The Left Is Going To Hate September [Archive] - Debate Policy

View Full Version : The Left Is Going To Hate September

red states rule

08-10-2007, 05:23 AM

The month of September is going to be a bad one for the left. From all accounts the surge is working in Iraq, and the left is going into both spin and panic mode before the report is issued

Just Another Vacation From Reality

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, August 10, 2007; Page A13

You might have thought that now isn't the most opportune time for the elected leaders of both the United States and Iraq to pack up and head to the beach, ranch or villa for a nice long vacation. Silly you.

You probably reasoned that with 162,000 U.S. troops sweltering in the war zone, with the Iraqi government fracturing along sectarian lines and with what is billed as a make-or-break report from the U.S. commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, due next month, maybe tradition ought to be ignored and the summer heat withstood just this once. You doubtless pointed out that no matter how uncomfortable triple-digit temperatures might be for the grandees of Washington and Baghdad, soldiers burdened with body armor and combat boots -- and the constant threat of getting shot or blown up -- have it a bit worse.

You were right, of course -- it's unbelievable that the Iraqi parliament is taking a month-long vacation, that Congress has left for its traditional August recess and that George W. Bush is heading off to Kennebunkport and then to Texas. What you failed to take into account is that none of this really matters, because the war in Iraq is on autopilot.

If you listened to Bush at his news conference yesterday, you heard a man who's not about to let something as petty as objective reality change his mind -- and who's not going to pay attention to what the Iraqi government or even his own government might say or do.

Reporters asked about Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's all-smiles visit with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran. The White House has angrily accused Iran of fostering chaos in Iraq and supplying advanced explosives that are killing U.S. troops. But Maliki was quoted as telling his host that Iran played a "positive and constructive" role in Iraq.

Bush's response: "In his heart of hearts," Maliki didn't really believe what he had said.

Reporters asked about the failure of the Iraqi government to make any discernible progress toward political reconciliation. Actually, the "unity" government has been deserted by Sunni leaders who see Maliki as more interested in establishing a dominant position for the Shiite majority than in building a nation.

Bush's response: The three members of the Iraqi "presidency council" -- a Kurd, a Shiite and a Sunni whose head-of-state duties are largely ceremonial -- are still on speaking terms and are "trying to work through the distrust."

That makes sense only if he was using "distrust" as a euphemism for "hatred" or "civil war."

At least now maybe people will understand what I've been saying for months, which is that Bush doesn't care what anybody else thinks. He doesn't care that the Iraqi government has failed to meet its political benchmarks. He doesn't care that Maliki is getting so cozy with the mullahs in Tehran. He doesn't care that Republicans in Washington are getting so nervous about having to face an election with the war still raging and no end in sight.

Bush laid out his Iraq policy yesterday in plain language, with none of his recent gibberish about al-Qaeda in Pakistan being the same as al-Qaeda in Iraq, only different, but really the same, kind of. This time we heard the classic neocon analysis -- the same grand vision that got us into this mess. If Bush hasn't changed his mind by now, he ain't gonna.

Bush said we have to stay in Iraq to "change the conditions that caused 19 kids to be lured onto airplanes to come and murder our citizens" -- and that's the heart of the matter. Forget for a moment that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with the Sept. 11 attacks. The neocon idea is that the only way to eliminate terrorism in the long term is to create democracies that will offer potential terrorists an alternative future of freedom, prosperity and hope.

No one can argue against the flowering of democracy, and the United States should help freedom bloom wherever it can. But what on earth would make Bush -- or the neocon ideologues who are his enablers -- believe that any nation would appreciate being invaded, occupied for years by tens of thousands of foreign troops and having a particular brand of Western democracy imposed at the point of a gun?

I can't answer that question. But if you think Bush is going to care what Petraeus's report says in September, get out of the sun immediately and drink lots of water. You're delirious.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/09/AR2007080901903.html

PostmodernProphet

08-10-2007, 06:58 AM

red states rule

08-10-2007, 07:08 AM

red states rule

08-10-2007, 08:11 AM

you have missed something here, Red.....the left will not have a bad month simply because the report says the surge is working.....the left already knew that and have made it clear they intend to ignore it.....in September they will again press for withdrawal and will again back down.....thus September will be exactly like June for the left.....

Iraq: Changes in Attitudes?

Thursday August 9, 2007 5:16 PM

By TOM RAUM

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Even some critics of President Bush's Iraq war policies are conceding there is evidence of recent improvements from a military standpoint. But Bush supporters and critics alike agree that these have not been matched by any noticeable progress on the political front.

Despite U.S. pressure, Iraq's parliament went on vacation for a month after failing to pass either legislation to share the nation's oil wealth or to reconcile differences among the factions. And nearly all Sunni representatives in the government have quit, undermining the legitimacy of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite.

Still, there have been signs of changes in attitudes, some on the ground in Iraq, some in the United States:

-Two critics of Bush's recent handling of Iraq, Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, both of the Brookings Institution, penned an op-ed opinion piece in The New York Times suggesting after a visit that ``we are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.'' They recommended Congress sustain the current troop buildup ``at least into 2008.''

-Leading anti-war Democrat Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania predicted that U.S. commanders will begin drawing down troop levels early next year and that Congress can be more flexible in setting a fixed deadline for ending the U.S. occupation.

-Polls suggest that Bush has had some degree of success in linking Islamic militants in Iraq with the al-Qaida terrorist movement.

``The administration is aggressively engaged in shifting (public) attitudes. And our side has been less aggressive than it needs to be,'' said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. ``The administration has been making inroads on their Iraqi argument, particularly linking it to terrorism.''

After sliding to just 28 percent in June, within range of an all-time low, Bush's job approval rating on handling Iraq rose slightly to 31 percent in July, according to AP-Ipsos polling. And a recent CBS/NYT poll showed an increase in the percentage of Americans who think the U.S. did the right thing in going to war with Iraq, up to 42 percent from 35 percent in May.

``I don't claim our recommendation to keep surging into 2008 is a no-brainer. That can be debated. But I think people's opinions need to catch up with the battlefield facts,'' O'Hanlon said in an interview.

The op-ed piece he wrote with Pollack has been widely circulated by war supporters but denounced by many war critics. ``As long as people start to get a sense that what's happening on the battlefield is different and better than what it was, then I feel like we've made our contribution,'' said O'Hanlon.

O'Hanlon and Pollack supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but they have been sharply critical of the administration's handling of the aftermath.

Like the Iraqi parliament, Congress has recessed for the rest of August, to return in September - when an eagerly awaited progress report on Iraq will be presented by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

Bush previewed that report on Thursday, telling a news conference, ``My own perspective is that they (Iraqis) have made some progress but not enough. I fully recognize this is a difficult assignment.''

What lawmakers hear from their constituents during the next month could do a lot to shape the Iraq debate ahead of receiving that report.

Visiting Iraq, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, said Wednesday from Baghdad that American-led forces were ``making some measurable progress, but it's slow going.''

``As our troops show some progress toward security, the government of this nation is moving in the opposite direction. This is really unsustainable with the American people,'' Durbin said in an interview with National Public Radio.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said that Petraeus' plan was ``producing good results. And the troops have achieved tactical momentum against al-Qaida. ...We're anxious to see what General Petraeus has to say in September. It will be a watershed moment in our efforts in Iraq.''

Petraeus asserted that ``we are making progress. We have achieved tactical momentum in many areas, especially against al-Qaida Iraq, and to a lesser degree against the militia extremists.'' Still, he told Fox News on Tuesday that ``there are innumerable challenges.''

Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies said, progress there ``is a very mixed bag.'' After visiting Iraq, Cordesman cited recent military successes against al-Qaida terrorists - but said there has been less progress against Shiite extremist groups.

``I think senior Iraqi political leaders are talking to each other, but they're doing it around the prime minister (al-Maliki). It's not clear the prime minister is exerting any great leadership toward conciliation,'' Cordesman said.

``Barring a miracle, there will be very little political progress to point to in mid-September,'' Cordesman said Thursday in a briefing on his trip.

Michele Flournoy, a former Pentagon defense strategist and now president of the Center for a New American Security, said that ``the clock in Washington is running down pretty fast. There's sort of a wall next March-April. That's when they'll have to start replacing units, which will hit the 15-month mark.'' Bush recently extended tours of duty from 12 months to 15 months.

``They're going to have some very tough choices then. Either the 'surge' will de facto end and they'll start bringing people out because there's no units to replace them. Or you're going to have to have a presidential decision to extend tours from 15 months to 18 months,'' Flournoy said.

Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a Virginia-based think tank that follows defense issues, cites ``significant progress'' on the military front. ``There's the backlash against al-Qaida in Anbar Province. There's a reduction in attacks in Baghdad. And there's the ongoing stabilization efforts in the suburban belt around Baghdad,'' Thompson said.

``The problem is that nobody in the United States sees any significant progress on the political front. The Shiites and Sunni factions in the government don't seem to be able to get along. And that makes Congress wonder whether we're making any real progress. Because, even with better security, the country can't figure out how to take care of itself,'' Thompson added.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6838118,00.html

bluestatesrule

08-10-2007, 09:06 AM

Straight talk to the right:

When the democrats were swept into office last fall...one of the reasons is that the public was begining to see what many of us thought all along, wrong war, at the wrong time. There are plenty of ways to engage the terrorists....and as the 911 commission pointed out...enough mistakes made along the way by both the Clinton and Bush administration. I am as much a hawk as anyone in the republican party...but you fight smart...I would seriously consider invading Iran...BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE REALLY APPEAR TO HAVE OR WILL SOON HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!

bluestatesrule

08-10-2007, 09:11 AM

The Surge:

As virtually all of the top military commanders have said...the only real solution in Iraq is a politcal one.....It has taken the Bush administration this long to figure it out...it may be too late. The only thing the Saudis have promised is maybe an embassy. By the time all is said and done...what have we really accomplished? Terrorism is still a reality. The new report last month indicates that the terrorists are stronger than ever. So...okay the surge succeeds...then what...if the American people change their mind...and want to stick it out in Iraq....then so be it....go ahead and put the republicans back in office and have at it....

PostmodernProphet

08-10-2007, 10:36 AM

one of the reasons is that the public was begining to see what many of us thought all along, wrong war, at the wrong time

we can't help it the public made the wrong choice last November.....the question is whether we can keep them from doing it again now......

PostmodernProphet

08-10-2007, 10:37 AM

.then so be it....go ahead and put the republicans back in office and have at it....

see Red?....I TOLD you he was more conservative than you are.....

red states rule

08-10-2007, 08:06 PM

red states rule

08-10-2007, 08:09 PM

red states rule

08-10-2007, 08:11 PM

see Red?....I TOLD you he was more conservative than you are.....

he is a lib - like you

Guernicaa

08-10-2007, 08:13 PM

LMAO! Thanny...Com'on now...

You would NEVER get caught saying this bull shit on P&CA. Cut the lies and bull shit.

Guernicaa

08-10-2007, 08:14 PM

Just so you're not confused red, Postmodern is "thaantos" on www.politicsandcurrentaffairs.com

To say the least I'm not supprised you guys are friends.

red states rule

08-10-2007, 08:15 PM

LMAO! Thanny...Com'on now...

You would NEVER get caught saying this bull shit on P&CA. Cut the lies and bull shit.

Your link came up page not found

The last thing the left wants to see or hear is good news from Iraq or how the surge is realy working

Guernicaa

08-10-2007, 08:17 PM

Then I spelled it wrong

This one works:

www.politicsandcurrentaffairs.com

red states rule

08-10-2007, 08:19 PM

Then I spelled it wrong

This one works:

www.politicsandcurrentaffairs.com

So your point about another message board? Is it a liberal haven where the facts about the surge working will cause them to break out into a state of mouth frothing hysteria?

PostmodernProphet

08-10-2007, 09:21 PM

You would NEVER get caught saying this bull shit on P&CA. Cut the lies and bull shit.

??....I have said nothing different here than I have said at other boards.....it isn't my fault that like most brainless librulls, you pay more attention to your assumptions than you do to what is posted....

red states rule

08-10-2007, 09:22 PM

??....I have said nothing different here than I have said at other boards.....it isn't my fault that like most brainless librulls, you pay more attention to your assumptions than you do to what is posted....

Like the Dem Underground and Daily Kook Kos?

PostmodernProphet

08-10-2007, 09:27 PM

lol.....actually Red....the fact that you operate from assumptions is one of the reasons I think you are more liberal than I am.....

red states rule

08-10-2007, 09:28 PM

lol.....

You want to see what the kooks are really thinking drop by there and check out the rants

bluestatesrule

08-11-2007, 07:44 PM

PostmodernProphet

08-11-2007, 08:39 PM

Let me get this straight....when the American public votes republican they get it right.....and when they vote domocrat they get it wrong....

yeah, I would say that pretty much covers it....

red states rule

08-12-2007, 05:24 AM

Let me get this straight....when the American public votes republican they get it right.....and when they vote domocrat they get it wrong....pretty convenient if you are republican. You guys are so easy to understand.....

Not at all. However, when Dems lose an election (2000,2002,2004) all we heard was excuses.

The election was stolen, the voting machines were corrupt, voters were denied their right to vote, ect)

In 2006, not a peep from the libs

BTW, do you notice when Republicans lose we dont bitch and whine about elections being stolen? We regroup and try to figure oout why we lost

You libs have 2 year long temper tanturms when you lose

red states rule

08-13-2007, 05:11 AM

Even with all the good news coming from Iraq how the surge is working, the NY Times is now trying to gove cover to the Dems

How shocking

Wrong Way Out of Iraq
Published: August 13, 2007

As Americans argue about how to bring the troops home from Iraq, British forces are already partway out the door. Four years ago, there were some 30,000 British ground troops in southern Iraq. By the end of this summer, there will be 5,000. None will be based in urban areas. Those who remain will instead be quartered at an airbase outside Basra. Rather than trying to calm Iraq’s civil war, their main mission will be training Iraqis to take over security responsibilities, while doing limited counterinsurgency operations.

That closely follows the script some Americans now advocate for American forces in Iraq: reduce the numbers — and urban exposure — but still maintain a significant presence for the next several years. It’s a tempting formula, reaping domestic political credit for withdrawal without acknowledging that the mission has failed.

If anyone outside the White House truly believes this can work — that the United States can simply stay in Iraq in reduced numbers, while ignoring the civil war and expecting Iraqi forces to impose order— the British experience demonstrates otherwise. There simply aren’t reliable, effective and impartial Iraqi forces ready to keep the cities safe, nor are they likely to exist any time soon. And insurgents are not going to stop attacking Americans just because the Americans announce that they’re out of the fight.

In Basra — after four years of British tutelage — police forces are infiltrated by sectarian militias. The British departure will cede huge areas to criminal gangs and rival Shiite militias. Without Iraqis capable of taking over, the phased drawdown of British troops has turned ugly. The remaining British troops hunkered down in the city at Basra Palace are under fire from all directions. Those at the airbase are regularly bombarded.

And Basra should be easier than Baghdad. Most of the population is Shiite, and neither Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia nor other Sunni insurgent groups have a significant presence. Elsewhere in Iraq, where internal rivalries are overshadowed by the Sunni insurgency, sectarian civil war and rampant ethnic cleansing, a reduced American force might find itself in an even worse predicament. The clear lesson of the British experience is that going partway is not a realistic option.

The United States cannot walk away from the new international terrorist front it created in Iraq. It will need to keep sufficient forces and staging points in the region to strike effectively against terrorist sanctuaries there or a Qaeda bid to hijack control of a strife-torn Iraq.

But there should be no illusions about trying to continue the war on a reduced scale. It is folly to expect a smaller American force to do in a short time what a much larger force could not do over a very long time. That’s exactly what the British are now trying to do. And the results are painfully plain to see.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/13/opinion/13mon1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

red states rule

08-13-2007, 05:52 AM

Dems biggest fear is that a good report will help Pres Bush

Progress in Iraq could boost Bush
WHAT'S NEXT? | A surge in optimism is washing over the war's supporters

August 12, 2007
STEVE HUNTLEY shuntley@suntimes.com
With only one month to go before the opening of perhaps the climactic political battle in Washington over the Iraq war, what once seemed like a virtual slam dunk for anti-war Democrats to get Congress on record in favor of a troop withdrawal has become less certain.
Just a month ago, I expressed the view that it would take a near miraculous turn of events to save President Bush's Iraq policy when Democrats in Congress renewed their assault against it this fall. While nothing that could be called near miraculous has occurred in Iraq, a surge in optimism is washing over the war's supporters, who believe a significant shift in the course of the conflict is under way.

We've been hearing more positive reports about the military surge strategy implemented by Gen. David Petraeus -- and they're coming from unlikely sources.

Perhaps the most influential assessment came in a New York Times op-ed titled "A war we just might win," written by Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack of the prestigious liberal-leaning Brookings Institution. Well-known for their fierce criticism of the Bush administration's conduct of the war, O'Hanlon and Pollack said they were surprised by the military progress they saw during eight days in Iraq and "the potential to produce not necessarily 'victory' but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with." They said Congress should sustain the current strategy into 2008.

A measure of the significance of this report surfaced immediately in the eruption of rage in the netroots anti-war blogosphere.

Another indication of how well the surge is going came in a little-noticed remark Sen. Hillary Clinton made Tuesday during the AFL-CIO presidential forum at Soldier Field. Responding to a question about what the United States should do if, after a troop withdrawal, al-Qaida should take over Iraq, Clinton repeated her plan for pulling troops out and then added, "But if it is a possibility that al-Qaida would stay in Iraq, I think we need to stay focused on trying to keep them on the run as we currently are doing in Al Anbar province."

That's a clear acknowledgement of progress in a province in the Sunni Triangle once considered lost to the terrorism. Clinton's campaign told me that her debate comment represented no change from her position that a "small residential force" might be required "to deal with al-Qaida."

Another positive report came from Sen. Dick Durbin, who visited Iraq last week. Surge troops "are starting to have an impact," he told reporters. But Durbin was quick to note that the progress in the American military effort has not been matched by successful movement toward political reconciliation by the Iraqis. "Very discouraging" were the words he used in describing the Iraqi government.

This no doubt will be the strategy anti-war Democrats will take after Petraeus delivers his progress report Sept. 15. Their key points:

• • U.S. troops have performed admirably and achieved more than anyone expected.

• • But the Iraqi government has failed miserably.

• • And success is impossible no matter how much military progress U.S. troops make so long as the Iraqis aren't producing an army effective enough to assume the security burden and the politicians can't produce a true government of national unity.

The White House will counter that it would be foolish to change strategy with measurable gains being seen. It will accuse Democrats of trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

The outcome likely depends on two things:

• • Can Petraeus keep up the gains?

• • Where will moderate Republican lawmakers -- seen in mid-summer as ready to abandon Bush -- come down in this struggle?

The deep unpopularity of the war with Americans confronts Bush with an uphill battle, but the events of the last month have boosted his chances. What will the next month bring?

We've been hearing more positive reports about the military strategy implemented by Gen. David Petraeus.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/506952,CST-EDT-HUNT12.article

red states rule

08-13-2007, 06:31 AM

NY Times Provides Cover for Dem Shift on Iraq: 'U.S. Can't Walk Away'
By Mark Finkelstein | August 13, 2007 - 05:59 ET
Is it just me, or did the New York Times just drop a bombshell?

By the headline of its editorial this morning, Wrong Way Out of Iraq, and its introductory paragraphs -- about how the British model of withdrawing to bases in Basra hasn't worked, I was sure we were headed for a demand for total, rapid withdrawal. When suddenly came this conclusion:

The United States cannot walk away from the new international terrorist front it created in Iraq. It will need to keep sufficient forces and staging points in the region to strike effectively against terrorist sanctuaries there or a Qaeda bid to hijack control of a strife-torn Iraq.

Whoah! Whether in connivance with the campaigns of the Dem candidates, or on its own initiative, the Times has clearly provided cover on the left for Hillary, Obama et al. to back away from their defeatist positions. There is some ambiguity in the Times position. Is it saying that the U.S. should pull all forces out but stage them over the horizon -- the good old Murtha Okinawa Gambit? Does the Times really care about fighting terrorists, or has it realized that the Dem candidate can't win in '08 by running on a platform of unconditional surrender?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/08/13/ny-times-provides-cover-dem-shift-iraq-u-s-cant-walk-away

actsnoblemartin

08-14-2007, 12:48 AM

Im not gonna bash libs, but i would like to ask them. Why leave if the surge is working?. Let me give another example, if you have cancer, do you give up, just because it spread, no you fight it.

Everyone knows bush made mistakes, but do we have to cry over spilled milk/obsess over it. Cant we atleast continue the debate over what to do next?.

I dont hate anyone, I dont dislike liberals, I dislike some of their ideas, but i dont go lock step with any parties ideas. I ask myself what makes sense, and what do i stand for, and try not to be an asshole about it. Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one and they all stink. :dance:

red states rule

08-14-2007, 03:14 AM

red states rule

08-14-2007, 04:18 AM

The liberal media is ignoreing the good news already

More See 'Surge' Success, But CBS Buries Poll Finding 20 Minutes Into Newscast
By Brent Baker | August 13, 2007 - 20:10 ET
When a CBS News poll in July found 73 percent believed the surge of troops in Iraq was making the situation “worse” or having “no impact,” the CBS Evening News led with that number. But on Monday, when a new CBS poll discovered that percent had fallen 12 points to 61 percent, as the percent who think the surge is making the situation “better” jumped ten points from 19 to 29 percent, CBS gave it 12 seconds 20 minutes into the newscast. “Major attacks decline in Iraq: Military credits troop increase, civilian tipsters,” declared the headline at the top of Monday's USA Today front page. Katie Couric, however, ignored that report and, after briefly relaying the new poll number, couldn't resist highlighting “one thing that hasn't changed, two-thirds say that, overall, things are still going badly in Iraq.”

Couric had led the July 18 CBS Evening News: “In a CBS News/New York Times poll out tonight, nearly three out of four Americans say the troop surge is not working, that it's having no impact, or actually making matters worse.” On Monday, she acknowledged: “Americans are starting to come around on that troop surge in Iraq. In our CBS News poll out tonight, 29 percent say the surge is making things better. That's a ten point increase since July.” It's doubtful the ten percent who have come around are consumers of CBS or other mainstream media outlets which concentrate on the negative.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2007/08/13/more-see-surge-success-cbs-buries-poll-finding-20-minutes-newscast

red states rule

08-14-2007, 06:33 AM

It is sad to see Democrats outting their party ahead of their country. Now the anti war wing of the em party struggles to find a way to surrender as the US military makes progress in Iraq

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5280.html

red states rule

08-14-2007, 10:13 AM

and the NY Times going after Gen Petraeus - what has the liberal media so worried about his report?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/world/middleeast/14petraeus.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref&oref=slogin

bluestatesrule

08-14-2007, 10:50 AM

red states rule

08-14-2007, 10:54 AM

Once again...we should not be there in the first place...there were better ways to engage the terrorist...getting bogged down in a backwater country like Iraq was just not one of them. The real questions remain....how do you define "victory" in this mess....and is there ever going to be a time when the right wing pundits are okay with pulling out the troops?

NEWSFLASH TO BSR....................

The terrorists are there in Iraq and they have said this is the front when iot comes to the war on terror

What are you Defeatocrats going to do when the reports shows progress being made?

You have put your political future in the US losing in Iraq

darin

08-14-2007, 10:57 AM

Once again...we should not be there in the first place...there were better ways to engage the terrorist...getting bogged down in a backwater country like Iraq was just not one of them. The real questions remain....how do you define "victory" in this mess....and is there ever going to be a time when the right wing pundits are okay with pulling out the troops?

Why do you continue to beat a drum which is pointless? I mean - your whole 'We shouldn't be there in the first place" has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING REMOTELY RELATED TO REALITY.

red states rule

08-14-2007, 10:59 AM

Why do you continue to beat a drum which is pointless? I mean - your whole 'We shouldn't be there in the first place" has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING REMOTELY RELATED TO REALITY.

Since when are liberals in touch with reality? If they were, they would not be liberals

Gaffer

08-14-2007, 11:41 AM

Once again...we should not be there in the first place...there were better ways to engage the terrorist...getting bogged down in a backwater country like Iraq was just not one of them. The real questions remain....how do you define "victory" in this mess....and is there ever going to be a time when the right wing pundits are okay with pulling out the troops?

If not there, where should we be?

We are in two major hotbeds of islam. We're taking on the islamists in their own territory.

Victory will be achieved when all the islamists are dead. After that we can pull the troops.

red states rule

08-14-2007, 11:43 AM

If not there, where should we be?

We are in two major hotbeds of islam. We're taking on the islamists in their own territory.

Victory will be achieved when all the islamists are dead. After that we can pull the troops.

To BSR, he actually thinks Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. He says he is a hawk of defense, but on this issue he is more of an ostrich

He has his head stuck in the ground with his backside exposed

Gaffer

08-14-2007, 12:19 PM

To BSR, he actually thinks Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. He says he is a hawk of defense, but on this issue he is more of an ostrich

He has his head stuck in the ground with his backside exposed

That's the problem with all libs. They don't think iraq is a part of the overall war. When its a front in the same war we are fighting worldwide. It's one of the two fronts where we can actually bring full military force to bear. Everywhere else we have to do it clandestine or through another countries military.

red states rule

08-14-2007, 12:40 PM

That's the problem with all libs. They don't think iraq is a part of the overall war. When its a front in the same war we are fighting worldwide. It's one of the two fronts where we can actually bring full military force to bear. Everywhere else we have to do it clandestine or through another countries military.

but they never said a word when Bill Clinton and other Dems, said Saddam had WMD's and was a threat

OMG - another source on the progress being made in Iraq!!!!!!!!

German Mag: US Military in Iraq More Successful Than World Wants To Believe
By Noel Sheppard | August 14, 2007 - 14:35 ET

Read the following paragraph, and imagine it being written by a member of the mainstream media (emphasis added throughout):

Ramadi is an irritating contradiction of almost everything the world thinks it knows about Iraq -- it is proof that the US military is more successful than the world wants to believe. Ramadi demonstrates that large parts of Iraq -- not just Anbar Province, but also many other rural areas along the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers -- are essentially pacified today. This is news the world doesn't hear: Ramadi, long a hotbed of unrest, a city that once formed the southwestern tip of the notorious "Sunni Triangle," is now telling a different story, a story of Americans who came here as liberators, became hated occupiers and are now the protectors of Iraqi reconstruction.

Shocking, yes? Probably written by The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol or some other conservative columnist, right?

Well, such is not the case, for this truly amazing article was published by Germany's Der Spiegel Friday, which as Ray Drake pointed out to his readers on Monday, has consistently been a staunch opponent to the Iraq war and George W. Bush.

That's all changed now (grateful h/t Say Anything):

When describing Iraq, the word "peace" is seldom used. Truth be told, the Americans have restored order to many parts of the county.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/14/german-mag-us-military-iraq-more-successful-world-wants-believe

actsnoblemartin

08-16-2007, 07:58 PM

I get a vacation in september too, im going to see my best friend in texas, yee haw!

red states rule

08-17-2007, 04:50 AM

With more and more reports of success coming out, now talk of bringing troops home - the Dems have painted themselves into a corner

Watch as they try and come out - with the liberal media providing them plenty of cover

Were CNN Poll Questions Weighted Against Surge Report?
By Warner Todd Huston | August 17, 2007 - 04:54 ET
CNN released a poll on the 16th that claims that 53% of Americans don't trust the U.S. Military assessment of what is going on in Iraq and that 72% won't have their mind changed on their view of the war no matter what General Petraeus says about the surge next month. But if one reviews the questions of the poll and its methodology is considered (at least the only hint of methodology released), it makes one suspicious that it was anywhere near a fair and balanced method. In fact, there are so many questions about how this poll was carried out that the results must be viewed with skepticism.

To start with, of course, the poll is conducted by Hillary Clinton supporter Vin Gupta's Opinion Research Corporation, the organization CNN has hired to run their political polling -- a convenient situation for the Clinton campaign, to be sure. This single fact alone is enough to inform that the poll could likely be weighted to skew toward the ideas that Hillary Clinton is propagating in her campaign.

According to the front page of the partial downloadable PDF file of the poll, it was compiled from "interviews with 1,029 adult Americans" by telephone between August 6th thru the 8th with a plus or minus 3 percentage points.

There is no indication what party the respondents claimed to be members of, there is no mention if they were voters, registered, or likely. No geographic region is identified, no age bracket and no gender info for the poll is offered. This also causes skepticism. After all, they could have asked all Democrats, or weighted the Democrats to be a higher percentage. Maybe more women than men were asked? Maybe all the respondents were in the environs of Washington D.C., or maybe they were all women in Austin, Texas!? We have no idea as no facts of the sample size are revealed.

Only half of sample asked certain questions?

Then we get to the odd choice of asking only half those interviewed some of the questions from the poll. What was the deal with this? At least questions 28 through 33 were only presented to half those interviewed. One of those questions pertained to how respondents viewed the report general Petraeus would be giving next month.

33. As you may know, in September the top U.S. commander in Iraq will report to the President and Congress about how the war is going. Do you trust him to report what's really going on in Iraq without making the situation sound better than it actually is, or don't you feel that way? (ASKED OF HALF SAMPLE)

The half of the 1,029 interviewed that were asked this question ended up giving the following results:

Trust him to report what’s really going on 43%
Do not trust him to report what’s really going on 53%
No opinion 4%
But which half were asked this question? Was the question asked of women and not men? Was the question asked of Democrats and not Republicans? How do we know how this question was weighted so that we might assess the legitimacy of the results?

Further, if many of the questions were only asked of half the respondents, doesn't that mean that the poll was not conducted among 1,029 adult Americans, but was really only conducted among some 514 adults, roughly half the claimed sample size?

As Duane Patterson of radioblogger says, "It's hard to take a poll seriously when on the one hand, 50% can support the war or say they're open minded to change their mind, and then in the next breath say 72% wouldn't change their mind on Iraq regardles of what General Petraeus might say, because most people don't trust him anyway."

And who could disagree with that?

All in all, what we have here is another questionable CNN poll by Clintonista, Gupta, that is possibly weighted toward the antiwar side and one that should be viewed with a healthy skepticism... not that any of CNN's viewers and readers would be aware of the problems here.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2007/08/17/were-cnn-poll-questions-weighted-against-surge-report