Democrats are conflicted on Iraq, because most of them voted for the war

U.S. News & World Report
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051219/19glo.htm

By Gloria Borger
A Confederacy of Dunces

The administration of George W. Bush--never known for its humility--did something completely out of character last week: It acknowledged mistakes. The reconstruction of Iraq, the president said, has "been uneven" and "has not always gone as well as we had hoped." That's a far cry from the rosy scenarios previously painted by the administration, and there's a reason for the change: The president's poll numbers show a public wary of both his truthfulness and his strategy on Iraq. What's more, a full 61 percent believe that the administration has not clearly explained its Iraq policy. Ipso facto , the president speaks out--and will continue to do so. Call it George Bush's wartime charm offensive.

All of which makes sense, and leads to a question: Don't the Democrats read the same polls? If they do (and they do ), they will see two things--a political opportunity (Iraq is an obvious drag on the president) and a political problem (they haven't convinced the public that they're more trustworthy on national security). In fact, as a new CBS News/ New York Times poll shows, Republicans still have an 11-point edge when it comes to dealing with terrorism.

So how do the Democrats win public confidence on national security? They decide to engage in a public argument about Iraq. Consider: Howard Dean, the party chairman, calls the war unwinnable. Democratic political strategists start to fret publicly about being seen as weak. That occurred after Democratic Rep. Jack Murtha called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops within six months. His pronouncement had credibility, given his history as a defense hawk. But then House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi endorsed his plan for the troops to come home. Soon after, her top lieutenant, Rep. Steny Hoyer, publicly claimed that a pullout too soon could be disastrous. Then Pelosi told House colleagues they should feel no need to support her. Is everything clear now?

Sure, the Democrats are conflicted on Iraq, because most of them voted for the war. But here's the thing: The public is conflicted in the same way because most of us also supported the war. So what does the public want? Reasoned guidance, not Family Feud . No one expects the Democrats--who have disagreed over defense and foreign policy since the George McGovern campaign--to resolve all their big issues right now. But they could certainly heed former Clinton adviser William Galston's First Rule of Politics: First, do no harm.

I made a bad decision based on fraudulent information provided to me by the current administration. I made a mistake and and realize that I now need to work to end this hell we've created.

people think congress had the same intelligence shrub never bothered to read.

.."Sure, the Democrats are conflicted on Iraq, because most of them voted for the war. But here's the thing: The public is conflicted in the same way because most of us also supported the war".

And, even if it were true that "most Americans supported the war", they did so because they were lied to.

Fighting a war over a pack of lies is weak minded.
Media stories repeating the Orwellian T.P's against reason is woefully weak.
Recognizing a serious error in voting for a war takes more strength than living in a lie.

So, go to hell GOP, They are 100 times stronger than you!

Bush is furiously trying to sell leaving Iraq as a "victory"...Americans, on the whole, may be getting to the point where "fatigue" is the appropriate word...

In fact, I'd bet "war fatigue" has been mentioned in the White House more than once or twice recently...

Enough loss, enough money...

Even those against the war realize we are there now and how we leave matters.

There can be honest disagreement about the best way to get out. It isn't simple.

I don't pretend to know. I was always against going, I want us out. I don't know the intricacies of Iraq or war. Before I'd expect anyone to listen to my decision I'd want to talk to the finest minds I could.

Right wing bullshit propaganda.

I don't think I even need to get into the details of who voted for what and what they were actually voting for... That's been discussed enough here. I'll just leave it at: They didn't vote for the war. They voted to allow Bush to go through all necessary and availible diplomatic measures.

Bush did not. He rushed to war.



Yes, trusting Bush was a massive error in judgement. But it doesn't mean they voted for the war.