[ QUOTE ]
I'll probably try to respond to the "substance" of your posts here tomorrow. In the meantime, just for fun...
[ QUOTE ]
Who was the Senator/Congressman who, on the one issue of Iraq, said that if Petraeus was correct that the surge is working that "It would be very bad for us".
[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea, nor do I trust you to provide an accurate context for this (alleged) quote without a link to some source for it. I couldn't find any references on Google's
news search or
blog search for this "quote." Google's
web search turns up two references, one of them being this thread (!) and the other being
an unsourced and unattributed comment on this blog post.
[/ QUOTE ]
Try broadening your search a little.
"It’s the dilemma of being in the opposition in wartime. By betting so much of their political capital on the issue, Reid and Pelosi have become invested in U.S. failure. A U.S. success would throw a wrench in their plans.
That sounds harsh. But just read what Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told The Washington Post.
This week the paper reported that many Democrats “have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad.” <font color="red">And that, Clyburn told the paper, would be “a real big problem for us.”
</font>
Clyburn’s comments are the flip side of what Reid said in April when he declared, “We’re going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Sen. [Charles] Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding.”
Schumer (D-N.Y.) also said, “Look at the poll numbers of Republican senators, and the war in Iraq is a lead weight attached
to their ankle.” As a result, Schumer predicted, some Republicans face “extinction” while Democrats pick up more seats.
American success in Iraq could mess all of that up."