The Surge is Working - Dems Ignore It

[red states rule]

The Democrat Party are ignoring the good news from Iraq. Their worst nightmare is for this news to start trickling out and the people see the Us military is winning



July 24, 2007
The Surge Succeeds
By J.R. Dunn


God looks after children, drunkards, and the United States of America
- Otto von Bismarck


It's now quite clear how the results of the surge will be dealt with by domestic opponents of the Iraq war.


They're going to be ignored.


They're being ignored now. Virtually no media source or Democratic politician (and not a few Republicans, led by Richard "I can always backtrack" Lugar) is willing to admit that the situation on the ground has changed dramatically over the past three months. Coalition efforts have undergone a remarkable reversal of fortune, a near-textbook example as to how an effective strategy can overcome what appear to be overwhelming drawbacks.

Anbar is close to being secured, thanks to the long-ridiculed strategy of recruiting local sheiks. A capsule history of war coverage could be put together from stories on this topic alone - beginning with sneers, moving on to "evidence" that it would never work, to the puzzled pieces of the past few months admitting that something was happening, and finally the recent stories expressing concern that the central government might be "offended" by the attention being paid former Sunni rebels. (Try to find another story in the legacy media worrying about the feelings of the Iraqi government.) What you will not find is any mention of the easily-grasped fact that Anbar acts as a blueprint for the rest of the country. If the process works there, it will work elsewhere. If it works in other areas, that means the destruction of the Jihadis in detail.


Nor is that all. Diyala province, promoted in media as the "new Al-Queda stronghold" appears to have become a death-trap. The Jihadis can neither defend it nor abandon it. The Coalition understood that Diyala was where the Jihadis would flee when the heat came down in Baghdad, and they were ready for them. A major element of surge strategy - and one reason why the extra infantry brigades were needed - is to pressure Jihadis constantly in all their sanctuaries, allowing them no time to rest or regroup.

A blizzard of operations is occurring throughout central Iraq under the overall code-name Phantom Thunder, the largest operation since the original invasion. It is open-ended, and will continue as long as necessary. Current ancillary operations include Arrowhead Ripper, which is securing the city of Baqubah in Diyala province. Operation Alljah is methodically clearing out every last neighborhood in Fallujah. In Babil province, southeast of Baghdad, operations Marne Torch and Commando Eagle are underway. (As this was being written, yet another spinoff operation, Marne Avalanche, began in Northern Babil.)


for the complete article

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/the_surge_succeeds.html

[Hagbard Celine]

Virtually no news source is reporting the "good news" from Iraq. That's rich. Could it be because there isn't any? No, of course not! It's because of the vast liberal media conspiracy! The White House is reporting good news--so the lack of good news actually coming from Iraq must the the liberals' fault! The logic is flawless! :laugh:

[red states rule]

Virtually no news source is reporting the "good news" from Iraq. That's rich. Could it be because there isn't any? No, of course not! It's because of the vast liberal media conspiracy! The White House is reporting good news--so the lack of good news actually coming from Iraq must the the liberals' fault! The logic is flawless! :laugh:

Have you seen any elected Dem taklking about it?

Or on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, Wahsington Post, NY Times, or LA TImes

[nevadamedic]

Virtually no news source is reporting the "good news" from Iraq. That's rich. Could it be because there isn't any? No, of course not! It's because of the vast liberal media conspiracy! The White House is reporting good news--so the lack of good news actually coming from Iraq must the the liberals' fault! The logic is flawless! :laugh:

So getting Saddam and killing his two sons(who were wanted for some of the worst war crimes in history) out and dead isn't progress? Capturing and killing the head's of AQ there constantly isn't progress? Our troops killing thousands of terrorists is good news? Then what is? Oh that's right anything that makes the President and VP look bad.

[red states rule]

So getting Saddam and killing his two sons(who were wanted for some of the worst war crimes in history) out and dead isn't progress? Capturing and killing the head's of AQ there constantly isn't progress? Our troops killing thousands of terrorists is good news? Then what is? Oh that's right anything that makes the President and VP look bad.

The Democrat party have invested their future in the US losing in Iraq

The last thing Dems want is for the US militray to make any progress in Iraq

[nevadamedic]

The Democrat party have invested their future in the US losing in Iraq

The last thing Dems want is for the US militray to make any progress in Iraq

The last thing the Democrat's want reguarding andything that has to do with the US is progress anywhere.

[red states rule]

The last thing the Democrat's want reguarding andything that has to do with the US is progress anywhere.

The compassionate and caring left would rather have the issue then actually solve the problem

That is what liberalsim is all about

[nevadamedic]

The compassionate and caring left would rather have the issue then actually solve the problem

That is what liberalsim is all about

Oh see and I thought being a Liberal was all about being the country over and screwing it without any lubrication...........Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

[red states rule]

Oh see and I thought being a Liberal was all about being the country over and screwing it without any lubrication...........Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

No being a liberal is screwing you up the ass without the courtsey of a reach around

[nevadamedic]

No being a liberal is screwing you up the ass without the courtsey of a reach around

Ewwwww...........

[red states rule]

Ewwwww...........

Isn't liberalism fun?

(Like having a root canal)

[Pale Rider]

In my opinion, the "surge" is nothing more than they should have been doing all along. Times running out for this nation building experiment. It's a been a major fuck up from day one.

[red states rule]

In my opinion, the "surge" is nothing more than they should have been doing all along. Times running out for this nation building experiment. It's a been a major fuck up from day one.

Screw the "rules of engagment" and turn the US military loose

Let them do what they do best - kill the enemy

[Pale Rider]

Screw the "rules of engagment" and turn the US military loose

Let them do what they do best - kill the enemy

That's what I'm sayin'. Shit or get off the pot. Fight like there's no tomorrow, or get the hell otta there. This playin' patty cake with insurgents is bullshit. But on top of that, this Iraqi government has to step up... right fucking now.

Every frickin' day should be "shock 'n awe."

[red states rule]

That's what I'm sayin'. Shit or get off the pot. Fight like there's no tomorrow, or get the hell otta there.

Every frickin' day should be "shock 'n awe."

If they would go that way I don't know who it would hurt more : the terrorists they kill or the Dems they piss off by winning the war

[Pale Rider]

If they would go that way I don't know who it would hurt more : the terrorists they kill or the Dems they piss off by winning the war

In any case, September will be an interesting month.

[red states rule]

In any case, September proves to be an interesting month.

If progress is being made, I wonder how fast the Dems will dismiss it and continue to press for surrender

Faster then Ted Kennedy heading for an open bar at a strip club perhaps?

[red states rule]

In any case, September will be an interesting month.

Libs are a very strange bunch. Here is Sen Obama - he wants to surrender to terrorists in Iraq yet he wants to attack Pakistan


BARACK'S BLUNDER
INVADE A NUCLEAR POWER?

August 2, 2007 -- IN an "I am too tougher than Hillary" speech, Sen. Barack Obama warned Pakistan yes terday that as commander-in-chief he might act unilaterally if Islamabad didn't do more against the terrorists there.

"Let me make this clear . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, I will," the Democratic presidential candidate told a Washington audience in his first comprehensive speech on terrorism.

There's nothing wrong with Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) talking tough on terrorism - though he's seemingly coming to it a little bit late in the campaign. But there are a couple of things in his proposal that should be addressed.

First, there was little new in Obama's proposition for fighting al Qaeda. In fact, he might be alarmed to learn that he's basically taken a long-standing page from the Bush administration's playbook in the War on Terror.

President Bush has already made it clear on numerous occasions that he'd do what whatever was necessary to kill or capture al Qaeda operatives - especially the likes of Osama bin Laden - if we had actionable intelligence to do so.

But an attack on Pakistan's terrority that isn't unauthorized by that nation's government - which is what Obama seemed to be suggesting - is a pretty risky proposition, especially if it involved a large number of U.S. troops pouring over the Afghan border into Pakistan.

Taking this sort of large-scale action - or any other unilateral action - without prior consultation with Islamabad could easily lead to the downfall of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's government.

Musharraf is already on shaky ground. His government has faced a number of crises in recent months - including the seizure of the Red Mosque, terror attacks and the (now overturned) firing of a the country's top justice - leading to a serious slide in his popularity.

The fall of Musharraf's government might well lead to a takeover by pro-U.S. elements of the Pakistani military - but other possible outcomes are extremely unpleasant, including the ascendance of Islamist factions

for the complete article
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08022007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/baracks_blunder_opedcolumnists_peter_brookes.htm

[actsnoblemartin]

Thank You for posting this, you know when the new york times prints good news, from two people of the brookings , who normally were pissed at bush, for mistakes, that should not have been made, and now, finally, when good news hits, they told it, with no agenda. Good for them :)



The Democrat Party are ignoring the good news from Iraq. Their worst nightmare is for this news to start trickling out and the people see the Us military is winning



July 24, 2007
The Surge Succeeds
By J.R. Dunn


God looks after children, drunkards, and the United States of America
- Otto von Bismarck


It's now quite clear how the results of the surge will be dealt with by domestic opponents of the Iraq war.


They're going to be ignored.


They're being ignored now. Virtually no media source or Democratic politician (and not a few Republicans, led by Richard "I can always backtrack" Lugar) is willing to admit that the situation on the ground has changed dramatically over the past three months. Coalition efforts have undergone a remarkable reversal of fortune, a near-textbook example as to how an effective strategy can overcome what appear to be overwhelming drawbacks.

Anbar is close to being secured, thanks to the long-ridiculed strategy of recruiting local sheiks. A capsule history of war coverage could be put together from stories on this topic alone - beginning with sneers, moving on to "evidence" that it would never work, to the puzzled pieces of the past few months admitting that something was happening, and finally the recent stories expressing concern that the central government might be "offended" by the attention being paid former Sunni rebels. (Try to find another story in the legacy media worrying about the feelings of the Iraqi government.) What you will not find is any mention of the easily-grasped fact that Anbar acts as a blueprint for the rest of the country. If the process works there, it will work elsewhere. If it works in other areas, that means the destruction of the Jihadis in detail.


Nor is that all. Diyala province, promoted in media as the "new Al-Queda stronghold" appears to have become a death-trap. The Jihadis can neither defend it nor abandon it. The Coalition understood that Diyala was where the Jihadis would flee when the heat came down in Baghdad, and they were ready for them. A major element of surge strategy - and one reason why the extra infantry brigades were needed - is to pressure Jihadis constantly in all their sanctuaries, allowing them no time to rest or regroup.

A blizzard of operations is occurring throughout central Iraq under the overall code-name Phantom Thunder, the largest operation since the original invasion. It is open-ended, and will continue as long as necessary. Current ancillary operations include Arrowhead Ripper, which is securing the city of Baqubah in Diyala province. Operation Alljah is methodically clearing out every last neighborhood in Fallujah. In Babil province, southeast of Baghdad, operations Marne Torch and Commando Eagle are underway. (As this was being written, yet another spinoff operation, Marne Avalanche, began in Northern Babil.)


for the complete article

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/the_surge_succeeds.html

[red states rule]

Thank You for posting this, you know when the new york times prints good news, from two people of the brookings , who normally were pissed at bush, for mistakes, that should not have been made, and now, finally, when good news hits, they told it, with no agenda. Good for them :)

and they are being savaged by the left for telling the truth

Look what the libs did to Sen Lieberman - a man they voted for in 2000

[red states rule]

What if we win?
Cal Thomas
August 3, 2007
Most Democrats seem so invested in defeat in Iraq that they apparently have no "Plan B," which would be success.

Like the character Billy Bigelow in the musical "Carousel," who is dumbstruck when he realizes he has not thought about the possibility that his pregnant wife might actually deliver a girl, instead of the son he wants, Democrats appear unable to conceive of victory, or at least stability in Iraq.

So cynical have our politics become that a spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democratic leaders are "not willing to concede there are positive things to point to" in Iraq. And House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn said a favorable report from Gen. David Petraeus could lead 47 moderate-to-conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats to oppose a withdrawal timetable, making it virtually impossible for the liberal leadership to pass such legislation. "[It would be] a real problem for us," said Mr. Clyburn.

Is that what the Iraq war has become? Instead of viewing it as a generational war that will determine the future of civilization (because, if we lose, Iraq will become a launching pad for terrorist acts around the world and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would surely die), is it now just another tool in the Democrat's quest for the White House? Where are the statesmen who put their country and its interests before personal and political interests? Was Harry Truman right when he observed, "A statesman is a politician who has been dead for 10 or 15 years"? Aren't we Americans before we are Republicans or Democrats? And don't we all lose if one political "side" wins and it costs others their freedom and puts America in greater peril?

Much of Washington is buzzing over a recent New York Times column by two scholars from the Brookings Institution, Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack. In addition to their association with a left-of-center think tank, the two have credibility because they have been harsh critics of how President Bush has directed the war.

Their column, titled "A war we just might win," expresses something we haven't heard in several years: optimism. "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms," they write. This surprised them and they saw "the potential to produce not necessarily 'victory,' but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with."

Testifying last week before the House Armed Services Committee, U.S. Army Gen. John M. Keane said Gen. Petraeus' new offensive has turned the tide against al Qaeda and insurgents alike. "We are on the offensive and have the momentum," said Gen. Keane, citing improved security throughout Baghdad, reduced sectarian violence, and al Qaeda's loss of ground in Sunni areas.

This is bad news for Democrats; so invested are they in defeat. What would they do; what could they do should pacification, if not unification, set in? It would not be beyond them to ignore the positives and focus only on the negatives. Will the mainstream media support them in such a strategy? Some might, but the "alternative" media, including talk radio, cable TV and the Internet, won't let them get away with it. Democrats may be reduced to asking if the public is going to believe them or their "lying eyes."

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070803/COMMENTARY09/108030018/1001