Some interesting quotes here (via dailykos) Wow. Prescience personified. We can throw in Howard Dean and Barack Obama into this mix also I would think. The funny thing is in the media the anti-war position is many times represented as dangerous, irresponsible, politically toxic and unserious. Yet many of the people who were anti-war couldn't have been more right in their predictions about what could happen.
No, actually it's not odd at all that I didn't quote him. In case you didn't read the title, this thread is about The Dems who were right. This new congressmen wasn't right before the war, thus I didn't quote him. Some Democrats supported this disaster but many others didn't. And the fact is if you take the House and the Senate together I'm pretty sure most congressional Democrats were against this abomination of a policy in Iraq.
I'm not so sure it was a majority. At least not those runing for office anytime soon. IIRC, the Dems had to go to Vermont to find a presidencial candidate that didn't support the war from the onset. The article itself is interesting because it's how I think history wil judge the effort. That is, it was done for positive reasons but Rumsfeld's just-in-time reconstruction effort was always behind the curve.
I disagree. History will probably note that the entire reason(s) for going to war involved (a) Weapons of Mass Destruction, notably chemical and biological weapons (that we sold Saddam), and (b) Enriched Uranium and tubes (that turned out to be false) and (c) UAVs that could dispurse such weapons on our allies (read: Israel). All of the reasons turned out to be false. The Rumsfeldian mistake of "I doubt 6 months" and "greeted with flowers" and "paid for by the oil revenues" are a secondary tragedy, but the reasons for the war will be seen by history as spurious.
I was talking about congressional Democrats. In 2002 there were 212 Democrats in the House. 126 of them voted against the war. In the Senate 21 Democrats voted against war and 29 voted for it. Add the 126 in the House and 21 in the Senate and you have a majority of the Democrats in congress which voted against the war.
Fuzzy math. By your own numbers a majority of Dems in the house went against it and a majority of Dems in the Senate were for it. So one can't draw a lesson either way and the facts can't be fixed around a coherent arguement.
Yes but that can be dismissed by a "where they stood depended on where they sat" argument. IOW, many Reps were for it simply because their party was and many Dems were against it simply because the Reps were for it. This is probably the best argument against the effect of partisanship on free speech and the need to think for oneself.
Why would that be odd? He's basing this on a kos post that's based on a WaPo article. THREADJACK DENIED!!!
I disagree. The record since WW II of imperial powers vs. indigenous uprisings makes Duke football look like a juggernaut. I think there's only been one success, in Malaysia, and in that one, the insurgents were mostly of one ethnic group. While the Brits used a smart strategy, they also had indigenous allies. One reason I was against the war 4 years ago is that I'm not an historical nincompoop. Bushco, obviously, were.
How could dems had been right? I though Bush was http://www.atomfilms.com/film/right_brothers_bush.jsp Don't tell me the internet lies
Fuzzy math? A majority means more congressional Democrats voted against the war than for it. It's real simple. Add 126 and 21 together and you get a number of Dems who voted against it higher than the number that voted for it.
I honestly think that's the funniest part of the whole thing. If you call 665,000 dead Iraqis and 3154 dead coalition forces "funny."
What is the problem with Republicans and logic on this issue? This is a not-so-slick way of not giving credit to the Democrats when they were right. I could only imagine the torrents of praise you'd be heaping on the Republicans if the tables were turned. To this I say to the Republican Party: "If George Bush jumped off of a bridge, would you do it too?" Wait...I just got an idea...are there any tall bridges in DC?
If the tables were turned then this war would be an example of positive change brought about by American action. Now this war is an example of negative change brought about by American action. The reason it failed is debatable. One could imagine a scenario where the Iraqi army was never disbanded and the Iraqi government took it over. Would that have worked? Hell if I know but it's just as weak an argument as most Democrats made against the war. Since where they stood depended on where they sat, their arguments are circumstantial. Yes there might be a few that were prescient but there is no way to tell the difference. And the converse is also true. If George Bush didn't jump off a bridge, would the Democrats? Not that I recall but there are some back in the woods around Georgetown that are high enough.
It's possible the answer to both is yes, or no, or that the answer to one is yes and one is no. Considering these are two different issues, I'm not sure why you're still trying to threadjack. Why don't you start a thread asking if Reyes' support of the McCain position is a good idea or not.
On one hand I like that this guy Reyes seems to be far more independent than the reep puppet chairmen we've grown accustomed to. OTOH, WTF? Under what couch cushions do we find the extra 20,000 troops? It may may sense - yeah we need another 20,000 troops (really, the number is more like 200,000). Duh. Can we come back out of orbit now and figure out a REAL solution?