No Wonder Libs Are Upset - The Surge Is Working

[maineman]

Much like on the tax increase thread - you will ignore the good news and postive news from Iraq

Libs are not only consumed with doom ad gloom but also hate and rage for outlets that report the good news

you were the one who claimed that American casualties are down 60% fromthe surge. I have merely been trying to get you to either address that claim or retract it.

 

[red states rule]

you were the one who claimed that American casualties are down 60% fromthe surge. I have merely been trying to get you to either address that claim or retract it.

I have posted many articles showing the surge is working, but like the poll showing people in Iraq do not belive the country is in a civil war - it goes over your pointy head

You are going to belive what the Dems and liberal media say - no matter how many facts prove them wrong

 

[maineman]

I have posted many articles showing the surge is working, but like the poll showing people in Iraq do not belive the country is in a civil war - it goes over your pointy head

You are going to belive what the Dems and liberal media say - no matter how many facts prove them wrong

you said our casualties are down 60%. I proved you wrong. Just admit it and we'll move on.

 

[red states rule]

you said our casualties are down 60%. I proved you wrong. Just admit it and we'll move on.

I have shown many articles of bias reporting and how the surge is working

When you admit it - it will snow in Miami

 

[maineman]

I have shown many articles of bias reporting and how the surge is working

When you admit it - it will snow in Miami

the surge is working "in baghdad". I have never denied that.

the surge is not working throughout Iraq...because as deaths have dropped in baghdad they have risen elsewhere... the insurgents have taken their show on the road and are now conducting their insurgency in areas where we do NOT have the sorts of "surge" induced troop concentrations.

When will you admit that the surge has not caused a 60% drop in American casualties as you have falsely claimed?

 

[red states rule]

the surge is working "in baghdad". I have never denied that.

the surge is not working throughout Iraq...because as deaths have dropped in baghdad they have risen elsewhere... the insurgents have taken their show on the road and are now conducting their insurgency in areas where we do NOT have the sorts of "surge" induced troop concentrations.

When will you admit that the surge has not caused a 60% drop in American casualties as you have falsely claimed?

still stuck on stupid I see

 

[red states rule]

In Baghdad, there are a few signs of improvement, but they tend to be offset by worrisome indications elsewhere in Iraq. Sectarian killings are down about 50 percent since the new strategy began, according to U.S military spokesmen. Car bombings are up, but so are tips from Iraqis. It is impossible to know how much of the decrease in violence is attributable to the biggest Shiite militia -- radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army -- deciding to lie low. In addition, noted a U.S. Army officer preparing for his third Iraq tour, when one side in a war alters its tactics, the other side usually will take time to study the shift and assess vulnerabilities before renewing attacks. Also, in Anbar province, there are solid indications of tribal leaders turning against al-Qaeda extremists.

But, reported one Special Forces veteran who has worked in Iraq in the military and as a civilian, "the surge in Baghdad is pushing the sectarian violence to other parts of Iraq." That is one reason for the increased fighting in nearby Diyala province that led U.S. commanders to send in a Stryker battalion that was part of the troop buildup. Likewise, the Marine Corps' new success in Anbar appears to have forced some al-Qaeda fighters to shift to Mosul, Baqubah and Tall Afar, which in 2006 was hailed as a U.S. success story but in the past month has been the scene of a horrific truck bombing and revenge killings by Shiite police. Also, a military intelligence officer warned of other troubling signs outside Baghdad: Kirkuk edging closer to explosion, the Turks increasingly unhappy with Kurdish activity, and an impending British drawdown in the south that could make U.S. supply lines from Kuwait more vulnerable.

Another military intelligence veteran of Iraq said he thinks the Petraeus approach is getting some results, but he predicted that violence will spike this summer, in part as an attempt by Iraqi factions to influence the U.S. political debate. The bottom line, said Jeffrey White, a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst, is that by this fall the picture may be mixed. "Things could look substantially brighter in Baghdad but much worse elsewhere," said White, who is now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...4/07/AR2007040701368.html?hpid=topnews&sub=AR

 

[red states rule]

the surge is working "in baghdad". I have never denied that.

the surge is not working throughout Iraq...because as deaths have dropped in baghdad they have risen elsewhere... the insurgents have taken their show on the road and are now conducting their insurgency in areas where we do NOT have the sorts of "surge" induced troop concentrations.

When will you admit that the surge has not caused a 60% drop in American casualties as you have falsely claimed?

The War You're Not Reading About

By John McCain
Sunday, April 8, 2007; Page B07

I just returned from my fifth visit to Iraq since 2003 -- and my first since Gen. David Petraeus's new strategy has started taking effect. For the first time, our delegation was able to drive, not use helicopters, from the airport to downtown Baghdad. For the first time, we met with Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province who are working with American and Iraqi forces to combat al-Qaeda. For the first time, we visited Iraqi and American forces deployed in a joint security station in Baghdad -- an integral part of the new strategy. We held a news conference to discuss what we saw: positive signs, underreported in the United States, that are reason for cautious optimism.

I observed that our delegation "stopped at a local market, where we spent well over an hour, shopping and talking with the local people, getting their views and ideas about different issues of the day." Markets in Baghdad have faced devastating terrorist attacks. A car bombing at Shorja in February, for example, killed 137 people. Today the market still faces occasional sniper attacks, but it is safer than it used to be. One innovation of the new strategy is closing markets to vehicles, thereby precluding car bombs that kill so many and garner so much media attention. Petraeus understandably wanted us to see this development.

I went to Iraq to gain a firsthand view of the progress in this difficult war, not to celebrate any victories. No one has been more critical of sunny progress reports that defied realities in Iraq. In 2003, after my first visit, I argued for more troops to provide the security necessary for political development. I disagreed with statements characterizing the insurgency as a "few dead-enders" or being in its "last throes." I repeatedly criticized the previous search-and-destroy strategy and argued for a counterinsurgency approach: separating the reconcilable population from the irreconcilable and creating enough security to facilitate the political and economic solutions that are the only way to defeat insurgents. This is exactly the course that Petraeus and the brave men and women of the American military are pursuing.

The new political-military strategy is beginning to show results. But most Americans are not aware because much of the media are not reporting it or devote far more attention to car bombs and mortar attacks that reveal little about the strategic direction of the war. I am not saying that bad news should not be reported or that horrific terrorist attacks are not newsworthy. But news coverage should also include evidence of progress. Whether Americans choose to support or oppose our efforts in Iraq, I hope they could make their decision based on as complete a picture of the situation in Iraq as is possible to report. A few examples:


· Sunni sheikhs in Anbar are now fighting al-Qaeda. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki visited Anbar's capital, Ramadi, to meet with Sunni tribal leaders. The newly proposed de-Baathification legislation grew out of that meeting. Police recruitment in Ramadi has increased dramatically over the past four months.


· More than 50 joint U.S.-Iraqi stations have been established in Baghdad. Regular patrols establish connections with the surrounding neighborhood, resulting in a significant increase in security and actionable intelligence.


· Extremist Shiite militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr is in hiding, his followers are not contesting American forces, sectarian violence has dropped in Baghdad and we are working with the Shiite mayor of Sadr City.


· Iraqi army and police forces are increasingly fighting on their own and with American forces, and their size and capability are growing. Iraqi army and police casualties have increased because they are fighting more.

Despite these welcome developments, we should have no illusions. This progress is not determinative. It is simply encouraging. We have a long, tough road ahead in Iraq. But for the first time since 2003, we have the right strategy. In Petraeus, we have a military professional who literally wrote the book on fighting this kind of war. And we will have the right mix and number of forces.

There is no guarantee that we will succeed, but we must try. As every sensible observer has concluded, the consequences of failure in Iraq are so grave and so threatening for the region, and to the security of the United States, that to refuse to give Petraeus's plan a chance to succeed would constitute a tragic failure of American resolve. I hope those who cite the Iraq Study Group's conclusions note that James Baker wrote on this page last week that we must have bipartisan support for giving the new strategy time to succeed. This is not a moment for partisan gamesmanship or for one-sided reporting. The stakes are just too high.

The writer is a Republican senator from Arizona and a candidate for president.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040601781.html

 

[red states rule]

Ya know, both the Johnson and Nixon administrations had the Pentagon publish inflated body counts during the Vietnam war to try and paint a rosier picture of the situation than it actually was. The current body counts, absent independent verification, are a similar attempt by the Bush administration to try and put a shine on the turd that is the occupation of Iraq.

I do have to give credit where credit is due

Cindy Crackpot Sheehan gets one right - Dems have betrayed the voters.


Sheehan, whose soldier son Casey was killed in Iraq, planned to lead dozens of protesters to a security checkpoint near Bush's Texas ranch and read out names of US dead in Iraq using a bullhorn.
"Our message is: Today is Good Friday, when Jesus Christ was killed by the Roman Empire. He rose again on Sunday, came back to life. But our loved ones won't be coming home" from Iraq, she told reporters.
The protesters will tell Bush "to end this madness for our families," said Sheehan, who took a tough line against Democrats who harnessed anger at the Iraq war to recapture the US Congress in November.
"They got there and they betrayed the grass roots that put them back there," she said. "We can't depend on the Democrats."


D U P E D

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

 

[Rosotar]

I do have to give credit where credit is due

Cindy Crackpot Sheehan gets one right - Dems have betrayed the voters.

Sheehan feels betrayed because she and a lot of those on the far left have grown impatient with the slow pace of American politics.

The elections last fall were a mandate for Dems to step up and change the direction of Bush's disasterous polilicies. The left actually expected them to use that mandate to make radical changes. So far Dems have tried too hard to be diplomatic and work with rather than against congressional Republicans. I think many on the left just forgot that at the end of the day even Democrats are still politicians.

What voters will remember in 08 is that Dems couldn't get anything done mainly because they didn't have strong enough majorities in either house to ram through any kind of radical agenda.

If Republicans keep up this obstructionism, ignoring the will of the majority, we can look for more Republican losses in 08.

 

[red states rule]

Sheehan feels betrayed because she and a lot of those on the far left have grown impatient with the slow pace of American politics.

The elections last fall were a mandate for Dems to step up and change the direction of Bush's disasterous polilicies. The left actually expected them to use that mandate to make radical changes. So far Dems have tried too hard to be diplomatic and work with rather than against congressional Republicans. I think many on the left just forgot that at the end of the day even Democrats are still politicians.

What voters will remember in 08 is that Dems couldn't get anything done mainly because they didn't have strong enough majorities in either house to ram through any kind of radical agenda.

If Republicans keep up this obstructionism, ignoring the will of the majority, we can look for more Republican losses in 08.

obstructionism?

Try the gutless Dems who are trying a back door way of cutting of funding.
Libs are now trying to take the powers of the CIC from Presidnet Bush which they know they cannot do

Dems passed their "Surrender At All CostS" bill desite they know it will go nowhere

Then they passed a $400 billion tax increase on 3/29

I look forward to Dems tryng to explain to workers in the lowest tax bracket why they raised their tax rate by 33%

 

[maineman]

RSR.... just stop the cut and paste barrage for a moment and answer just a few of my questions in your own words:

WHY do the official DoD casualty figures NOT show this 60% decrease in American casualties that you keep claiming, but instead show a nearly steady rate of American casualties in Iraq from before the surge began up to the present?

Why do the official DoD casualty figures show that April is on track to be the bloodiest month of the war so far?

Why do the official DoD casualty figures show that the rate of casualties for Americans over the last six months is 37% higher than the six months before that?

Just answer those questions and then you can get back to cutting and pasting the same tired old stories over and over and over again.

 

[red states rule]

First you say the surge is not working - I post atricles that show it is

Then you ask for the poll that shows the people in Iraq do not believe they are not in a Civil War - I have

Why not admit you are beat and move on?

 

[maineman]

First you say the surge is not working - I post atricles that show it is

Then you ask for the poll that shows the people in Iraq do not believe they are not in a Civil War - I have

Why not admit you are beat and move on?

why can't YOU just answer a few simple questions?

YOu post articles that claim the surge is working...I post offical DoD casualty figures which clearly show NO 60% decrease in casualties as you have suggersted.

Why not answer my questions and then I'll leave you alone.

 

[red states rule]

Illegal Diplomacy?
Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad.
The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble.



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1813324/posts

 

[maineman]

and I asked you to show me this poll of baghdad citizens... you have yet to provide that....

not that I think you ever will, or can.

 

[maineman]

Illegal Diplomacy?
Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad.
The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble.



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1813324/posts

would you like to wager...say $1000 that she is never even indicted?

 

[red states rule]

would you like to wager...say $1000 that she is never even indicted?

Libs do give each other a pass - after all, when have libs ever let a little thing like the law get in their way?

I would like to see her charged, even some in the liberal media are saying she was foolish

 

[maineman]

don't run away from these questions:

RSR.... just stop the cut and paste barrage for a moment and answer just a few of my questions in your own words:

WHY do the official DoD casualty figures NOT show this 60% decrease in American casualties that you keep claiming, but instead show a nearly steady rate of American casualties in Iraq from before the surge began up to the present?

Why do the official DoD casualty figures show that April is on track to be the bloodiest month of the war so far?

Why do the official DoD casualty figures show that the rate of casualties for Americans over the last six months is 37% higher than the six months before that?

Just answer those questions and then you can get back to cutting and pasting the same tired old stories over and over and over again.

 

[maineman]

Libs do give each other a pass - after all, when have libs ever let a little thing like the law get in their way?

I would like to see her charged, even some in the liberal media are saying she was foolish

the republicans are running the justice department. If they think she commited a crime, you should tell them to indict her...absolutely. If someone breaks the law, they should pay.