No Wonder Libs Are Upset - The Surge Is Working

[actsnoblemartin]

Im sorry, but it is a bad idea for the media to report on deployments of our troops, does al queda not have people watching the news?.

 

[maineman]

hey marty..when have I ever asked you do DEAL with me?

go call the waaaaaambulance, but PUHLEEZE don't bore me with your whining.

If you did indeed sent RSR a similar PM, why aren't you on HIS case for failing to heed your pleas for civility?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I have and will continue to get on him for it.

 

[maineman]

Im sorry, but it is a bad idea for the media to report on deployments of our troops, does al queda not have people watching the news?.

no one is saying that reporting troop movements in advance is a good thing.

RSR suggested that the media would "PREVENT" the rapid deployment of forces. I told him he was full of shit. He is.

 

[maineman]

I love how maineman assumes, just because i agree with you on most things, that we will never disagree, and if we disagree on even one thing, we must fight to death. With swords

we're like brothers in the conservatives cause, not boot lickers who cant disagree peacefully

I don't ASSUME anything. You sent me a whiny PM and now claim to have sent RSR a similar PM... you then came on here and castigated me for not playing nice in the wake of your smarmy entreaty.... yet RSR has played no less nicely and you haven't castigated him.

It is what it is.

 

[maineman]

I have and will continue to get on him for it.

whatever.... talk is cheap. I have seen you jump in my shit in public. I haven't seen you say DICK to him

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I need you to stop being rude and mean to maineman. Please it is imperative, you stop. Be the bigger man, and dont engage in personal attacks.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

ask him how much i have said to him privately...

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Please, im begging you, please be civil. I know he can be annoying but please, I have to be fair, even if i agree with you most the time, i cant simply take your side, because of it. I have to call it as i see it. So please I beg you, as one friend to another, please be respectful of him.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

this is not helpful to the discussion...

You, and other supporters of the right-wing in America, have long since run out of intellectual ammunition. Poor boy...Your little brain must be working overtime to try and find something, anything, to disprove or gloss over the facts on the ground in Iraq and the corruption of the Administration which is now coming to light. Failing that, we have the result of posts such as what I've quoted above.

The left never had any intellectual ammunition. At least we can reload.

SPeaking of factless posts, re read yours.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

1. Asked and answered...often
2. Asked and answered...often
.

Oh GEEEE, and when I was telling you the same thing a while back, you bitched and moaned and complained.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Im sorry but comments like these are not helpful.

Oh GEEEE, and when I was telling you the same thing a while back, you bitched and moaned and complained.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Maineman, Im asking everybody to be civil.

Ironically, you telling me to go fuck myself, and then telling me how im a hypocrite for not asking red state to be nice, is very hypocritical of you.

Do me one favor, if your not gonna be nice, then atleast dont say vile things like that in a pm, say it in the open, so everybody can see how rude, and mean you are to people who disagree with you.

 

[red states rule]

The Democrats' Surge on Iraq
By Daniel Henninger

Carried aloft on the gassy fumes of politics, the congressional Democrats may be overshooting on Iraq. Six months from now, they may wish they had been more temperate. Helped finally by the right U.S. military strategy, the Iraq nightmare might be ebbing. Then what?

No such thought intrudes today on Democratic politics. Buoyed by President Bush's 30-something approval and with disaffection over the war at 60%, Senate Majority Leader Reid can promise to sign on to Russ Feingold's pull-the-plug bill; and House Speaker Pelosi, as if making foie gras, can cram an Iraq-withdrawal bill down the gullets of her chamber's membership. The polls are with Harry and Nancy. What can go wrong?

What could go wrong is that the U.S. military's "surge" could go right. The surge, led by Gen. David Petraeus and formally known as the Baghdad Security Plan, is a real strategy being executed by real people on the ground in Iraq. For the past several months, since President Bush announced the plan, the Democratic leadership has acted as if this effort were so irrelevant as to not exist. Why bother? The House leadership has its own "surge" up and running in Washington against the enemy in the White House.

The Democrats' D.C. surge began in February when Rep. John Murtha announced plans to shut off the war. What followed was a six-week push by the Pelosi team toward a March vote on a date-certain pullout. Across those weeks, this domestic offensive has been the big story in our politics. Add in as well the theater of operations opened by Democratic Lt. Gen. Chuck Schumer's siege of the Justice Department.

This is heady stuff, rolling a president off the field, so heady the Democrats may be allowing their compulsions to make them the one force thwarting a much longed-for military success in Iraq. This in turn could leave the Democratic Party on the wrong side of the most revered institution in American life--the U.S. military. That is, back where they were when Bill Clinton was president. The "we support the troops" mantra will ring hollow if the Democrats are pulling out Army and Marine personnel just as they're gaining on the killers of their comrades.

The timelines for the Iraq surge announced on Jan. 10 and the Democrats' surge to shut it down have run in tandem.

On Jan. 23 Gen. Petraeus offered the Senate Armed Services Committee an outline of the surge. By Feb. 8, U.S. paratroopers and engineers in Baghdad had quickly put together 10 Joint Security Stations, the new command centers to be operated with Iraq's security forces. (The material for the surge timeline here comes from the excellent "Iraq Report" compiled by Kimberly Kagan, director of the Institute for the Study of War and published biweekly on the Web site of the Weekly Standard.)

On Feb. 10, Gen. Petraeus arrived to take command of these forces in Baghdad. In the second week of February, U.S. troops conducted 20,000 patrols compared to 7,400 the week before.

On Feb. 16, the House of Representatives passed a resolution, 246-182, to oppose the mission. Nancy Pelosi: "The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success." That might not be true. It might indeed succeed.

Through February and into March, the U.S.-Iraqi forces moved into neighborhoods on the edge of Sadr City, stronghold of Shiite militias. "While the house-to-house operations continued," Ms. Kagan writes, "U.S. and Iraqi forces also interdicted the flow of fighters and supplies through those neighborhoods into Sadr City."

Meanwhile, House Democrats worked on a bill to force the withdrawal of U.S. troops by fall 2008.

On March 4, 600 U.S. and 550 Iraqi forces commenced house-to-house searches in Sadr City's Jamil neighborhood. Also in early March, with little fanfare, U.S. and Iraqi forces arrested 16 individuals connected with the Jaysh al-Mahdi cell, suspected of sectarian kidnappings and killings.

On March 23, the House voted 218-212 to remove these U.S. forces by August's end, 2008.

It's not quite three months since the surge began in Iraq, and some early assessments of the operation have emerged. They are positive. Keep in mind that this strategy emerged from military reassessment over the past year, led largely by Gen. Petraeus; this isn't a pick-up team.

Testifying last Wednesday to a House Armed Services subcommittee, military historian Fred Kagan, who has criticized administration policies, noted that the Iraqi army is "now larger than the standing armies of France and Great Britain." The nine Iraqi army battalions called for in the surge have arrived, at over 90% of programmed strength. "They are taking casualties, inflicting casualties on the enemy and helping to maintain and establish peace for the people of Baghdad," said Mr. Kagan.

A report filed last week by retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey gets the political-military dynamic just right. He notes that we are "in a position of strategic peril there. But he then describes in detail how since early February the situation on the ground has "measurably improved." Thus the conclusion: "We now need a last powerful effort to provide to U.S. leaders on the ground the political support . . . and military strength it requires to succeed."

Gen. Petraeus himself in recent interviews has been careful not to oversell this early success. But it is difficult to imagine that the American public would want to hang its military with a failure if a better outcome is in reach. Failed wars exact a price. During Vietnam, between 1966 and 1973 support for the U.S. military dropped from 62% to 32%. We're not there, yet. From 2002 till now polls have found a combined favorable view toward the military of around 85%. But withdrawing these American troops on the cusp of a reasonable success could do long-term damage.

No one can simply assume that we would avoid a decline in faith in the army as an effective American institution deserving financial support, as happened with the post-Vietnam defense cuts. As bad, it could force a failed military class--officers to grunts--to rebuild, again, the ethos and esprit necessary to defend us from the next threat. That takes time. We don't have time.

If the Iraq surge is succeeding, the Democrats' surge should stand down. If a year from now the Petraeus plan is foundering, the Democrats will have plenty of time to hang it around the GOP's neck by demanding a legitimate withdrawal date--November 2008. But not now.

Daniel Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/will_dems_thwart_success_in_ir.html

 

[red states rule]

I don't ASSUME anything. You sent me a whiny PM and now claim to have sent RSR a similar PM... you then came on here and castigated me for not playing nice in the wake of your smarmy entreaty.... yet RSR has played no less nicely and you haven't castigated him.

It is what it is.

This is about as nice as MM can be

Now, another example of how the liberal media looks at terrorists


CBS: American Taliban 'Victim of Timing' in 'Harsh Atmosphere'
Posted by Brad Wilmouth on April 5, 2007 - 00:27.
Wednesday's CBS Evening News, anchored by Russ Mitchell, provided a sympathetic look at efforts to win an early release for John Walker Lindh, the American citizen who was convicted of giving aid to the Taliban during the war in Afghanistan. Mitchell and correspondent John Blackstone, who only displayed soundbites sympathetic to Lindh, relayed the argument of Lindh's parents that his 20-year sentence was "not fair considering Australian David Hicks was sentenced to just nine months for his terror conviction," without considering whether Hicks' sentence was too light. CBS legal analyst Andrew Cohen further contended that because Lindh was tried relatively soon after the 9/11 attacks, that he was a "victim of timing" in a "harsh atmosphere." Andrew Cohen: "He was the first person to go through the legal system after 9/11 in federal court, and the atmosphere at that time was so intense and harsh that he is essentially a victim of timing." (Transcript follows)

Mitchell brought up Hicks' nine-month sentence as he introduced the story: "The family of the American Taliban appealed to President Bush today to set him free. John Walker Lindh, who is 26 years old, is serving 20 years in prison. His family says that's not fair considering Australian David Hicks was sentenced to just nine months for his terror conviction."

Blackstone's report showed clips of both Lindh's parents making their case, including soundbites of his father Frank Lindh contending that his son "is not anti-American" and does not have "sympathy" for terrorism. After recounting the story of CIA agent Mike Spann, who was killed in a prison uprising by Taliban prisoners soon after interrogating Lindh, after which an "angry nation [America] saw Spann and Lindh as opposites," Blackstone played a clip of Frank Lindh complaining that his son was treated unfairly. Frank Lindh: "The good American and the bad American. It was completely unfair. John was wounded and nearly killed in the same uprising where Mike Spann was killed."

CBS News legal analyst Cohen soon labeled John Walker Lindh a "victim." Cohen: "He was the first person to go through the legal system after 9/11 in federal court, and the atmosphere at that time was so intense and harsh that he is essentially a victim of timing."

Blackstone concluded the piece by relaying the complaint that Lindh's sentence was much harsher than that of Australian David Hicks: "Lindh's parents point to Australian David Hicks, who will be allowed to leave Guantanamo, though he pleaded guilty to aiding al-Qaeda. Still, the Lindh family knows it's a long shot that their son will be freed before finishing his 20-year sentence in America's highest security prison."

Below is a complete transcript of the story from the Wednesday April 4 CBS Evening News:

Russ Mitchell: "The family of the American Taliban appealed to President Bush today to set him free. John Walker Lindh, who is 26 years old, is serving 20 years in prison. His family says that's not fair considering Australian David Hicks was sentenced to just nine months for his terror conviction. John Blackstone spoke exclusively today with Lindh's parents."

John Blackstone: "When he was captured in Afghanistan in November, 2001, John Walker Lindh, who converted to Islam, was labeled a traitor."

George W. Bush, dated September 28, 2001: "He's working with the enemy, and we'll see how the courts deal with that."

Blackstone: "Now, Frank Lindh and Marilyn Walker are asking the President to commute their son's 20-year sentence."

Marilyn Walker, Mother of John Walker Lindh: "I believe that, you know, that everyone has a capacity for the compassion."

Blackstone: "After years of staying largely silent about their son, Lindh and Walker spoke exclusively to CBS News."

Frank Lindh, Father of John Walker Lindh: "We know that he's not anti-American. We know he doesn't have any sympathy for terrorism. And yet here he stood accused of these things in the public eye."

Blackstone: "When Lindh was captured, he was videotaped being interrogated by CIA officer Mike Spann. Soon after, span was killed in an uprising, and an angry nation saw Spann and Lindh as opposites."

Frank Lindh: "The good American and the bad American. It was completely unfair. John was wounded and nearly killed in the same uprising where Mike Spann was killed."

Blackstone: "Walker hadn't seen her son in two years when she saw photos of him bound to a stretcher."

Marilyn Walker: "You could see the terror in his eyes. I mean, I've looked at those photographs over and over again, and there's terror in his eyes."

Blackstone: "Even though Lindh never took part in terrorism or fought against America, there were calls for him to get the death penalty."

Andrew Cohen, CBS News Legal Analyst: "He was the first person to go through the legal system after 9/11 in federal court, and the atmosphere at that time was so intense and harsh that he is essentially a victim of timing."

Blackstone: "Lindh took a plea bargain, a 20-year sentence not for terrorism, but for supplying services to the Taliban. Lindh's parents point to Australian David Hicks, who will be allowed to leave Guantanamo, though he pleaded guilty to aiding al-Qaeda. Still, the Lindh family knows it's a long shot that their son will be freed before finishing his 20-year sentence in America's highest security prison. John Blackstone, CBS News, San Francisco."

http://newsbusters.org/node/11832

 

[red states rule]

but it's all about PR anyway for you guys...McCain and his gang wearing flak jacketrs with 100 armed troops surrounding them and the sky filled with attack helicopters overhead walks through a Baghdad marketplace and he reports back that everything is totally normal...one of his butt buddies even compared it to a farmer's market back in America! (except, of course, that no farmer's market in America has a hundred soldiers guarding it.. the sky filled with helicopters protecting it..and all the shoppers wearing body armor)...but hey, other than that, it might as well have been in Omaha!

Does MM work for CBS?

'Early Show' Implies McCain has Skewed Sense of Reality on Iraq
Posted by Justin McCarthy on April 4, 2007 - 16:14.
The April 4 edition of CBS’s "The Early Show" covered Republican Senator and presidential candidate John McCain’s visit to Iraq implying he has a skewed sense of reality. Anchor Russ Mitchell introduced the segment that the Arizona Senator "seems to be stumbling a bit of late" because he "went to Iraq" and "said he saw some progress."

Before playing McCain’s optimistic sound bite, correspondent Martin Seemungal reported that McCain had been in Baghdad for "just a few hours." After playing another positive word from Congressman Mike Pence (R-Ind), Seemungal responded that "the reality on the ground is anything but peaceful" and some residents claimed "it took a massive military operation to give the congressmen that sense of security."

After implying McCain sees the situation in Iraq in a warped fashion, perhaps Seemungal missed the report that violence has dropped significantly since President Bush announced the surge, which ABC even picked up. Additionally, the soldiers themselves claim that the media does not tell the whole story. The entire transcript is below.

RUSS MITCHELL: The campaign of presidential hopeful John McCain seems to be stumbling a bit of late. The Senator went to Iraq over the weekend and said he saw progress, starting with being able to move around on foot in Baghdad, but some Iraqis have a different take on McCain's visit. CBS' Martin Seemungal has more.

MARTIN SEEMUNGAL: After just a few hours in Baghdad, Republican Senator John McCain was eager to share his first impressions.

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ): Things are getting better in Iraq and I am pleased at the progress that has been made.

SEEMUNGAL: Leading a congressional delegation to Baghdad's oldest market over the weekend, Senator McCain crowed about the safety of the city since the American troop surge.

MCCAIN: Never have I been able to go out into the city as I was today.

SEEMUNGAL: Representative Mike Pence said Baghdad central souq was

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE PENCE (R-IN): like a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime.

SEEMUNGAL: If you look at it from this side of the river it actually does look pretty serene. But the reality on the ground is anything but peaceful. People live in constant fear of suicide bombers and snipers. Across the river, shopkeepers say that it took a massive military operation to give the congressmen that sense of security. "McCain was not alone when he came here and walked around," he says. "The military had sealed off the area for a mile in every direction." Although soldiers are gone now, the market is back to normal. But business is slow. People are afraid to come back to the market that's been attacked so many times. "McCain came with a whole army" Ayad Hassan said. "They asked a few questions and left, but we're no safer." For safety to stick, there is only one real solution. Those soldiers would have to spend more than just a few hours on this street. Martin Seemungal, for CBS News, Baghdad.

Update: ABC video on improved Iraqi situation here

http://newsbusters.org/node/11823

 

[maineman]

Oh GEEEE, and when I was telling you the same thing a while back, you bitched and moaned and complained.

subtle difference: In this case, the person who is asking the questions of ME in this case is the same person who has asked ME those same questions in the past, and I ahve answered THOSE SAME questions posed by HIM in the past.

You, on the other hand, claim that somewhere in the annals of USMB, something has been discussed by someone else sometime before therefore you do not need to refute anything I say...

do you catch the distinction?

you're thick as a brick, so probably not.

 

[red states rule]

subtle difference: In this case, the person who is asking the questions of ME in this case is the same person who has asked ME those same questions in the past, and I ahve answered THOSE SAME questions posed by HIM in the past.

You, on the other hand, claim that somewhere in the annals of USMB, something has been discussed by someone else sometime before therefore you do not need to refute anything I say...

do you catch the distinction?

you're thick as a brick, so probably not.

Of course he bitches and moans and complaines - he is a liberal

 

[maineman]

and again.... the reason I am hanging around this particular thread is to TRY to get RSR to explain to me how the DoD can report a steady stream of American casualties but HE can claim that we have seen a 60% reduction because of the surge.

I understand that pumping a bunch of troops into Baghdad has caused the insurgents to take their killing outside of town, but that does not mean that it "went away" it just meant that the insurgents figured out where our troop concentrations WEREN'T and took the fight to us there.

RSR was the one who posted this website:

http://icasualties.org/oif/

THAT website shows the DoD confirmed casualty figures for the Iraq war.

THAT website shows the following monthly casualty figures for the past year:

4/06 76
5/06 69
6/06 61
7/06 43
8/06 65
9/06 72
10/06 106
11/06 70
12/06 112
1/07 83
2/07 80
3/07 81
4/07 18 already this month in only five days!

PLEASE SHOW ME THE 60% reduction in American casualties that RSR keeps touting. That is all I am asking.

The way I see it, we have seen a steady stream of carnage...and the last six months are nearly 40% WORSE than the previous six months.

Why would anyone think that was GOOD NEWS? I think it is horrible that so many Americans keep dying for a cause that does NOT make us any safer and does NOT advance the war against islamic extremists one iota...and PLEASE remember that it was islamic extremists who attacked US on 9/11 and not one of them was an Iraqi.

 

[red states rule]

The problem for libs and the Bush haters is the troops are not dying fast enough, so now they actually have to come out in public and try to cut off funding