Sad, so sad...you'd think they'd be happy to see our men and women securing victory, and our safety.

What happened to the Democratic party?

Let's see......

The ttacks on troops are at a record level, the death toll for both Iraqi civilians and US troops is well above that recorded for any July (a month typically short on attacks due to the intense Iraqi heat) during the entire period of the conflict.

Five more ministers announced a boycott of Cabinet meetings -- leaving the prime minister's unity government with no members affiliated with Sunni political factions.

190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols have vanished.

The next six months are critical. We are turning the corner. The insurgency is in its last throes. We've got 'em on the run. The surge is working.....

Foolish Stupid deadenders.

"and now other Democrats are too." Kim

Kim help me out here. Show me the part where other Democrats are saying that a win Iraq is bad for Democrats?

Why do you right wingers so like to see people slaughtered and maimed?

Sorry Barney,

American and it's allies are turning the corner and showing signs of being on the right course to victory.

And the side that you and the rest of the left are apparently supporting are loosing.

Sucks to be you, or an Islamofascist, or a Democrat.

And the trolls show up to scream like a goth in the sun.

(Been dyin' to use that line)

Must suck to be a wanna be thrill killer and a consevative Bunyan

JFO, when did you stop beating your wife?

JFO....kinda like being an ambulance-chasing leech on society.

Conservatives are for the win. Always the win. Winners are positive, can do people. Losers never prosper. Losers are negative. Losers embrace mediocrity. So, I guess that makes you liberals losers. You want to lose. You need to lose. You expect to lose. I have no idea how you guys live within your own skin. It must be so sad. ww

Conservatives are for randomly killing and maiming in the name of "victory" WW. How do you live with that?

In an AP story about how the surge is working I found this little nugget:

From the AP: "U.S. military leaders want Congress and President Bush to give them more time to keep trying to reach a point, perhaps in 2009, when the Iraqis will be closer to reconciliation and ready to provide much of their own security."

So now progress is to wait until 2009 before the Iraqis START to get their ship in order? Talk about moving the goal posts back.

"Conservatives are for randomly killing and maiming in the name of "victory" WW. How do you live with that?"

Y'see? Liberals look at it all and think it's "random", being unable to fathom the underlying pattern. No, the other side is doing random. We do the focussed killing and maiming in the name of victory. That's how we won every war that was ever won.

If you know of any war that was ever won by the good guys without killing and maiming the bad guys, let us know. In the meantime, JFO, why don't you call that bunch of homicidal freaks you support and ask them nicely to stop bombing marketplaces?

Ben

"Conservatives are for randomly killing and maiming in the name of "victory" WW."

The above is a perfect example of how democrats out of desparation are reduced to lie and smear their opponents. That is the only way they can win.

JFO

Conservatives are for randomly killing and maiming in the name of "victory" WW. How do you live with that?

How do you explain that?

Unlike you wanna be killers Ben I support the troops. You support Bush, not the troops. That's what you folks do, blindly follow the cowboy over the cliff.

JFO and other liberals on here even more pathetic than usual.

Heralder:

I'll explain it after you explain liberals being called "traitors", "Islamofascists" "America haters"; that "liberals want to lose in Iraq" and all the other large number of opprobrium so loosely and freely tossed around by your brethren on this and other blogs

See, there isn't any explanation as you well know.

There are numerous explainations, JFO; some better than others, but none sufficient to label the entire group.

I seriously do believe that many on the left (pick a shade: liberal, progressive, democrat) have invested politically on a Republican loss in Iraq. I've mentioned it several times in the past to people like Lee, Larkin, Barney, etc....that simply choosing the opposite side as Bush and/or Republicans through sheer reflex may put you on the wrong side of the war.
I think it's becoming apparent that that may be the case, or something close to it in certain circumstances.

That and there's and election coming up and the Democratic platform has echoed their base...'get out now, because it's a lost cause, we're losing!'

What happens to that if we're winning and we stay? A lost election.

Now what's your explaination?

No JFO , your a liar and you support democrats, our terrorist enemies and anything that makes President Bush look bad. Your words are killing our troops you jerk and it's a fact and it was put in writting in a letter to your traitorous learder Harry Reid.

EXPLAIN THAT!

What happens to that if we're winning and we stay?

Indeed, that would be bad for the Democrats (most of them, anyway). The problem is not that we might be winning and people aren't willing to accept that for political reasons, the problem is that we aren't winning. Boyda's full quote (conveniently edited by IBD-I can't believe people actually link to them) is here:

"So I think I am back and maybe can articulate some things--after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to. But let me first just say that the description of Iraq as in some way or another that it's a place that I might take the family for a vacation--things are going so well--those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country instead of saying, 'Here's the reality of the problem.'"

Now I'm not defending Boyda's hyperbole, but the underlying point, that there is a myopic view coming out of the Pentagon, is sound. The myopia, however, is widespread on both sides of the debate. Those who want out of Iraq refuse to see any progress, and the other side refuses to see the enormous obstacles that lie in front of their version of "winning."

Yes, the surge has shown progress in certain areas, and it is encouraging. But if you take into account the seemingly intractable problems in the Iraqi government, and the fact that the violence the surge has been successful in stemming in some areas has simply moved to other areas in many cases, the rosy outlook starts to dim (not saying you have a rosy outlook, Heralder, but there are many who do).

The progress of the surge cannot hold unless the Iraqi government gets it shit together fast (it's going in the opposite direction right now), or if we commit even more troops to hold things down until they can. A lot more troops. Is anyone confident either of these things will happen? Sadly, I am not.

Heralder:

I'm not so naive as to think that there are no liberals or progressives who so despise Bush as to just want him to lose. And I accept that political issues are also involved with some people. But I surely don't believe that is the view of the majority of dissenters.

But what I see rejected so easily by some of those on your side is that there are also liberals, progressives or others who sincerely and deeply believe that this war is wrong; that is has been terribly managed and that all we are doing there is breeding more terrorism. There appears to be no room for principled dissent. I would suggest that there are probably more people in the country who dissent for other than political reasons. perhaps I am wrong, but I don't think so.

So whenever a liberal like me voices a dissent here, inevitably the opprobrium starts. There is no explanation or justification for that. I don't "hate" Bush - I think he's a terrible president but not a terrible man. I am not against this war because of Bush.

My explanation for my opprobrium? To make a point.

Now what's your explaination?

Undercooked General Tsao's chicken from the local Chinese restaurant?

The attacks on troops are at a record level, the death toll for both Iraqi civilians and US troops is well above that recorded for any July (a month typically short on attacks due to the intense Iraqi heat) during the entire period of the conflict.

Gee, civil, that wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with the fact that because of "the surge" we are constantly engaging Islamofascist thugs in, chiefly, Diayla, now would it? Nice convenient fact to leave out.

Here are the casualties for the last 4 months:
Apr-07 104
May-07 126
Jun-07 101
Jul-07 80
Aug-07 20

Oops, declining now. Must be the weather, huh? And actually, using your FUBAR logic, one could argue that May-07 is the THIRD worst month for casualties since Apr-04 and Nov-04! (Of course, be sure to leave out the fact that those numbers just happen to coincide with the first failed taking of Fallujah in Apr-04 and the subsequent re-invasion and taking of Fallujah in Nov-04. We don't want anybody to know that now, do we.)

Onward defeatist solider!

"I'll explain it after you explain liberals being called "traitors", "Islamofascists" "America haters"; that "liberals want to lose in Iraq" and all the other large number of opprobrium so loosely and freely tossed around by your brethren on this and other blogs

See, there isn't any explanation as you well know."

"I'll explain it after you explain"

"See, there isn't any explanation"

Fact is you don't really want to hear the truth or any explanation. Too bad , the reason you are called those things is because you are all those things.

Why don't you explain the untrue things you say?

See, .......

mantis,

I can't particularly say I'm confident about much regarding Iraq...it's in a constant state of violent and political flux.

I am confident in our armed forces, but I'm not confident in our country's support of our armed forces, which is key to winning any conflict.

I think in many cases we see an equal and opposite reaction. Problem is, I think both sides of the reaction are equally a little off the mark to begin with, so you never meet in the middle...Democrats become traitors and Republicans warmongers, and then...hmmm, what was the subject again?

Definition: Opprobrium - Something that brings disgrace. A public disgrace or ill fame that follows from conduct considered grossly wrong or vicious.

And with every American death in Iraq, with every American setback, and ultimately with any American defeat, the left celebrates!

That is what I call opprobrium!

You know, even though I didn't vote for Clinton, and never particularly cared for him, I STILL wanted us to win in Kosovo. That is what's so frustrating for me as a conservative American, I cannot fathom supporting our mortal enemies. Like apparently many of our commie/leftist brethren are so apt to do.

Peter F, thanks for the opening. This is what I wrote earlier in the day:

The count for July was 80. The count for March was 81, Feb 81 and Jan 83. Hardly a statistical difference.

Over the last two years the number of causalities in July dropped compared to the month before and after:

2005
June = 85
July = 54
Aug = 78

2006
June = 65
July = 43
Aug = 61

So a drop in July of 07 is meaningless (as far as tracking progress), but the right points to this one statistic as proof the surge is working.

So yes Peter there is a pattern of fewer deaths in July than in June or Aug. Also, the death rate was statistically the same as the first three months and was nearly twice as much as in '06. Is that your idea of progress?

"I support the troops. " - JFO

I haven't stopped laughing since I read that.

JFO, you don't voice dissent - you flat out lie

Example:

Conservatives are for randomly killing and maiming in the name of "victory" WW. How do you live with that?

Just a flat out lie. that's how you earned your low reputation here.

I am confident in our armed forces, but I'm not confident in our country's support of our armed forces, which is key to winning any conflict.

I'm also confident of our armed forces, insomuch as they can successfully accomplish mission objectives better, more efficiently, and more humanely than any other fighting force the world has ever seen. But there are jobs they can't do, like building a democracy from the ground up among a starkly divided population with deep, deep conflicts among them that are rooted not only in recent history, but go back centuries as well.

I think in many cases we see an equal and opposite reaction. Problem is, I think both sides of the reaction are equally a little off the mark to begin with, so you never meet in the middle...Democrats become traitors and Republicans warmongers, and then...hmmm, what was the subject again?

Indeed.

btw, LIAR!!!1!

Barney, you are an idiot. With the increased tempo of operations, one would rationally expect increased casualties. The casualty rate during the operation is not a measure of progress for any honest person. So of course you use it.

JFO

Why do you right wingers so like to see people slaughtered and maimed?

Why do you make such grandiose ludicrous statements?

Jesus marc do you read all the comments or just a select few? See #22.

JFO, conservatives do not mind doing the "heavy lifting" while you sit down and critique the work. We know war is hell. We know they asked for it and we are giving it to them. We know if we don't kill them, they will kill us. We know that civilians along the way will be hurt. We know this. It is called war. It is you and your ilk that is in denial about the world we live in. The terrorists don't want republicans dead, they want Americans dead. So, keep on with the free ride while we support, defend and take care of the dirty work. You continue with your whining, we expect it. ww

"Barney, you are an idiot. With the increased tempo of operations, one would rationally expect increased casualties. The casualty rate during the operation is not a measure of progress for any honest person. So of course you use it." RR

Actually peter f used it as a measure and he claims the numbers are down:
"Here are the casualties for the last 4 months:
Apr-07 104
May-07 126
Jun-07 101
Jul-07 80
Aug-07 20

Oops, declining now. Must be the weather, huh?" Peter F

So robin please direct your "idiot" comment to Peter and all the rest of the righties that point to the July causality numbers as a sign of progress including Gen. Odierno.

JFO, you still didn't answer marc's question.

Pointing out a post where you obviously are happy with your "word of the day" calendar doesn't constitute a reply.

He's got a point: you do like to cough up these rather grotesque generalizations while giving grief over folks who do the *cough* same *cough*cough*hypo*cough*crite* ... same thing.