Rahm Emanuel's Vulture Politics

Trajan Octavian Titus · Jan 17, 2007

Vulture Politics

By Tony Blankley

"The secret for the Democrats, says Emanuel, is to remain the party of reform and change. The country is angry, and it will only get more so as the problems in Iraq deepen. Don't look to Emanuel's Democrats for solutions on Iraq. It's Bush's war, and as it splinters the structure of GOP power, the Democrats are waiting to pick up the pieces."

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Vulture Politics

Well atleast the Democrats finally admit that they want us to fail in Iraq in order for them to gain political power. These are the SOB's you voted for people.

jujuman13 · Jan 17, 2007

The electorate had 2 choices only.
They could vote for those that represented the party that started the war based on spin, the party that held power in both Senate and House and that had an almost continuous drip drip of disgraced and corrupt officials in elected office as wellas a party that continuously advocated continuance of a deeply unpopular war.
OR
A party that spoke against that war that denigrated those in power who were seen as corrupted both finacially as well as sexually.
When you have these two possibilities, you vote your perception as to who is the better able to run the country OR you vote against those that you consider to have spun against your interests.
In the US we have whether we like it or not, basically a two party system, so when one party is seen as being unfit to serve the electorate, that electorate has two choices,
1) Abstain from voting at all.
2) Vote for the opposition party.
By abstaining from voting you are in effect abrogating your rights and responsibilities as a citizen.
By voting for the opposition you are voting for someone you hope will correct the sins of those that were formerly in power.
With this last supposition, your hopes may well turn out to be incorrect, but until a more than 2 party system emerges in the US the only choices are those I have mentioned above.

I doubt that the democrats want the US to fail in Iraq, but I do believe they are deeply concerned by what was started and is seen as a war that was not necessary, no WMDs, no Terrorists other than those that arrived after the war was initially won, a steady drip drip of American bodies being returned to the US without any apparent improvement for the Iraqi population, and a continuance of what has esentially become a worsening civil war that the US and Allies are incapable of quelling.

This is I believe why folk voted democrat.

I am actually in favour of the so called "Surge" of troops to Iraq, but only on ONE condition, namely that the Iraqi Government take their responsibility for the ending of this civil war seriously.
If the Iraqi Gov. is incapable of doing this then the only solution for the US would be to pull out.

Another possibility would be to encourage the Kurds with their claim of the right to their own Territory which is currently in parts of Iraq/Syria/Iran. as well as Turkey.
What was originally seen by them as being Kurdistan, by encouraging them to at least reclaim those parts of that country currently within the borders of Iran and Syria, would I believe take an enormous amount of Syrian and Iranian attention away from Iraq.
Natuarally it would probably be the cause of anther conflagration in the Mid East.
But it would also almost certainly cause Iran and Syria to sit up and take notice, it would also cause the Maliki Gov. to take a step back and start thinking, what would happen if Kurdistan became an actuality, most of Iraqi oil is in Kurd held Territory.
Incidentally the Kurds are by and large not of either Sunni or Shi ite sects of Islam.

Trajan Octavian Titus · Jan 18, 2007

jujuman13 said:
The electorate had 2 choices only.
They could vote for those that represented the party that started the war based on spin, the party that held power in both Senate and House and that had an almost continuous drip drip of disgraced and corrupt officials in elected office as wellas a party that continuously advocated continuance of a deeply unpopular war.
OR
A party that spoke against that war that denigrated those in power who were seen as corrupted both finacially as well as sexually.
When you have these two possibilities, you vote your perception as to who is the better able to run the country OR you vote against those that you consider to have spun against your interests.
In the US we have whether we like it or not, basically a two party system, so when one party is seen as being unfit to serve the electorate, that electorate has two choices,
1) Abstain from voting at all.
2) Vote for the opposition party.
By abstaining from voting you are in effect abrogating your rights and responsibilities as a citizen.
By voting for the opposition you are voting for someone you hope will correct the sins of those that were formerly in power.
With this last supposition, your hopes may well turn out to be incorrect, but until a more than 2 party system emerges in the US the only choices are those I have mentioned above.

I doubt that the democrats want the US to fail in Iraq, but I do believe they are deeply concerned by what was started and is seen as a war that was not necessary, no WMDs, no Terrorists other than those that arrived after the war was initially won, a steady drip drip of American bodies being returned to the US without any apparent improvement for the Iraqi population, and a continuance of what has esentially become a worsening civil war that the US and Allies are incapable of quelling.

This is I believe why folk voted democrat.

I am actually in favour of the so called "Surge" of troops to Iraq, but only on ONE condition, namely that the Iraqi Government take their responsibility for the ending of this civil war seriously.
If the Iraqi Gov. is incapable of doing this then the only solution for the US would be to pull out.

Another possibility would be to encourage the Kurds with their claim of the right to their own Territory which is currently in parts of Iraq/Syria/Iran. as well as Turkey.
What was originally seen by them as being Kurdistan, by encouraging them to at least reclaim those parts of that country currently within the borders of Iran and Syria, would I believe take an enormous amount of Syrian and Iranian attention away from Iraq.
Natuarally it would probably be the cause of anther conflagration in the Mid East.
But it would also almost certainly cause Iran and Syria to sit up and take notice, it would also cause the Maliki Gov. to take a step back and start thinking, what would happen if Kurdistan became an actuality, most of Iraqi oil is in Kurd held Territory.
Incidentally the Kurds are by and large not of either Sunni or Shi ite sects of Islam.

Do you actually believe the crap that you write? Hate to break it to you but the Democrats supported the war too, please don't make me break out the voting record and the numerous Democratic quotes on Saddam and WMD. As to you not believing the Democrats want us to fail in Iraq well what you believe is inconsequential given the fact that the fourth most powerful Democratic Congressment just stated flat out that that is exactly what they want.

oldreliable67 · Jan 18, 2007

jujuman13 said:
I doubt that the democrats want the US to fail in Iraq,

Don't be silly, of course they do. They see that as the quickest way to regain the WH and the political power they seek. Nothing else matters.

But, just to be clear, the other guys would be doing exactly the same thing were the situation reversed.

niftydrifty · Jan 18, 2007

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Do you actually believe the crap that you write? Hate to break it to you but the Democrats supported the war too, please don't make me break out the voting record and the numerous Democratic quotes on Saddam and WMD. As to you not believing the Democrats want us to fail in Iraq well what you believe is inconsequential given the fact that the fourth most powerful Democratic Congressment just stated flat out that that is exactly what they want.

Do you actually believe the crap that you write? Hate to break it to you but some not all of the Democrats voted to give authorization, at first. But then when it became clearer what the POTUS was not capable of carrying out, then they, in actual fact, didn't support the war. Please don't make me break out the actual wording of various statements, as well as point out your omission of chronology here. As to you believing the Democrats want us to fail in Iraq well what you believe is inconsequential given the fact that the fourth most powerful Democratic Congressmen recognizes a no win when he sees it.

It has nothing to do with "wanting us to fail." We are going to fail in Iraq, thanks to Bush. And also thanks to Bush, his party is now a minority in Congress, and deserves to lose the WH in 2008.

Trajan Octavian Titus · Jan 18, 2007

niftydrifty said:
Do you actually believe the crap that you write? Hate to break it to you but some not all of the Democrats voted to give authorization,

Where did I say all the Democrats? Don't put words in my mouth.

at first. But then when it became clearer what the POTUS was not capable of carrying out, then they, in actual fact, didn't support the war.

No as soon as it became clear that it wasn't politically advantageous for them to support the war they abandoned our troops and the war effort faster than you could say "I voted for it before I voted against it."

Please don't make me break out the actual wording of various statements, as well as point out your omission of chronology here.

By all means please do.

As to you believing the Democrats want us to fail in Iraq well what you believe is inconsequential given the fact that the fourth most powerful Democratic Congressmen recognizes a no win when he sees it.

It has nothing to do with "wanting us to fail." We are going to fail in Iraq, thanks to Bush. And also thanks to Bush, his party is now a minority in Congress, and deserves to lose the WH in 2008.

No buddy try again Congressmen Emanuel said quite flatly that he wants us to fail in Iraq to garner political power, your defense of that POS is really quite sickening.

niftydrifty · Jan 18, 2007

TOT: you said the Democrats, not some of them. Your use of Kerry's quote is funny. He was speaking about two different versions of a bill. (You probably didn't know that). I'll post chronology and quotes later.

TOT said:
No buddy try again Congressmen Emanuel said quite flatly that he wants us to fail in Iraq to garner political power, your defense of that POS is really quite sickening.

LOL! Emanuel's actual wording (not your version of it) was what?

What Emanuel actually said was that we are going to fail in Iraq and that the Democrats will gain political power. both are true.

but guess what, TOT? the majority of the American people want to give the Democrats power due to Bush's failed war.

how you can get that Emanuel "wants us to fail" from all of this is rather bizarre.

Dezaad · Jan 18, 2007

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Well atleast the Democrats finally admit that they want us to fail in Iraq in order for them to gain political power. These are the SOB's you voted for people.

I agree that there are cynical people in politics. Cynics come in all stripes though. I can't believe that you think that the people on DP are stupid enough to buy your cranked up diatribes. Its not the liberals that should be insulted though, but rather the conservatives. Aren't there better arguments for your position?

Rahm Emanuel's Vulture Politics

Trajan Octavian Titus

jujuman13

Trajan Octavian Titus

oldreliable67

niftydrifty

Too big to fail

Trajan Octavian Titus

niftydrifty

Too big to fail

Dezaad

Rahm Emanuel's Vulture Politics

Too big to fail

Too big to fail

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency