So It IS like Vietnam, After All.

Better tell Rep. James Clyburn that. The Democrat from South Carolina recently said this when talking about if the report from Patraeus in September comes back with positive news:
“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. We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report.”

Here's the Washington Post story link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380.html

 

So much misplaced hatred.

You aren't going to win, boy-o. You've been losing for eight years and you're too knuckleheaded to realize it. That is our tragedy, not just yours.

 

Just another lefty hoping the US loses.

In case you missed your own guy from SC saying it, here's the link again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380.html

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."

Good news for the US would be "a real big problem for" the Democrats. How much clearer can it be?

 

Win what?

 

If you don't know what's at stake in Iraq, then you might want to avoid these threads that are too complicated for you. Good try at obfuscating the democrat's remarks, though.

 

Seriously. What's the US objective in the "War on Terror?"

 

Living in the Great American South, I am well-accustomed (as a minority voter) to those buzzwords -- "hoping we lose," "not with us," "un-American" and all those other generalized black-white terms. Come to think of it, the political dichotomy has replaced the racial one in this region.

You are a liar and a fool, tony.

I have said it before on this stinking board and I'll say it again: since 2001, the U.S. has commanded exactly one square mile of ground in Afghanistan, supposedly one of the great breeding grounds of the killers of hondo's family.

One square mile, seven years.

The poppies are back in bloom, the burqas are being refitted, exeunt.

 

Great foreign policy history from tony here. I didn't realize LBJ wanted to lose Vietnam. :

 

Well, he certainly ran the war like he wanted to lose it, didn't he?

 

Basically, kill the terrorists before they kill us. And allow the Iraqis to set up their own democratic government. With news coming of late that the surge is taking hold, I can see the fear in the posts of the left.