Will an Iraq Victory change the face of the 08 election?
Posted on November 17th, 2007 at 1:57 am by Stephen Fountain, EditorEvidence is stacking up that Iraq will be less of an issue in 2008 than was once suspected. Republicans in the US Senate turned back a Democrat effort to hijack a troop funding bill into a troop withdrawal bill. And the top Democrat contenders have refused to say that they will bring all the troops home.
Independent journalist Michael Yon posted the following picture on his website today, from the St. John’s Catholic Church in Baghdad. “Today, Muslims mostly filled the front pews of St John’s. Muslims who want their Christian friends and neighbors to come home.” Read that last sentence again. “Muslims who want their Christian friends and neighbors to come home.” Was there ever clearer evidence that an Iraq victory is at hand?
From Michael-Yon.com:
Today, Muslims mostly filled the front pews of St John’s. Muslims who want their Christian friends and neighbors to come home. The Christians who might see these photos likely will recognize their friends here. The Muslims in this neighborhood worry that other people will take the homes of their Christian neighbors, and that the Christians will never come back. And so they came to St John’s today in force, and they showed their faces, and they said, “Come back to Iraq. Come home.” They wanted the cameras to catch it. They wanted to spread the word: Come home. Muslims keep telling me to get it on the news. “Tell the Christians to come home to their country Iraq.”
16 Comments
Leave a comment
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
“Was there ever clearer evidence that an Iraq victory is at hand?”
I think this question is essentially meaningless. For there to be any sign of an Iraq victory, there needs to be a defined circumstance that constitutes victory. That such a condition is not well defined and publicized is what makes me most leery of our actions in the region. Saddam is gone. There was a “Mission Accomplished” banner. None of it was meaningful, and we seem to be settling down for a permanent presence.
What I think this story does show is that there is far more unity and tolerance among the Iraqi people than we’re generally led to believe; and that without (or hopefully even with) our destabilizing presence there, the country and people will be able to heal.
yep - looks like everything is just fine and dandy over there now
i think it is likely that the GOP will try to make a political issue over some arbitrarily defined “victory” in Iraq, but I also think that the voters of this country have much better BS detectors after living under Bush, and won’t buy it.
We keep hearing that things are getting better, or that the surge is working without any evidence besides extremely questionable death rate comparisons… the GOP is in a difficult place right now- is it politically smarter to try and fool people into thinking that the war is won, or try to continue in the war?
“without (or hopefully even with) our destabilizing presence there, the country and people will be able to heal.”
I doubt our soldiers in Iraq would appreciate being called a “destabilizing presence”.
i doubt our soldiers in Iraq like getting shot at by a “freed” population of which 70% feels attacks on American forces are justified.
I’m not defending the war, I’m defending the troops. They’re anything but a destabilizing presence.
Where do you get this “70% feels attacks on American forces are justified”?
We now know why the liberals were so against the surge. The surge has worked and thus, the major campaign topic that they thought would bring them victory on Election Day has vanished. Yes, the liberals were hoping for defeat, for more soldiers to die, for a massive destabilization of the region so they could have victory. Sounds like Benedict Arnold to me and you know what happened to him.
riiight… the surge has worked. we were all cheering for it to work, since Bush was going to do it anyways, so the troops could come home.
if it has worked, then can we expect a major drawdown of forces any time soon?
this “the surge has worked mantra” is ridiculous, and utterly divorced from reality
AndDru1: I believe that the mere presence of the troops is destabilizing, not the actions of the troops. Cash flows in to terrorist cells in order to attack our troops (and when those attacks hit civilians, that is most definitely destabilizing). Those who resent our presence attack it and anyone who supports it. How can that help but be destabilizing?
This is one of the “road to hell paved with good intentions” situations. I never have, and never plan to attack our troops or their integrity. Instead, I see a situation which causes more problems than it can hope to help.
It seems like everyone is trying to use feelings (liberals use feeling for humanity, conservatives use feelings of patriotism) to back their arguments. Now, I’m not a Vulcan, and these feeling have their place, but sometimes they cloud reasoning.
This war was suppose to be easy and pay for itself (with oil). It has not. We are paying for it by borrowing money from foreign countries, putting our national debt at record levels. A third of our debt is owned by Japan and China, a Communist (remember them?), country. This does not make me feel safer.
That said, the troop sure has had positve effects. The media largely ignores the the succes stories in Iraq and the good our soldiers have done.
Anyway, I agree “the surge has worked”. So now that it has worked, lets get the heck out of there as soon as we safely can. I recently heard a decorated Iraq veteran (an NCO who participated in the Battle of Falujiah(sp?)) say that he thought the best plan would be to pull back (but stay in the region) and let the Iraqis, who we’ve been training for the last few years, take responsibility for their own security.
I do not feel unpatriotic in the least when I say that the Iraq war does not make me feel much safer, does not boost my confidence in our government (although it does make me proud of our troops’ performance), and should be ended ASAP.
Interesting on how Afganhistan seems forgotten because it has largely returned to where it was — in terms of increased poppy production and other factors.
Even the candidates rarely mention it.
“Will an Iraq Victory change the face of the 08 election?”
Ron Paul’s stance on the war is keeping tons of people from supporting him.
If the war is over or nearly over, then the major reason not to back him is gone. So yes, it can dramatically change the face of the 08 election.
“Interesting on how Afganhistan seems forgotten because … poppy production …”
Good point.
The failures in Afganhistan will be ignored because the liberals were all for going there after 9/11. Then again they were all for going into Iraq too.. before they were against it.
But we are talking about the Kerry Flip/Flop Party.
This is the second time I heard a piece downplaying the war as an issue. Doesn’t the war help the GOP?
Also, Karl Rove said the leading presidential debate issue will be the economy. But it seems like we are sliding into another recession. That’s not so good for the GOP.
My conspiracy spider-sense is tingling: is the GOP helping Hillary?
Someone please tell me, where am I wrong?
IF. That’s the whole answer. IF. If there’s a victory. And so far no one has defined what is a victory in Iraq. Leading Israeli analyst is of the same opinion here http://samsonblinded.org/blog/iraqs-standard-of-safety.htm