posted on August 2, 2007 06:29:48 PM new
This is unbelievable. Here this idiot is admitting he's HOPING we don't get a 'positive' report on Iraq in Sept.
There ARE two Americas. One side that wants to see our Nation accomplish it's mission, the other side - the WACKO liberals....are those hoping our troops get a NEGATIVE report on their mission????? Oh boy....
And some wonder why I call the liberals anti/un American?
He's a perfect example of why I do.
Just whose side is HE on? Our enemies it appears. He's certainly NOT hoping we'll have a good report....meaning we ARE succeeding at our mission in Iraq. No according to HIM that wouldn't be a good thing. One might reasonably THINK that all Americans would be hoping for our success...so we could bring the majority of our troops home.
Clyburn: Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War
By Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza
Washington Post Staff Writer and Washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Monday, July 30, 2007; 6:26 PM
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.
Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.
Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.
"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."
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."
Clyburn's comments came as House and Senate Democrats try to figure out their next steps in the legislative battle. Clyburn said he could foresee a circumstance in which House Democrats approve a measure without a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces, which has been the consistent goal of the party throughout the months-long debate. But he said he could just as easily see Democrats continue to include a timetable.
Clyburn also address the reasons behind declining approval ratings for Congress, which spiked earlier in the year when Democrats took over the House and Senate. The most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll showed just 37 percent approving of the performance of Congress.
"Remember right after the election it went very high on approval,?" he said. "Then all of a sudden people saw that we were not yielding the kind of result that they wanted to yield."
He said most Americans still do not know some of the domestic legislation that has been approved. Fewer understand that, despite Democratic majorities in both houses, that it takes 60 votes to pass anything legislation in the Senate.
Clyburn noted that while overall approval ratings of Congress are low, people still rate Democrats higher than Republicans. "People feel good about the Democratic Party, they just don't feel real good about the Congress itself."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 2, 2007 06:36 PM ]
posted on August 3, 2007 06:40:27 AM new
Way too deep for the likes of a neocon to understand but he never was quoted as saying he wanted a negative report.
He said IF Petraeus PRESENTED (that's not the same as what's actually happening) a positive report then some Democrats may not lean toward a timetable and that IS what other Democrats want.
NO WHERE does he say he wishes for a negative outcome.
But the repugs sure have a spinmaster in you, linduh You can spin a lie with the best in the White House and that's REALLY saying something because they have had SO MUCH practice!!!
posted on August 3, 2007 08:01:44 AM new
Duh, let's see, mingo. He's the democan't whip, and everything he says points to the fact that a positive report would hurt the democan'ts, so where is your difficulty in understanding this. Please take that reading comprehension course soon. You are looking more foolish with every statement that you make
"House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.
Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.
Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.
posted on August 3, 2007 08:33:31 AM new
NO WHERE does he say he wishes for a negative outcome. NO where does it state, as linduh did, that he was HOPING for a negative outcome.
posted on August 3, 2007 08:43:45 AM new
Whatever, let's read between the lines as you just did in your C&P about Laura Bush going to Minneapolis. You immediately said "(Trying to raise that low approval rating?? Stay home!)"
You apparently didn't know that she was scheduled to make a speech there long aqo (or didn't care). That's called reading between the lines. You place whatever thoughts that you wish to place on a statement.
The democan't whip said the democan'ts should wait for the report to come out or it might damage their chances of getting what they want. In other words good report=our hopes are down the drain. Bad report=Hooray, maybe we democan'ts can all get together.
posted on August 3, 2007 08:46:45 AM new
NO WHERE does he say he wishes for a negative outcome. NO where does it state, as linduh did, that he was HOPING for a negative outcome.
"""(Trying to raise that low approval rating?? Stay home!)"""'
Can you see that little squiggly lines with a dots under them ? That's a question mark...it means the sentence is a question.
posted on August 3, 2007 10:12:16 AM new
And there are MORE liberals that are also hoping to receive a NEGATIVE report from Petraeus.
It's hard to believe they'd not be hoping for a positive report....showing we ARE accomplishing our mission. But that's the traitors in the dem party for you....always putting their own political gain above our Nations best interests. tsk tsk tsk
Imo, they should be recalled/impeached.
We're at WAR.....and they're FAILING in upholding the oaths they took when they were elected.
================
PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE
OIF: GOOD NEWS IS BAD FOR SURRENDER MONKEYS
In our democratic republic, we charge our elected representatives with
the conduct of vigorous debate about issues both foreign and domestic. In
doing so, we expect them to uphold their oaths to protect and defend our Constitution
(http://PatriotPost.US/Alexander/edition.asp?id=487).
However, politicians often posture and pretend in order to line up
constituencies that perpetuate their tenure in office, regardless of
constitutional constraints.
Such political posturing is disingenuous breach of trust at best. When this deceit extends to matters of national security, especially when we are at war and continue to face formidable threats from Jihadi terrorists
The Democrat Party was, in a bygone era, populated by statesmen. Until JFK
(that's J.F. Kennedy not J.F. Kerry), Democrat leaders, understood the
projection of force to protect America's security and vital interests abroad.
Now, this once-proud political party is infested with hypocritical, nescient, duplicitous, reprehensible, half-witted, asinine, obsequious, meretricious, pusillanimous, indolent, imbecilic, pompous, retromingent, ignominious, ungrateful, sycophantic prevaricators (did I leave anything out?), who flippantly exploit Operation Iraqi Freedom
(http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=541) as political fodder for their next campaign.
Truth be told, most Democrats know that the fate of the entire Middle
East (and, by extension, much of the free world) depends on the
establishment of a stable government in Iraq.
They know that Fourth
Generation Warfare in the Second Nuclear Age leaves us no choice but to
confront Jihadistan on the Iraqi front.
After all, if not Iraq now
(http://PatriotPost.US/alexander/edition.asp?id=513),
then where and when?
They also know that much of what is reported in the American media reflects not only the propaganda machines of the Left, but also that of our Jihadi adversaries. This is because these cutthroats understand that our mainstream media is friendly terrain
Unfortunately, petty party politics prevail, with little regard for the inconvenient truth that Leftist defeatism merely emboldens our enemy and further endangers our troops in Iraq.
Now, however, there is a confluence of analysis from the warfront in Iraq that OIF has turned a corner. Clearly, such news will have significant consequences for those Leftists who have staked their political fortunes on America's failure, surrender and retreat from Iraq.
In the New York Times this week, two noted and vocal critics of OIF, Michael
O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, analysts with the Left-leaning Brookings
Institution, published an op-ed entitled "A War We Just Might Win."
Having just returned from a fact-finding tour of Iraq, their op-ed notes,
"After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in
Baghdad is the morale of our troops. Today, morale is high. The soldiers and
Marines... feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference."
On the politics of Iraq, O'Hanlon and Pollack write, "Viewed from Iraq... the
political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over
four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration's
critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place."
Their analysis continues: "[b]Here is the most important thing Americans need to
understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military
terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the
potential to produce not necessarily 'victory' but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with[/b]."
Also this week, retired Army General Jack Keane testified before the House
Armed Services Committee, telling them in no uncertain words, "Your actions here in the Congress appear to be in direct conflict with the realities on the ground where the trends are up and progress is being made. We are on the offensive and we have the momentum."
That news was so distressing to Rep. Nancy Boyda D-KS)that she walked out of the committee hearings during General Keane's testimony, lamenting later that there was "only so much [she could tolerate] after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to." She continued, "Those kinds of [encouraging] comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country instead of saying, 'Here's the reality of the problem'."
Of course,reality in the alternate universe of the Left dictates that down is up, in is out, left is right, black is white, falsehood is truth, pride is humility, red is blue and, particularly in the case of Iraq, good news is bad.
Adding insult to injury, more bad news for Demos: Marine General Jim Jones
conducted a congressionally mandated [b study of Iraq's security forces and returned with a favorable report[/b].
This report,combined with the continuing decline of American and Iraqi casualties, has Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid very concerned that their "defeat and retreat" political folly may backfire.
Asked about the political implications should commanding Gen. David Petraeus
report significant progress during his scheduled congressional testimony
in September, House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) replied, "Well,
that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that."
Good news out of Iraq is "a real big problem"? Guess that depends upon whose side you're on.
============
And as they PROVE, time and time again, it's NOT Americas side they're on.
Hopefully the voters will see those who AREN'T fulfilling the OATHS they took for what they are. And I'll defer to the paragraph above with the list of what they are. And exactly how I've seen them since 9-11.
"this once-proud political party is infested with hypocritical, nescient, duplicitous, reprehensible, half-witted, asinine, obsequious, meretricious, pusillanimous, indolent, imbecilic, pompous, retromingent, ignominious, ungrateful, sycophantic prevaricators (did I leave anything out?), who flippantly exploit Operation Iraqi Freedom
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on August 3, 2007 11:24:00 AM new
For instance:
posted on August 3, 2007 08:46:45 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO WHERE does he say he wishes for a negative outcome. NO where does it state, as linduh did, that he was HOPING for a negative outcome.
"""(Trying to raise that low approval rating?? Stay home!)"""'
Can you see that little squiggly lines with a dots under them ? That's a question mark...it means the sentence is a question.
The "Stay home" is my opinion.
etexbill
posted on August 3, 2007 08:52:53 AM edit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. That is a question, from your lips. And that makes it all better?
He's certainly NOT hoping we'll have a good report....meaning we ARE succeeding at our mission in Iraq. No according to HIM that wouldn't be a good thing. One might reasonably THINK that all Americans would be hoping for our success...so we could bring the majority of our troops home.
You can spin a lie with the best in the White House and that's REALLY saying something because they have had SO MUCH practice!!!