« The Defining Quality Of Losers | Main | Vick could face state charges »

The Recent History of Democrats on Iraq

The Washington Post is catching up to a story we've been telling on Wizbang for weeks. That the surge is working and the Democrats need a new load of B.S. message on Iraq.

Democrats Refocus Message on Iraq After Military Gains
Criticism Shifts to Factional Unrest

Democratic leaders in Congress had planned to use August recess to raise the heat on Republicans to break with President Bush on the Iraq war. Instead, Democrats have been forced to recalibrate their own message in the face of recent positive signs on the security front, increasingly focusing their criticisms on what those military gains have not achieved: reconciliation among Iraq's diverse political factions. ...

The leading Democratic candidates for the White House have fallen into line with the campaign to praise military progress while excoriating Iraqi leaders for their unwillingness to reach political accommodations that could end the sectarian warfare.

"We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Anbar province, it's working," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Monday.

"My assessment is that if we put an additional 30,000 of our troops into Baghdad, that's going to quell some of the violence in the short term," Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) echoed in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. "I don't think there's any doubt that as long as U.S. troops are present that they are going to be doing outstanding work."

Advisers to both said theirs were political as well as substantive statements, part of a broader Democratic effort to frame Petraeus's report before it is released next month by preemptively acknowledging some military success in the region. Aides to several Senate Democrats said they expect that to be a recurring theme in the coming weeks, as lawmakers return to hear Petraeus's testimony and to possibly take up a defense authorization bill and related amendments on the war.

For Democratic congressional leaders, the dog days of August are looking anything but quiet. Having failed twice to crack GOP opposition and force a major change in war policy, Democrats risk further alienating their restive supporters if the September showdown again ends in stalemate. House Democratic leaders held an early morning conference call yesterday with House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), honing a new message...

The WaPo inadvertently nails it; even if they don't explain it. The Democrats have already admitted that good news in Iraq is bad news for Democrats. So now they have to change the message and whine about the supposed lack of political progress.

It's not surprising they continue to use Iraq as a political football. They have a long history of it.

In the last days of January, General Petraeus was confirmed by the Senate 81-0. Not a single Democrat voted against him. Less than 60 days later, in late March, it was obvious the surge was working even before it was at full strength.

Yet at the beginning of April, Harry Ried said he wanted to cut off funding for our troops. Of course he didn't know about the good news in Iraq because, only a single Democrat would meet with Petraeus to get a report on how things where on the ground in Iraq.

By the end of April the good news was too much for them to take so NOT A SINGLE DEMOCRAT was attending briefings on Iraq. They didn't need to because they had their spin... we where losing in Iraq. Good news hurt that message.

On April 25th, Harry Reid launched his attack on General Petraeus calling him liar for saying the surge had made progress even though it had been obvious for over a month. -- The new "message" was set. Petraeus was incompetent and a liar for saying the surge was working. The war was lost and everyone knew it. It was time to cut and run.

In June the message was that General Peter Pace was also incompetent. The idiocy peaked in early July when the the House Democrats (and 4 Republicans) voted for a surrender.

Along the route, the Democrats where forced to say some bizarre things. Obambi has said more stupid things on national security than I can link and Hillary has tied herself in knots with her statements. She has now acknowledged that if the troops leave Iraq there will be genocide. She has also acknowledged that she knows the surge is working and we're winning but she has also promised the moonbat left she would pull the troops out anyway and vowed to not send them back to stop the genocide.

So she knows we're winning in Iraq, she knows if we leave there we be genocide and she thinks we should pull out anyway. When you add all her statements up, she's basically come out "Pro-genocide."

Slowly buy surely the evidence of the surge has overwhelmed the Democrats. We are winning in Iraq and their bad dream was coming true. So now we have a new load of B.S. message from the Democrats, carefully crafted to not sound like they aren't cheering for defeat any more but instead they whine about the supposed lack of political progress in Iraq.

There's a big problem with this message. It won't work. When the Bush economy was booming before the last election, the Democrats found the one outlying statistic that resonated with voters, job growth. Forget it was a bogus indication of the economy and it is always a lagging indicator, the Dems used it and it was effective. This won't be.

The average voter wants us to win in Iraq and they want freedom for the Iraqi people. What they don't want is 3 soldiers dead every night on the evening news. If we secure the military situation in Iraq, the American people will be more than patient while the Iraqis figure out this thing called Democracy. After all we've had troops in Germany for over half a century, when was the last time you heard calls for them to come home?

This summer should stick with you for a long time. The Democrats showed their true selves. They will gladly cheer against our troop and for our enemies on if it means they can grab political power. And that's simply pathetic.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Recent History of Democrats on Iraq:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Elizabeth Edwards Assails Obama, Clinton

Comments (69)

Good summary. The Albany p... (Below threshold)

Good summary. The Albany paper (NYT owned) is still running editorials saying the surge is a failure. So the left hasn't totally abandoned that strategy. Interesting to see how they'll spin it when even their shining leaders seem to be disagreeing with the media message.

Don't worry dudes. For all... (Below threshold)

Don't worry dudes. For all liberals, their utmost goal is power. If it means admitting success in Iraq (which there is a ton of, but we're not hearing it), they will in order to get ahead. But don't for a minute think that these blatant traitors care for a positive outcome -- just the opposite. ALL liberals want America to perish and for us to become France.

"she's basically come ou... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"she's basically come out "Pro-genocide.""

Bill's wife has never not been "pro-genocide", albeit a different and much larger (50 million and counting) genocide than the potential one in Iraq would be.

Ouch P. Bunyan... that was ... (Below threshold)

Ouch P. Bunyan... that was well said.

Civilian deaths in Iraq hit... (Below threshold)

Civilian deaths in Iraq hit 1,641 last month, the highest number ever, and a full third higher than only scant months ago. If the surge was really working shouldn't civilian deaths in Iraq be declining instead of increasing?

Democratic positions on Ira... (Below threshold)

Democratic positions on Iraq have fluttered about. They fell all over themselves to authorize the war in 2002, as polls showed 90% or so of the public favored that approach. (Give the radical left credit for consistency on opposing any war to defend American interests, if not accuracy in their predictions: remember they claimed Americans would be coming back in "tens of thousands of body bags" from Afghanistan - "where empires go to die" - and Iraq, due precisely to Saddam's readiness to use WMDs).

Then, after Saddam was deposed, they adopted a middle ground, criticizing the conduct of the occupation. Now, there were any number of legitimate critics of that period, such as John McCain. Democrats didn't offer specific solutions, though, they were just seeking a way to balance their anti-war left with the segment of the Party which still loves America. Hence, John Kerry.

As casualties mounted (although strikingly lower than the rate in previous wars), the radicals took over and elected Democrats became wholly anti-war, just after winning the 2006 midterms by assuring the voters they did NOT plan to cut and run. So they tried to cut and run, but were afraid once more of public opinion, so gave Bush a temporary authorization and allowed the surge strategy which, as Paul notes above, they immediately begin bad-mouthing.

Success has scared them again, hence the hedging from the congress-critters and candidates who were 100% pro-surrender only a few weeks ago.

Such constant gyrations are the result of having no true guiding principles. They want to appease their anti-American radical left "nutroots" base without offending the public at large - which is impossible, since the left hates everything that might be good for American or about America.

If our national security were not at stake in all this, watching the spineless fair-weather patriots flip and spin would be entertaining. As it is, it merely disgusts.

Hooson,Were you ke... (Below threshold)


Were you keeping up with Iraqui civilian death numbers when Hussein was dictator? Just asking to see how consistent you are in your concern for humanity.

Bush Speaks.========... (Below threshold)

Bush Speaks.

Woohoo! I couldn't comment... (Below threshold)

Woohoo! I couldn't comment earlier; the spam filter is smarter than I am.

Hooson, you're not getting ... (Below threshold)

Hooson, you're not getting your talking points out of comic books again are you?

Nehemiah, certainly the civ... (Below threshold)

Nehemiah, certainly the civilian deaths by Saddam Hussein or any other world dictator are a serious concern of mine, and unacceptable. But only American deaths have declined in Iraq since March, not the Iraqi civilian deaths, which have only increased by at least a third. How can the "surge" be claimed as a success when only a few less Americans are being killed, but more Iraqis are losing their lives to violence.

The idea of this "surge" was to provide better security for Iraq's civilians. But the violence only contines, or moves around to new civilian areas. In that important regard this "surge" has yet to prove any real success.

Paul, your definition of th... (Below threshold)

Paul, your definition of the "surge" working should also include a decline in Iraqi civilian deaths as well. The main reason the U.S. is in Iraq is "for the people of Iraq", right?

Keep living in denial Hooso... (Below threshold)

Keep living in denial Hooson. The previous month, the civilian deaths where at a low.... Where you jumping up and down declaring the surge a success then...

No back then you wanted to talk about the oil.

Face it Hooson, you're a worthless political hack, incapable of making a consistent argument.

No matter the topic, you'll just try to make it look like we're losing the war.

Paul, your definition of th... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Paul, your definition of the "surge" working should also include a decline in Iraqi civilian deaths as well.
Looks like the terrorists are killing (more women/children) in Iraq for Congress and people like you to proclaim that the surge has failed. Looks like the terrorists are reduced to blowing up defenseless civilians as a propaganda tactic. Unfortunately, your rhetoric seems to fit in with their strategy.

Paul, documented civilian i... (Below threshold)

Paul, documented civilian incidents in Iraq from just June 28- July 3:

June 28, car bomb at petrol station in Mansour, 3 dead.

June 28. 15 civilian bodies found executed in Baghdad.

June 28. Shorja Market mortar attack. 2 dead.

June 28. Fadhl, Baghdad motrar attack. 4 dead.

June 28. New Baghdad mortar attack. 2 dead.

June 28. 20 bodies of men founded beheaded in Um al Abeed.

June 29. Baghdad University professor murdered.

June 29. Al-Sittin Street, Baghdad. 10 civilians in their homes murdered then set on fire.

June 29. Bodies found executed. 7 dead.

June 29. Tarrniya, Iraq military checkpoint suicide bombing. 2 dead.

June 29. Atila Street, Haweeja gunfire attack. 1 dead.

June 29. Mosul. 3 sisters killed by gunfire.

June 30. Iraqi government official assasinated by drive-by shooting and hand grenade.

June 30. Baghdad. 16 bodies found executed.

June 30. Muqdidiya. 23 police recruits killed by suicide bomber.

June 30. Ferris, near Falluja. 40 executed bodies found dead from gunshots.

July 1. Suicide bombing Baghdad near a bridge. 1 dead.

July 1. Car bomb in busy Baghdad intersection. 1 dead.

July 1. Saidiya, Baghdad outbreak of random gunfire. 2 dead.

July 1. Al Waljihiyah. 2 men executed by gunfire after kidnapping.

July 1. Khalis. 2 executed bodies found.

July 1. Attack on minivan carrying government officials leaves 2 dead on Baghdad to Kirkuk road.

July 1. Lawyer assasinated by gunfire in Kirkuk.

July 1. Huwaija gunfire killing of 1 Iraqi soldier guarding an oil facility.

July 1. 14 more bodies of executed civilians found in Baghdad.

July 1. Malih River. 2 bodies found executed.

July 1. East Ramadi. 5 Iraqi police killed at checkpoint by suicide bomber.

July 1. Police Colonel tortured and murdered near Basra.

July 1. Falluja suicide bombing. 1 dead.

July 1. Mosul River policeman murdered.

July 1. Police Colonel and driver ambushed and killed in Mosul.

July 1. Iraqi police patrol near a Baghdad market. 2 killed by a roadside bomb and drive by shooting.

July 2. Baghdad. 17 executed bodies found.

July 2. Karrada, Baghdad. Policeman killed by sniper.

July 2. Mosul. 1 policeman killed by roadside bomb.

July 2. Baghdad drive by shooting. 2 dead.

July 2. Hay Saddam, Baghdad. 1 killed on mortar attack on home.

July 2. Diwaniya. 1 Political protestor shot and killed by police for political expression at a city hall building.

July 2. Nadawi Market, Baghdad car bombing. 9 dead.

July 2. Family of Shiek from Falluja targeted by suicide bomber.

July 3. Iraqi police intelligence officer killed by drive by shooting at bustop in central Baghdad.

July 3. 18 bodies found executed in Baghdad.

July 3, Shalal Market, Baghdad. 18 persons killed by suicide bomber.

July 3. Kirkuk. Police chief's motorcade attacked by car bomb.

Where is this "surge" working, Paul? Civilian deaths are clearly worsening in Iraq according to any honest statistics count.

Civilian deaths in (Germany... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Civilian deaths in (Germany) hit (X) last month, the (X) number ever, and a full (X)higher than only scant months ago. If the (Battle of the Bulge) was really working shouldn't civilian deaths in (Germany) be declining instead of increasing?

Thanks for supporting the war effort, Hooson.

P. Hooson, More alo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

P. Hooson,
More along the same line here

A KEY ATTRIBUTE of the enemy in Iraq for the past few years has been his unwillingness to directly engage Coalition forces in armed combat. Whether this is a result of the enemy's good sense or his cowardice (or some combination of the two), insurgents and sectarians from al Qaeda in Iraq to the Jaisch al Mahdi have almost entirely avoided direct confrontation with the Coalition, instead choosing to target soldiers with IEDs and snipers, while saving more aggressive attacks for soft targets like the Iraqi National Police (NP) and surrounding civilian populations.

"It's very clear that they want nothing to do with us directly," said Captain Rich Thompson, a former enlisted Ranger and currently the commander of Baker Company...

It's very clear that our enemies are hoping to win the war by influencing Congress. How unfortunate that our Democratic leadership is so happy to oblige them. Their insistence that the war in Iraq is a failed policy guarantees that there will be more bombings like the one against the Yazidis and more attacks like the one on Wuerdiya.

Excuse me if I don't put a ... (Below threshold)

Excuse me if I don't put a whole lot of faith in the "death counts". As long as these numbers are gathered from news reports, in which they often count dead terrorists as part of the count, or automatically assume they're simply innocent civilians, I won't have faith in them any time soon either.

Paul, You are show... (Below threshold)


You are showing a fallacy when you are comparing civilian deaths from after the war. To any logical person, to determine if U.S. intervention in Iraq is successful, you compare civilian casualties before and after U.S. intervention (this is first grade stuff).

Again, if someone asks if the U.S. intervention has been successful, you compare pre and post numbers, not June 28th to July 3rd, which is frankly, idiotic.

One may choose to undergo an operation which risks several casualties in order to win a war. To cite numbers from 5 days and try to determine if something is successful is again, as I said, idiotic. IDIOTic, Paul Hooson.

Hooson, then why wasn't it ... (Below threshold)

Hooson, then why wasn't it a sign the surge was working last month?

Nehemiah, for the sake of s... (Below threshold)

Nehemiah, for the sake of space I only cited just five recent typical days in Iraq during the "surge". But everyday in Iraq has similiar attacks on civilians in a marketplace, murders of government officials or wealthy family members, lawless attacks on police officers, etc.

Where is this "surge" working for the average person living in Iraq? Only a few less American deaths have been noted since March. But deaths for persons living in Iraq are clearly worsening.

Hooson,I wonder:</... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:


I wonder:

(1) If you realize that the terrorist attacks on the Iraqi civilian population serve only one purpose? That purpose is so that you, likeminded bloggers, the left media, and left politicians can use those attacks to demoralize the American public and increase support for pulling out and letting the terrorists claim victory. Were it not for the support* of the leftist forces in America, terrorist attacks on civilians would be pointless?

And (2) Do you think if we did as you leftists wish and pulled out and let the terrorists claim victory and take over in Iraq, that the numbers of deaths in Iraq (and worldwide for that matter) would increase or decrease?

*maybe not willing, intentional, or even acknowledged support, but support nonetheless.

Where is this "surge" worki... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Where is this "surge" working for the average person living in Iraq? Only a few less American deaths have been noted since March. But deaths for persons living in Iraq are clearly worsening.
This is the evidence of the surge working. From the links I gave you. AlQ terrorists are reduced to blowing up women/children now so that people in the West like you can claim that the surge has failed. So this kind of rhetoric, esp when it comes from people like Reid/Pelosi, tends to encourage more massacres like this. I wonder what a strong and wide condemnation of the barbaric actions coupled with a determination to continue the fight will do the enemies.

Now, AlQ tactic to win is to kill more civilians. ANd the left seems willing to help them along.

Oyster said with good reaso... (Below threshold)

Oyster said with good reason:

Excuse me if I don't put a whole lot of faith in the "death counts".

July 2. Baghdad. 17 executed bodies found.

July 3. 18 bodies found executed in Baghdad.

I'd bet five bucks this is the same report twice and that it is the report that Rusty later proved never happened. (Rusty's report was 20 bodies but the date is about the same as I recall)

Hooson and his type are just full of shit. They want the US troops to lose just so Democrats can gain power. They are sick twisted pathetic idiots.

Master of the understatement.

>This is the evidence of th... (Below threshold)

>This is the evidence of the surge working. From the links I gave you. AlQ terrorists are reduced to blowing up women/children now so that people in the West like you can claim that the surge has failed.

and the little sniveling punk does AQ's work for them.

okay, who's messing with th... (Below threshold)

okay, who's messing with the post ratings? i find it hard to believe that Paul Hoosan has the highest rated posts considering that almost everyone else is bashing his weak arguements. it's happening on other threads as well.

and leftists claim that republicans and conservatives are the dirty tricks specialists.

Hooson, since you are too s... (Below threshold)

Hooson, since you are too stupid to figure this out, I'll explain it to you.

You're pulling a Leeward and setting your self up for a colossal ass kicking. When next month civilian deaths fall, I'll link this and make you look like the asshole you are.

Remember Leeward and the Dixie Chicks? I have a long memory and I know how to use a search tool. You'll just make an ass out of yourself later.

But go ahead and make the case that civilian deaths are the measure by which we should judge the surge. Go ahead, set yourself for being made an ass later. I won't stop you.

And goodness knows you're too stupid to stop yourself.

Paul, these are all differe... (Below threshold)

Paul, these are all different official reports by Iraqi police patrols, Iraqi or U.S. military units cleared by the Iraqi Interior Ministry, which tends to understate much of the violence, especially against the Sunni community. No incident was reported twice here. And some spectacular serious car bomb attacks such as against the Kurdish villagers in the North that took hundreds of lives recently were not used here either. Just the common day to violence that is clearly not declining in Iraq as a result of the "surge".

Your premise that the "surge is working" is clearly not true for Iraqi civilians, otherwise the violence against them would be decreasing, right? Only some American deaths have declined since March, right?

The surge is definitely wor... (Below threshold)

The surge is definitely working! 8 out of 18 requirements have been met.


That means that 10 of 18 requirements have *not* been met, which would ordinarily be a failing grade; but no matter.

I'm sure we can expect a nonpartisan, clear-eyed, wholly objective report from General Petraus...that's being written by the White House


and will be delivered on September 11th.


In related news, the Bush Administration is building a bridge to the 21st Century. It's located in Brooklyn. Would you like to buy it? Just sign here. Trust me, I work for the Bush administration.

Hooson,Again, let ... (Below threshold)


Again, let me repeat myself. Do you have pre-U.S. intervention numbers to compare?

That's what you need to compare. Pre and post.

It's like this. If Bill Clinton claimed he were getting more blowjobs now than before he was married, you don't ask how many blow jobs he has had since March (if you wanted to verify). You ask how much action he was getting before marriage, and how many now. Do you understand this basic logic of comparing before and after?

Paul, if civilian would dea... (Below threshold)

Paul, if civilian would deaths drop in the next monthly count, then that would indeed be progress. But civilian deaths have so far only worsened since the surge, right?

#1 observation: There are ... (Below threshold)

#1 observation: There are too many Pauls in here!

#2 observation: Paul H. is pissed the surge is working.

Paul Hooson,<blockquo... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

Paul Hooson,

"this "surge" has yet to prove any real success."

Thanks for the enemy point of view, Ms.Thomas.

Jo, I would indeed be very ... (Below threshold)

Jo, I would indeed be very happy if the "surge" worked for the civilians of Iraq as I supported the idea for humanitarian reasons of preventing more needless deaths in Iraq. But clearly the facts are disappointing so far, and there is no honest way to claim that the "surge" has prevented the worsening of violence in Iraq. The security situation is not really improving despite the "surge" for anyone but the U.S. forces so far. The "surge" needs to work for the people of Iraq as well to be considered a success, right?

I support anything that would improve civilian safety in Iraq and get a handle on the violence there. But clearly most violence has just moved around outside of Baghdad so far, and not really improved. Just moving around a problem is not solving a problem.

Son Of The Godfather, just ... (Below threshold)

Son Of The Godfather, just today President Bush publicly expressed disappointment in Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for failures. Is Bush expressing some enemy view? The response from al-Maliki; the U.S. shouldn't tell Iraq what to do. This Shiite dominated government simply fails to cooperate in providing better civilian security to all citizens regardless of their faith and easing sectarian tensions. If you want Iraq to succeed, then tell al-Maliki to straighten up like Bush did today.

Hooson,I'm not sur... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:


I'm not surprised you ignored my questions in #22, but could you at least answer this one:

If the US pulls it's troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, do you expect rate at which people are being killed there to increase or decrease?

We've already accomplished ... (Below threshold)

We've already accomplished our #1 mission in Iraq (ouster of Saddam). The rest is small potatoes.

The biggest accomplishment of all will be when we can get Al-Qaeda cheerleaders like Hooson to be pro-America.

>Paul, if civilian would de... (Below threshold)

>Paul, if civilian would deaths drop in the next monthly count, then that would indeed be progress. But civilian deaths have so far only worsened since the surge, right?

Bull shit. They where are a new low last month but you didn't want to talk about it then...

That's my biggest problem with you [well other than you getting forgien policy from comic books] you're simply a disingenuous lying sack of shit.

P. Bunyan and Nehemiah, cer... (Below threshold)

P. Bunyan and Nehemiah, certainly someone in Iraq must provide for the security in that nation if/or when U.S. troops eventually withdrawal, or else the violence will spin totally out of control. My own opinion is that sonething must be done by someone to provide more security in Iraq. And that largely starts with the Iraqi government and the will of the people in Iraq to stop the violence.

And Paul, your link offers no statistical evidence as to the actual number of deaths in Iraq declining. I offered the actual official number of 1,641 from the Iraqi Interior Ministry which is higher than in previous months. Paul, if you really have proof that the deaths in Iraq have improved since the "surge" then please share it here for all your readers. But I haven't seen any such evidence so far myself.

>And Paul, your link offers... (Below threshold)

>And Paul, your link offers no statistical evidence as to the actual number of deaths in Iraq declining. I offered the actual official number of 1,641

You are so stupid you make my headache.

Because Lorie didn't mention the exact number in her post "it didn't count."

Like a second grader calling "force field" while playing a game of tag.

Grow up. Even your Dems are admitting the surge is working.... You find one statistic in one month that is up and you call it "proof" that the surge is not working.

You're either stupid or a liar. Or both.

Paul, that's right, when yo... (Below threshold)

Paul, that's right, when you don't have the facts on your side simply resort to using filthy language and name calling. I can't carry on a an intelligent conversation with such a person. A good day to you. So long.

BTW Hooson, why is it every... (Below threshold)

BTW Hooson, why is it every time I get into a pissing contest with you the bogus votes start appearing?

Are you the one gaming the system? It wouldn't be hard to prove now that whoever is doing it has left a trail...

>I can't carry on a an inte... (Below threshold)

>I can't carry on a an intelligent conversation with such a person

Yes, it is me without the facts. You're just a font of knowledge. Of course you get it out of comic books but hey... there's no harm in that now is there.


Hey, at least Hooson isn't ... (Below threshold)

Hey, at least Hooson isn't telling us all about his great chinese scooter.

Paul, I didn't even bother ... (Below threshold)

Paul, I didn't even bother to vote on your nickel and dime "journalism" post here. Other people wasted their time voting here on your silly little post. I shouldn't have wasted my time here as well, responding here to your nonsense claims about the "surge" working and just let you spew whatever foolishness that you wish was true, but isn't. You're going to believe whatever you want to regardless of the facts. Goodbye.

Hooson, please don't go awa... (Below threshold)

Hooson, please don't go away mad. Just go away - and please stay.

Didn't wizbang give you your own sandbox to play in? Whassa' matter? Not enough people commenting there to argue with?

great Hoosan, I'll take you... (Below threshold)

great Hoosan, I'll take you at your word. Do not post on my threads again.

"When next month civilia... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"When next month civilian deaths fall, I'll link this and make you look like the asshole you are."

Actually, Paul, I would not expect the increase in the terrorist attacts to stop until after the General gives his report and the funding bills are passed.

Hooson and most leftists think the recent increase in violence is proof that the "surge" is not working. The reality is the the recent increase in terrorist attacks is only more proof of the evil alliance between Al Qaeda (and other Islamofascist organizations) and the American leftists.

The only reason for the surge of terrorism is Iraq is so that the leftists can use it as propaganda in their attemps to demoralize the good guys. (And in their leftist minds they simply pretend that they are not supporting the terrorists.)

Looks like this is the stra... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Looks like this is the strategy of the terrorists and the liberal leftists: using the civilian death count as a means to claim that the surge has failed. In other words, the left wants the terrorists to attack the civilian instead of the military. So in any war now, the enemies of America only need to cause massive civilian casualties for the left to claim that the war is lost. We all know that the American and Iraqui army cannot defend all the soft targets all over Iraq. So the terrorists can simply blow up more women/children to bring up the head count.

How about those 14 soldiers... (Below threshold)

How about those 14 soldiers that died today? How is the surge working for them? Why don't you mention them?

How about those 14 soldiers... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

How about those 14 soldiers that died today? How is the surge working for them? Why don't you mention them?
Is this a serious question? This is what the left is reduced to now? A car accident in the US can kill that many people! Accidents do happen just as car accidents do happen.

Several thousand troops were killed in a military exercise in WW2.

And Meyer's drops by to fur... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

And Meyer's drops by to further demonstrate my point.

Meyers is comment spamming<... (Below threshold)

Meyers is comment spamming

How about those 14 soldiers that died today? How is the surge working for them? Why don't you mention them?

50. Posted by Meyers

and on Obama Nails Another One thread -

By the way, why no mention of the 14 soldiers who lost their lives today? I know you want to hide the war dead, but really. Have some respect for your fellow Americans.

8. Posted by Meyers

and my response is the same on this thread as it was on the other thred.

Paul H-Your claim ... (Below threshold)

Paul H-

Your claim that last month was the highest ever for Iraqi civilain deaths is wrong. According to www.icasualties.org, nine of the last twelve months were worse than July 2007.

US casualties from hostile fire are dropping rapidly as more areas of the country are pacified. If we had not had a couple of helicopter crashes, August probably would have had the lowest casualties in a year. And it's not because the Iraqis are getting killed instead-Iraqi Security Forces casualties are on pace to be less than half of last month's total and will be the lowest going back to at least Jan 05 if the rate holds steady. Civilian casualties spiked because of a single attack on a remote area of Iraq, but will still probably be lower than seven of the previous twelve months.

If these news being reported that al-Douri is working with the Iraqi government is true, this postive trend will accelerate, and the task of rebuilding Iraq will begin in earnest.

John in CaComment ... (Below threshold)

John in Ca

Comment spamming is going on everywhere on the conservative blogs that are truly open source. It accelerated a week ago.

But, you already know this....just commemnting for the record. The Libs are all in on the surge failure, and have triple downed on the "political failure" because it is the only fig leaf left since Carl Levin admitted somewhat reluctantly that the millitary might actually be advancing.

The Dems and the Libs have bet it all on what? A media that will carry their water once again. Bush (and I have lots of problems with his failure to communicate his vision and goals for the War) has stood in the background until now, when he is confident he can deliver a victory. To his credit, he ignores the tyranny of the urgent, and focuses on the long term goal. The media cannot manipulate opinion as in the old model.
Thus we see panic and overreaching in the blogs and the MSM. This will get worse in the coming weeks.

Think Bush and the Evil Rove don't know this?

"barney.0002" -"HERE!"<br /... (Below threshold)

"barney.0002" -"HERE!"
"Leyers" - "HERE THIR!"
"mantits" - "YOO-HOO, OVER HERE!"
"j-off" - "High there, ya big broother!"
"Lian-Brian" -"...oopth, thorry, I had a mouthful uv mantitth. HERE THIR!"

"Okay...'men'...This is your leader, Raul Hoopspoon, and I'm here to tell ya to keep your chins up -Brian, GET OFF YOUR KNEES!
We have a very tough row to ho ahead of us and I just want you to know that you're not alone. Everyday, just as they have as far back as memory serves, the real warriors have been in the trenches, bearing the slings and arrows to give you that much needed support from the very front of the 'green zone'. The AP, cnn, abc, hell, they'll dust off ted kopel if they have to, just don't forget, you are not alone in your daily fight to obfuscate against all reason. As our creed states, 'But for our work, the truth would be not blurred, and the masses would learn that A, really is A'.

Now get back out there and lie your cute little asses off, you naughty, scandalous, pillow-biters you!"

Ah!!! Euphoria for the con... (Below threshold)
Art A Layman:

Ah!!! Euphoria for the conservative bloggers. I, too, am shocked that there's politics going on in America.

It would seem a good political paradigm to not ignore the obvious. The American people are in a quandry over this war and the recent "surge". All of us hate defeat but we also hate the loss of American lives in what still looks like a losing fiasco in the long run. In the face of these kinds of dilemmas politicians are renowned for maintaining flexibility.

Certainly there has been improvement militarily with the "surge". I would be shocked if that were not the case given the power and might of American fighting men and women.

Much the miscreant right wants to claim some sort of shifting by the Dems in raising issues about the political aspects of the "surge" but they seem to forget that the primary focus of the "surge" strategy was to provide security so that Iraqi political progress could be made. The crticisms of that political progress have been a part of the argument against the "surge" for a few months now. Should the Iraqi political players not come together then the "surge" will have failed.

It is heartening that some of the Iraqis have taken up the battle against al Qaeda in Iraq but that too may be dependent on how long we can maintain our increased security for them. We all know that we do not have the numbers to maintain these troop levels much beyond next spring, if that long. So unless the Iraqi political system gets into gear before then coupled with Iraqi forces improving enough to take over when American troops begin to withdraw the entire "surge" will have been for naught. Many more lost American and Iraqi lives for a short glimmer of hope and political talking points for both sides of our political spectrum.

It is not at all clear that the improved military advances are long lasting. I suspect if we review the dispatches from the British generals back to the King in the first few years of our American Revolution the statements of seeming success would read similar to what we currently see from the front in Iraq.

Looming in the background of all of Dubya's malarky about the fight against al Quaeda in Iraq is the festering sectarian strife that will surface again, even while we are there, but more significantly after we would leave. We have experienced so far and will again that while these sectarian factions hate each other they hate our occupation more and they will all take their turns at killing American troops in the meantime. And the biggest dilemma in this continuing civil strife is that we can't really take sides lest we destroy our relationships with whomever prevails.

It is curious that Dubya, yesterday, draws all these parallels to Japan/Germany and Iraq. There is no comparison in the history of these countries to use to try and suggest that what happened following WWII and Vietnam is likely to happen in Iraq. It is from Dubya the same kind of politics that you want to crucify the Dems for today.

I think Mr. Cheney said it best in the 1994 clip on YouTube. How many American lives is attempting to resolve this issue worth?

Get real guys. Quit rushing to your keyboards to exalt the victories of the moment and try and look indepth at the issue and realize we are a long way and, unfortunately, a great number of lives away from a culmination of this fiasco. To date there is little that substantiates your constant harping about victory in Iraq.

Have a good day everyone.

Thank you for your support ... (Below threshold)
Osama Bin Ladin:

Thank you for your support Art A. Layman! With allies like you I know will will defeat the evil George Bush and the rest of those evil neocons!

(Yeah we both know the your post was a steaming pile of bullshit, but thanks to the pro-Al Qaeda American media, most people are too stupid to realize that._

Osama, you dung heap, your ... (Below threshold)
Art A Layman:

Osama, you dung heap, your allusion to "stupid" would appear misdirected. It is the purveyors of blissful ignorance, who mix wild hopes with trivial events to proclaim that the "sun will come out tomorrow", who seem to have lost an appreciation for those postulates upon which this nation was founded.

The use of profane and imbecilic terms do little to establish your insights into much of anything of substance. It is great for your minions here though as they wallow in fatuous and absurd proclamations of what they perceive to be empirical wisdom.

The problem with most shorthand bloggers is their failure to understand that their opinions really don't amount to much other than to raise the question; how does such a great nation cultivate such ignorance?

Canned, and spoiled. Layma... (Below threshold)

Canned, and spoiled. Layman, your intoxicant is past its 'sell by' date.

kim: I would be more apt t... (Below threshold)
Art A Layman:

kim: I would be more apt to be concerned about your statement if I felt more comfortable with your ability to read and comprehend.

"how does such a great n... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"how does such a great nation cultivate such ignorance"

We have the National Education Association, an extortionist/protection racket, to thank for that.

Any why are you bitching at Osama, Art? You are both on the same side on this one.

Wow, Art I've got to hand... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

Wow, Art I've got to hand it to you. Your analysis of the right handed bloggers is spot on and in form, so true, in actual English sentences that create imagery and enumerate the very depth needed to understand the complexity of the Iraqi chaos.

Not to worry it's way over their heads but for the rest of us it gives hope that the intellect will at some point render useless the brawn of machismo.

Thanks, I really enjoy your writing, Succint, encapsulating and true.

Thank you civil. I try. I... (Below threshold)
Art A Layman:

Thank you civil. I try. It has been said that I may be a masochist however...LOL

Hooson writes: ... (Below threshold)

Hooson writes:

I shouldn't have wasted my time here as well, responding here to your nonsense claims about the "surge" working and just let you spew whatever foolishness that you wish was true, but isn't. You're going to believe whatever you want to regardless of the facts.

This is written by the person who earlier slammed Rudy Giuliani for failing to stop both terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. Despite the fact that the first was during Mayor Dinkins tenure, and the second was launched from multiple airports ... none of which was within NYC jurisdiction.

Facts? That's more than a bit hilarious, Hooson.

While CB has his nose in Ar... (Below threshold)

While CB has his nose in Art's butt, let me point one thing out (mainly because I don't have the time or inclination to rebut every point put out by a glass-half-empty enthusiast). Mr. Layman would pretend the right's contention that there is is no comparison between this war and Vietnam is a means by which to demonstrate his belief that it's wrong for us to assume the killing between factions in Iraq would escalate upon our departure:

There is no comparison in the history of these countries to use to try and suggest that what happened following WWII and Vietnam is likely to happen in Iraq.

No, of course not. There was no internal fighting in Vietnam before we arrived that escalated into a full-fledged genocide when we left. Right? And there was no oppression in Iraq under the threat of death or dismemberment before we arrived either. The terrorists in Iraq will just pack up and go home if we'd only just leave. They won't attempt to punish every living, breathing Iraqi that cooperated with the US and force the rest to abide by a Taliban style government as they take control of one village after another.

No nothing, especially in the immediate past, that would lead us to believe that could happen. No, of course not. They'll lay down their weapons and pick up farm tools.

FYI: I tried to post this once but it was held with the message that the editor would review it to determine its appropriateness. What the....?

Oyster:You seem to... (Below threshold)
Art A Layman:


You seem to have this common problem of being unable to discern what you read or at best a seeming lack historical perspective.

The reference to Iraq versus WWII was arguing that George's implication; since we established flourishing democracies in Japan and Germany after WWII in spite of some naysayers we will be able to do it in Iraq, was ignoring the history of Japan and Germany regarding governing and culture. This is an apples to oranges comparison.

In the case of Vietnam v Iraq-of course George muddled it by including references to incidents in Cambodia to increase the body count numbers-North Vietnam had a structured, functioning government with a huge army that, once we left, was, with ease, able to overrun the South and admittedly kill at random. Iraq has no functioning government nor a huge army to effect the same kinds of atrocities.

What will happen in Iraq, when we leave, will be many deaths, yes even a bloodbath, but it will be from sectarian militias fighting a civil war not from an overwhelming army supported and funded by a government which can organize and direct the fighting. This civil war is very likely to continue whether we stay there or not.

The "terrorists", more specifically al Quaeda, will add to the havoc, but could very possibly create a unity between the Iraqi factions to fight off a common enemy. Regardless, al Quaeda will not take control of Iraq. At best, which is not good, they could work a deal with some Sunni groups to join them in fighting the Shias in return for some sort of safe haven, but this is very unlikely since Iraq, after the civil strife, will want to be a player in the Middle East, if not the world and harboring al Quaeda would make them personna non-grata to most of the world. Keep in mind, al Quaeda is Sunni and the majority of Iraq is Shia. And Iran is Shia and Iran is not going to let al Quaeda take control right next door.

The other significant factor in a Vietnam comparison to Iraq is OIL!!! Vietnam had no measurable natural resources. The internal civil war was primarily to unify the country consistent with Ho Chi Minh's vision. Iraq has oil and at some point the moneychangers will intervene, not because of the bloodletting, but because of the oilletting.

All in all, your hysteria fits right into George's objectives. The civil war in Iraq is going to play itself out whether we are there or not and it makes no sense for us to keep our troops in the middle of it. I don't advocate total withdrawal of our troops, although there are valid arguments to support that viewpoint, but we have to get away from making our troops, the ducks in the pond. The bulk of the losses our troops have endured have not been from mano a mano combat.

It is a good thing you didn't have time to more fully screw up your arguments.

"In the case of Vietnam ... (Below threshold)

"In the case of Vietnam v Iraq-of course George muddled it by including references to incidents in Cambodia to increase the body count numbers-North Vietnam had a structured, functioning government with a huge army that, once we left, was, with ease, able to overrun the South and admittedly kill at random. Iraq has no functioning government nor a huge army to effect the same kinds of atrocities."

Wow, talk about screwing an argument up. You reject my argument, but you agree: "What will happen in Iraq, when we leave, will be many deaths, yes even a bloodbath, but it will be from sectarian militias fighting a civil war not from an overwhelming army supported and funded by a government which can organize and direct the fighting."

No, there is no real comparison between Vietnam and Iraq - except - that leaving prematurely will result in a bloodbath. That's all I was saying. My delivery was indeed lacking so I understand your point. But that does not mean that a better outcome should we just leave is likely or even possible.

It also does not mean that this "civil war" will continue whether we stay or not. At this point, we are seeing significant numbers of Sunnis part company with al Qaeda. What we next hope for is to see the Shia part company with Sadr and his Iranian benefactors. And if it's true that Maliki has been able to get the Ba'athist opposition to lay down their arms, then all your fantasies of civil war and bloodbaths to pin on our futile meddling will have been thwarted.

"The "terrorists", more specifically al Quaeda, will add to the havoc, but could very possibly create a unity between the Iraqi factions to fight off a common enemy."

Yes and then what? Then they go back to fighting each other because that is merely a temporary unity. If we can get them to unite not as factions against a common enemy, but with the government under a structure in which they can work their problems out, then we have an acceptable outcome. That's what we're striving for. And that's what we're seeing the beginnings of.

Oyster: I seem to... (Below threshold)
Art A Layman:


I seem to be having trouble following you here. We will have a civil war. We might not have a civil war. Then if they unite to fight al Qaeda then will they splinter and return to fighting each other (a civil war)? My statements about civil war, while stating the obvious, actually echo the right wing idea that a civil war will happen if or when we withdraw.

The Iraqis are in a civil war now! It has slowed down a little for the time being while they get a sense of how this "surge" is setting up as well as waiting out the heat of summer.

There actually is a segment of the Shia that is anti-Iran and part of the civil war is the militias of that segment fighting the Sadr militias for control over various local areas. We have allowed Sadr to gain in posture and strength and it is highly unlikely his followers are going to desert him just when it appears the present government is on the brink of imploding and they have a good chance of increasing their power.

I agree that if the Maliki/Baathist rumor is true that is good news, however among Iraqis today's agreements are tomorrows lost hopes. All these factions take actions that are in their best interests until such time as they decide they are not in their best interests. The point being that until, to date highly unlikely, this government starts making real progress on issues important to the Iraqi people, all of them, any agreements made are merely intermittent pauses that allow factions to regroup and reassess and prepare for the next mayhem. It is also good news that the Sunnis are taking action against al Qaeda but a big implementer in that action is that we are arming them which in the long run may make them more difficult to negotiate with.

It will be up to the Iraqi people what course their future will follow but history tells us it will not be without some bloodshed. We in the US never quite understand the fervor of others regarding their ethnic or religious histories. We seem to think that freedom will trump all. We can look around Eastern Europe and the former Soviet satellites and even in Afghanistan and see that often the only thing that keeps a lid on these countries is a totalitarian style government. We have been successful in Bosnia, without losing one American life, in establishing order and functioning governments but the ethnic fervor still runs high and there are a number of hurdles yet to cross to finally call it a complete success.

The conservatives seem to look at this situation as if the whole war started with the "surge". We have been there 4 1/2 or 5 years. The current government for a couple of years at least. There have been a lot of deaths and maimings during all that time and we are just now beginning to see a ray or two of hope (read the NIE report) and we want to call that the start of a peaceful transition to some kind of democratic government. As yet I don't see a sense in the Iraqi people that they really want this to work in its present form and until that happens peace as we define it ain't gonna happen. A large segment of the Iraqi people view us as not a part of the solution but as a part of the problem. I think this attitude is terribly shortsighted on their part but it is what it is and substantiates that the Iraqi people don't really understand what a soluton looks like.

Aggravating all of this are the neighbors, both allies and non-allies of ours. While they don't want to see the situation deteriorate too far, it is not in their best interests to bail us out. My bet is that they realize there will be some mayhem but believe they can step in and quell it quickly after we are out of there. And again, because there is OIL they likely will settle it with minimal upheaval in the Middle East region.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy