The media and the right keep saying that the public differs from the Democratic position on leaving Iraq. The public disagrees.
The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found just 31 percent approval for Bush’s handling of Iraq, days after voters registered their displeasure at the polls by defeating Republicans and handing control of Congress to the Democrats. The previous low in AP-Ipsos polling was 33 percent in both June and August.
Basic logical error: that if the public disagrees with Republicans, it means they agree with Democrats.
Wrong.
Which Democratic “position” are you talking about?
The poll you cite seems only to be about Bush, and not the Democrats’ “position.”
And when you say “leaving Iraq” what method of leaving Iraq do you speak of?
Which Democratic “position” on Iraq do you think the “public” is supporting? The Murtha plan, or the Hoyer Plan, or the Kuchinich plan, or the Lieberman plan…?
Can you tell us without using bumper sticker logic?
The idea that we need to leave Iraq, sooner — not later. As opposed to the ongoing Bush bumper sticker plan “stay the course” reasserted this morning from Vietnam of all places.
BTW, while he may caucus with the Democrats, like Sen. Sanders of Vermont, Joe Lieberman is an independent.
Sooner than what Oliver? Seems the public and the Generals seem to think that Democrats want to leave too soon.
By the way- Adam is right. The logic of your post screams “faulty.”
But I also agree that we should pull troops out of Iraq as soon as possible- within a strategy to stabilize the country and leave the government there able to fend for themselves, with no timetables that would encourage the enemy to plan around. I guess it’s for the Generals to decide that. (I’m no expert.)
Absolutely to all. Everybody’s position is to leave Iraq. Everybody’s. However, the whole issue hinges around: when and under what conditions. Unless you define those terms specifically, you have no position.
Unless you define those terms specifically, you have no position.
I agree. “When they stand up, we’ll stand down,” lacks specificity.
“When they stand up, we’ll stand down,”
Is that the Party position? Meaning when the Iraqis are ready, we leave? Funny if it is, for its Bush’s position.
From the Bush hating NY Times:
Nancy Pelosi has managed to severely scar her leadership even before taking up the gavel as the new speaker of the House. First, she played politics with the leadership of the House Intelligence Committee to settle an old score and a new debt. And then she put herself in a lose-lose position by trying to force a badly tarnished ally, Representative John Murtha, on the incoming Democratic Congress as majority leader. The party caucus put a decisive end to that gambit yesterday, giving the No. 2 job to Steny Hoyer, a longtime Pelosi rival.
And as I noted below, Nancy Pelosi will still be speaker tomorrow morning.
The Republican position is to stay in Iraq until practically forever, 10 years or more according to some sources. Democrats disagree on the specific timetable but we want them out. That’s the big difference. The most prominent Republican outside of the president says he wants MORE troops in Iraq. That’s quite outside of the consensus between the public and the Dems.
I’m loathe to repeat myself, but Dugger is painfully slow on the uptake. It’s Friday.
D: Unless you define those terms specifically, you have no position.
Q: I agree. “When they stand up, we’ll stand down,” lacks specificity.
Of course that’s the President’s position. He has repeated it endlessly. However, it would be generous to say that it’s skimpy on details.
Now, see what I did?
I took Dugger’s statement and helpfully copied and pasted it at the top of my own comment: “Unless you define those terms specifically, you have no position.”
Then I copied a well-known position of a Washington politician. But–surprise!–it wasn’t a Democrat, it was George Bush!!
Zow! How clever is that!
Really? I have to drive my point all the way home?
OK.
I quoted Mr. Bush reciting his standard line about an exit from Iraq–and it’s not specific!
Now what was it that Dugger said? If you’re not specific, you don’t really have a position?
Are we there yet? Can you see where I’m headed? Or are you still puzzled?
Sigh.
1)Dugger says you don’t have a position if you don’t give specifics.
2)George Bush has repeated a well-recognized bromide, without specifics.
3) Ergo, my literalist friends, George Bush has no position on getting out of Iraq!
Can I go home now?
Bush’s position is the same as its been since he started the war: give away the American taxpayers money to corporate contractors. If that means we stay in Iraq, we stay in Iraq.
“Unless you define those terms specifically, you have no position.”
Then by your own admission Bush has no position on Iraq.
If you’ve made yourselves happy, OK by me. There is still no Democratic position on Iraq and as I and others have stated, saying that ‘leaving Iraq’ is your position is insufficiently specific. And don’t worry, you’ll find out this January, to your chagrin, why your party has no position. Opposition talk is cheap and satiates the yahoos, articulating and enacting viable policy is hard.
There is still no Democratic position on Iraq and as I and others have stated, saying that ‘leaving Iraq’ is your position is insufficiently specific.
There’s also no administration position on Iraq other than “Stay the…” uh “Adjust the volume…”, no…”Stand down there..” ah…”Bring ‘em on!”
articulating and enacting viable policy is hard
And apparently beyond the capabilities of the current crowd running the show.
Here’s a Dem backed plan for Iraq:
http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroom/release.cfm?id=257387
You tell me point by point what’s wrong with it.
Surrender cut and run defeat bin Laden Saddam surrender Murtha Islamofascism defeat cut and run cut and run cut and run surrender Democrats.
I’m still confused. What is Bush’s position? Slap a target on the troops and sweep ‘em under the rug, forever? It’s not much of a plan.
Why would Dugger put binLaden in his tirade? Bush has failed to catch bin Laden. Of course Bush is employing the age-old method of killing bin Laden: Old Age.
Dugger bin Lian, Al Qaeda super-poster.