any of the naive assertions about military success in Iraq that they have been accepting turn out to be true, or false, or whatever" then the floor is available.

Because it is factually based, reasoned, accountable, and comes from a source with a track record of accuracy and informative insight.