Violence is Down in Iraq?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]hedo wrote:
Sanctuary Politics. The Dems are willing participants in being duped. What’s good for the US is very bad for the Democratic Party…as they have acknowledged publicly.

100M and Bradley. Do you two really think your opinion of the surge has nay value whatsoever. I mean, based on your tactical military experience and mission planning expertise, what would you expect the casualty rate to be and why?

The purpose of the surge was to eliminate sanctuary for terrorist cells silly. It has done so and is continuing to do so. Remember what’s good for the US is bad for the Democrats…so your mind has already been made up…why wait for the report.

[/quote]
I forgot your opinion is far more qualified than mine.
Also I was told by someone (oh, right…the president) the surge was for political reconciliation–which has gone backwards? Which of course I realize in your my little pony land means success.

Again it’s hard for realists to form real informed opinions when civilian deaths going up and troop deaths going up is just as good as them going down.

22

[quote]JeffR wrote:.

Thanks for making my point. Do you ever find it strange (or at least a little odd) that you and your party thought the world of Patreus (unanamious confirmation, public adulation, etc…) and NOW when he’s succeeding, you want to throw him under the bus?

[/quote]

Succeed a relative term?

23

Petraeus says Iraq gains ‘uneven’

[i]The most senior US commander in Iraq has said that progress in bringing security to the country had been uneven and in some cases disappointing.

In a letter to troops, General David Petraeus said Iraq’s political leaders had not made the gains hoped for under the US troop “surge” strategy[/i]

24

Seven US soldiers killed in Iraq

[i]Insurgents killed seven American servicemen in two separate attacks in Iraq on Thursday, US military officials have said.

Four marines were killed while conducting combat operations in the western province of Anbar. No further details were given.

Three soldiers were killed in the northern province of Nineveh, when their vehicle was caught in a blast.

Eighteen US servicemen have died in operations in Iraq this month.

Levels of violence in the vast, predominantly Sunni province of Anbar had dropped recently. President Bush visited Anbar on Monday and praised the improved security there.

The latest casualties mean more than 3,750 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq since the start of the US-led invasion in 2003. [/i]

25

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Sanctuary Politics. The Dems are willing participants in being duped. What’s good for the US is very bad for the Democratic Party…as they have acknowledged publicly.

100M and Bradley. Do you two really think your opinion of the surge has nay value whatsoever. I mean, based on your tactical military experience and mission planning expertise, what would you expect the casualty rate to be and why?

The purpose of the surge was to eliminate sanctuary for terrorist cells silly. It has done so and is continuing to do so. Remember what’s good for the US is bad for the Democrats…so your mind has already been made up…why wait for the report.

I forgot your opinion is far more qualified than mine.
Also I was told by someone (oh, right…the president) the surge was for political reconciliation–which has gone backwards? Which of course I realize in your my little pony land means success.

Again it’s hard for realists to form real informed opinions when civilian deaths going up and troop deaths going up is just as good as them going down.

[/quote]

My opinion is both more qualified and informed.

Even the non-moonbat Democrats are backpedaling on the surge, which by the way is working. You guys fight wars with political considerations as the most important issue. Remember that.

Try reading something without having your mind made up first. Even more out of the box. Form an opinion without having your party do it for you. Back on your pony little boy…run along now.

26

[quote]lixy wrote:
The latest casualties mean more than 3,750 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq since the start of the US-led invasion in 2003. [/i][/quote]

As soon as that number reaches 4,000, watch Bush start claiming he’s already brought home one brigade.

27

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Sanctuary Politics. The Dems are willing participants in being duped. What’s good for the US is very bad for the Democratic Party…as they have acknowledged publicly.

100M and Bradley. Do you two really think your opinion of the surge has nay value whatsoever. I mean, based on your tactical military experience and mission planning expertise, what would you expect the casualty rate to be and why?

The purpose of the surge was to eliminate sanctuary for terrorist cells silly. It has done so and is continuing to do so. Remember what’s good for the US is bad for the Democrats…so your mind has already been made up…why wait for the report.

I forgot your opinion is far more qualified than mine.
Also I was told by someone (oh, right…the president) the surge was for political reconciliation–which has gone backwards? Which of course I realize in your my little pony land means success.

Again it’s hard for realists to form real informed opinions when civilian deaths going up and troop deaths going up is just as good as them going down.

My opinion is both more qualified and informed.

Even the non-moonbat Democrats are backpedaling on the surge, which by the way is working. You guys fight wars with political considerations as the most important issue. Remember that.

Try reading something without having your mind made up first. Even more out of the box. Form an opinion without having your party do it for you. Back on your pony little boy…run along now.

[/quote]
First this war was started in part for political considerations, remember that?
And obviously I’ve had my opinion formed by reading nothing party related:
1.Petraeus (saying no advance in politics—he a moonbat?)
2.GAO
3. CRS
4. Jones Commission
5. Embassy in Iraq

I’ve noticed you say the surge “is working” I would love to see your evidence of political reconcilliation, because Petraeus says there is none. Do you mean to say “will work”? Perhaps you’re thinking outside the box?

28

I’m just saying, youre totally right. were done. George Bush got us into this mess. Now he better either end it or get us OUT OF IRAQ

29

[quote]hedo wrote:
Even the non-moonbat Democrats are backpedaling on the surge, which by the way is working. [/quote]

OMFG!!!

THE SURGE IS WORKING!!!

We’re finally winning! We’ve turned a corner, again!!! Things are really looking quite different now, in Iraq!!! The difference is amazing!!!

Mission Accomplished!!!

George Bush is absolutely NOT a HUGE FUCKUP of a president!!!

LMAO!!!

30

[quote]100meters wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
The left, as Rush has pointed out many times, is totaly invested in US defeat in Iraq. I mean not even Lumpy, Bradley, 100m, whatever, should be able to deny this. Democratic success has been inextricably tied to US failure in Iraq. If Patreus delivered a report that depicted tremendous success, the lefties would cry foul and spin it somehow.

Sad really.

Uhggg, it’s obvious when one party has run a warplan as ineffective, as bungled, and as misguided as this one with catastrophic consequences all while having the opposite results of said intentions that voters might explore option B?[/quote]

I’m not trying to defend Bush’s handling of Iraq post invasion as stellar, and I do agree that there should be an option B. However, The dems and the loony left have offered nothing to the debate except bullshit assertations of lies, political posturing, hate attacks on the POTUS, and calls for withdrawl and retreat.

Maybe, just maybe, the US is interested in winning in Iraq gasp!! Maybe the dems and your buddies in the loony left can come up with an alternate plan for victory rather than pessimistic calls for surrender. One would think that since so many dems voted in favor of the war, they would have a vested interest in following through.

[quote]Also while very serious people like Rush and his ilk have been wrong on every aspect of this war from even before the begining and dirty hippy bloggers have been svengalis on all things Iraq, lets please keep listening to Rush, Kristol, Instapundit etc…
[/quote]

I did laugh out loud when I qouted Rush as I know how the mere mention of his name winds your kinds ass hairs tighter than drumskin. But do yourself a favor, and try to look past the fact that Rush presides over a radio show which delivers his political opinion, for the purposes of entertainment, and evaluate the meat and potatoes of his position.

Please Lumpy, tell me. How has the left has not positioned itself in such a manner as to be fully vested in defeat in Iraq?

You won’t admit it of course, but deep down inside of that crazy left wing soul of yours, you know. In this case, Rush is right.

31

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Sanctuary Politics. The Dems are willing participants in being duped. What’s good for the US is very bad for the Democratic Party…as they have acknowledged publicly.

100M and Bradley. Do you two really think your opinion of the surge has nay value whatsoever. I mean, based on your tactical military experience and mission planning expertise, what would you expect the casualty rate to be and why?

The purpose of the surge was to eliminate sanctuary for terrorist cells silly. It has done so and is continuing to do so. Remember what’s good for the US is bad for the Democrats…so your mind has already been made up…why wait for the report.

I forgot your opinion is far more qualified than mine.
Also I was told by someone (oh, right…the president) the surge was for political reconciliation–which has gone backwards? Which of course I realize in your my little pony land means success.

Again it’s hard for realists to form real informed opinions when civilian deaths going up and troop deaths going up is just as good as them going down.

My opinion is both more qualified and informed.

Even the non-moonbat Democrats are backpedaling on the surge, which by the way is working. You guys fight wars with political considerations as the most important issue. Remember that.

[/quote]

Bush and co. have politicized the war at least as much as their opponents, using it relentlessly as a hammer to attack the Democrats with, instead of uniting the country behind a common goal. I shouldn’t have to give examples, but DHS, Max Cleland, Cheney saying “we’ll get hit again” if Democrats win in 2004, should suffice.

Not to mention that politics has governed so much of the on-the-ground prosecution of the war, from the initial attack on Fallujah, against the explicit wishes of the Marines there, to the amateur hour that was the CPA, run by kiddie Congressional aides who knew nothing about Iraq or nation-building.

And the Democrats are generally a disaster on national security, but let’s not pretend the current GOP is any better. Have you watched the infantile rhetoric on display in the debates?

32

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
hedo wrote:
Even the non-moonbat Democrats are backpedaling on the surge, which by the way is working.

OMFG!!!

THE SURGE IS WORKING!!!

We’re finally winning! We’ve turned a corner, again!!! Things are really looking quite different now, in Iraq!!! The difference is amazing!!!

Mission Accomplished!!!

George Bush is absolutely NOT a HUGE FUCKUP of a president!!!

LMAO!!!

But it’s not about politics for you right? You are one of the moonbat democrats boy…run along your first period class is about to start.

Only the Democrats and the insurgents want the surge to end. Remember what’s good for America is bad for the Dems.

[/quote]

33

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Sanctuary Politics. The Dems are willing participants in being duped. What’s good for the US is very bad for the Democratic Party…as they have acknowledged publicly.

100M and Bradley. Do you two really think your opinion of the surge has nay value whatsoever. I mean, based on your tactical military experience and mission planning expertise, what would you expect the casualty rate to be and why?

The purpose of the surge was to eliminate sanctuary for terrorist cells silly. It has done so and is continuing to do so. Remember what’s good for the US is bad for the Democrats…so your mind has already been made up…why wait for the report.

I forgot your opinion is far more qualified than mine.
Also I was told by someone (oh, right…the president) the surge was for political reconciliation–which has gone backwards? Which of course I realize in your my little pony land means success.

Again it’s hard for realists to form real informed opinions when civilian deaths going up and troop deaths going up is just as good as them going down.

My opinion is both more qualified and informed.

Even the non-moonbat Democrats are backpedaling on the surge, which by the way is working. You guys fight wars with political considerations as the most important issue. Remember that.

Try reading something without having your mind made up first. Even more out of the box. Form an opinion without having your party do it for you. Back on your pony little boy…run along now.

First this war was started in part for political considerations, remember that?
And obviously I’ve had my opinion formed by reading nothing party related:
1.Petraeus (saying no advance in politics—he a moonbat?)
2.GAO
3. CRS
4. Jones Commission
5. Embassy in Iraq

I’ve noticed you say the surge “is working” I would love to see your evidence of political reconcilliation, because Petraeus says there is none. Do you mean to say “will work”? Perhaps you’re thinking outside the box?[/quote]

why do you think a political reconcilliation is necessary or must include the entire country. What’s wrong with a conferderation. You are twisting Petraeu’s words and taking the ones that agree with you out of context. You know that but I’m just pointing it out. Didn’t you guys hash that out at Daily Kos a week or so ago.

Only the dems and Al Queda want the surge to end. They have similar agenda’s unfortunately.

Bye the way I don’t think you would wipe your ass unless it was by the approved Democratic party method. You are one of the most vehement party hacks that post here. Embrace the obvious.

34

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Sanctuary Politics. The Dems are willing participants in being duped. What’s good for the US is very bad for the Democratic Party…as they have acknowledged publicly.

100M and Bradley. Do you two really think your opinion of the surge has nay value whatsoever. I mean, based on your tactical military experience and mission planning expertise, what would you expect the casualty rate to be and why?

The purpose of the surge was to eliminate sanctuary for terrorist cells silly. It has done so and is continuing to do so. Remember what’s good for the US is bad for the Democrats…so your mind has already been made up…why wait for the report.

I forgot your opinion is far more qualified than mine.
Also I was told by someone (oh, right…the president) the surge was for political reconciliation–which has gone backwards? Which of course I realize in your my little pony land means success.

Again it’s hard for realists to form real informed opinions when civilian deaths going up and troop deaths going up is just as good as them going down.

My opinion is both more qualified and informed.

Even the non-moonbat Democrats are backpedaling on the surge, which by the way is working. You guys fight wars with political considerations as the most important issue. Remember that.

Try reading something without having your mind made up first. Even more out of the box. Form an opinion without having your party do it for you. Back on your pony little boy…run along now.

First this war was started in part for political considerations, remember that?
And obviously I’ve had my opinion formed by reading nothing party related:
1.Petraeus (saying no advance in politics—he a moonbat?)
2.GAO
3. CRS
4. Jones Commission
5. Embassy in Iraq

I’ve noticed you say the surge “is working” I would love to see your evidence of political reconcilliation, because Petraeus says there is none. Do you mean to say “will work”? Perhaps you’re thinking outside the box?

why do you think a political reconcilliation is necessary or must include the entire country. What’s wrong with a conferderation. You are twisting Petraeu’s words and taking the ones that agree with you out of context. You know that but I’m just pointing it out. Didn’t you guys hash that out at Daily Kos a week or so ago.

Only the dems and Al Queda want the surge to end. They have similar agenda’s unfortunately.

Bye the way I don’t think you would wipe your ass unless it was by the approved Democratic party method. You are one of the most vehement party hacks that post here. Embrace the obvious.

[/quote]

Uhmmm… It would be necessary because it’s the fucking goal?
Of course you had to leave out the other obviously non-partisan references. Any attempt to provide reality is always met with the childish attack the reality has a liberal bias. Instead of slamming me, the preferred technique would be to debunk the references with factual information, then I could look at your info , then back and forth etc…

again for clarity none of the sources cited have anything to do with the dem party—and ya know it, and while of course I accept you apology in advance, this kind of silliness does get on my nerves after awhile.

Factually, the goals of the surge have not been met. Stating those facts wouldn’t make me a “vehement party hack”.

" BAGHDAD �?? When President Bush announced in January what the White House called a �??New Way Forward�?? in Iraq, he said that Iraqi and American troops would improve security while the Iraqi government improved services. Responsibility for security in most of Iraq would be turned over to Iraqi security forces by November.

With better security would come the breathing room needed for political reconciliation, Bush said.

With less than a week to go before the White House delivers a congressionally mandated report on that plan, none of this has happened."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/19566.html

35

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Sanctuary Politics. The Dems are willing participants in being duped. What’s good for the US is very bad for the Democratic Party…as they have acknowledged publicly.

100M and Bradley. Do you two really think your opinion of the surge has nay value whatsoever. I mean, based on your tactical military experience and mission planning expertise, what would you expect the casualty rate to be and why?

The purpose of the surge was to eliminate sanctuary for terrorist cells silly. It has done so and is continuing to do so. Remember what’s good for the US is bad for the Democrats…so your mind has already been made up…why wait for the report.

I forgot your opinion is far more qualified than mine.
Also I was told by someone (oh, right…the president) the surge was for political reconciliation–which has gone backwards? Which of course I realize in your my little pony land means success.

Again it’s hard for realists to form real informed opinions when civilian deaths going up and troop deaths going up is just as good as them going down.

My opinion is both more qualified and informed.

Even the non-moonbat Democrats are backpedaling on the surge, which by the way is working. You guys fight wars with political considerations as the most important issue. Remember that.

Try reading something without having your mind made up first. Even more out of the box. Form an opinion without having your party do it for you. Back on your pony little boy…run along now.

First this war was started in part for political considerations, remember that?
And obviously I’ve had my opinion formed by reading nothing party related:
1.Petraeus (saying no advance in politics—he a moonbat?)
2.GAO
3. CRS
4. Jones Commission
5. Embassy in Iraq

I’ve noticed you say the surge “is working” I would love to see your evidence of political reconcilliation, because Petraeus says there is none. Do you mean to say “will work”? Perhaps you’re thinking outside the box?

why do you think a political reconcilliation is necessary or must include the entire country. What’s wrong with a conferderation. You are twisting Petraeu’s words and taking the ones that agree with you out of context. You know that but I’m just pointing it out. Didn’t you guys hash that out at Daily Kos a week or so ago.

Only the dems and Al Queda want the surge to end. They have similar agenda’s unfortunately.

Bye the way I don’t think you would wipe your ass unless it was by the approved Democratic party method. You are one of the most vehement party hacks that post here. Embrace the obvious.

[/quote]

Oh, also I’ve long been a fan of confederation (and have posted as much), which is not say it would work, but I know the status quo won’t work.

36

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Sanctuary Politics. The Dems are willing participants in being duped. What’s good for the US is very bad for the Democratic Party…as they have acknowledged publicly.

100M and Bradley. Do you two really think your opinion of the surge has nay value whatsoever. I mean, based on your tactical military experience and mission planning expertise, what would you expect the casualty rate to be and why?

The purpose of the surge was to eliminate sanctuary for terrorist cells silly. It has done so and is continuing to do so. Remember what’s good for the US is bad for the Democrats…so your mind has already been made up…why wait for the report.

I forgot your opinion is far more qualified than mine.
Also I was told by someone (oh, right…the president) the surge was for political reconciliation–which has gone backwards? Which of course I realize in your my little pony land means success.

Again it’s hard for realists to form real informed opinions when civilian deaths going up and troop deaths going up is just as good as them going down.

My opinion is both more qualified and informed.

Even the non-moonbat Democrats are backpedaling on the surge, which by the way is working. You guys fight wars with political considerations as the most important issue. Remember that.

Try reading something without having your mind made up first. Even more out of the box. Form an opinion without having your party do it for you. Back on your pony little boy…run along now.

First this war was started in part for political considerations, remember that?
And obviously I’ve had my opinion formed by reading nothing party related:
1.Petraeus (saying no advance in politics—he a moonbat?)
2.GAO
3. CRS
4. Jones Commission
5. Embassy in Iraq

I’ve noticed you say the surge “is working” I would love to see your evidence of political reconcilliation, because Petraeus says there is none. Do you mean to say “will work”? Perhaps you’re thinking outside the box?

why do you think a political reconcilliation is necessary or must include the entire country. What’s wrong with a conferderation. You are twisting Petraeu’s words and taking the ones that agree with you out of context. You know that but I’m just pointing it out. Didn’t you guys hash that out at Daily Kos a week or so ago.

Only the dems and Al Queda want the surge to end. They have similar agenda’s unfortunately.

Bye the way I don’t think you would wipe your ass unless it was by the approved Democratic party method. You are one of the most vehement party hacks that post here. Embrace the obvious.

Oh, also I’ve long been a fan of confederation (and have posted as much), which is not say it would work, but I know the status quo won’t work.

[/quote]

And most importantly it’s an easy position you can flip flop on.

37

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Sanctuary Politics. The Dems are willing participants in being duped. What’s good for the US is very bad for the Democratic Party…as they have acknowledged publicly.

100M and Bradley. Do you two really think your opinion of the surge has nay value whatsoever. I mean, based on your tactical military experience and mission planning expertise, what would you expect the casualty rate to be and why?

The purpose of the surge was to eliminate sanctuary for terrorist cells silly. It has done so and is continuing to do so. Remember what’s good for the US is bad for the Democrats…so your mind has already been made up…why wait for the report.

I forgot your opinion is far more qualified than mine.
Also I was told by someone (oh, right…the president) the surge was for political reconciliation–which has gone backwards? Which of course I realize in your my little pony land means success.

Again it’s hard for realists to form real informed opinions when civilian deaths going up and troop deaths going up is just as good as them going down.

My opinion is both more qualified and informed.

Even the non-moonbat Democrats are backpedaling on the surge, which by the way is working. You guys fight wars with political considerations as the most important issue. Remember that.

Try reading something without having your mind made up first. Even more out of the box. Form an opinion without having your party do it for you. Back on your pony little boy…run along now.

First this war was started in part for political considerations, remember that?
And obviously I’ve had my opinion formed by reading nothing party related:
1.Petraeus (saying no advance in politics—he a moonbat?)
2.GAO
3. CRS
4. Jones Commission
5. Embassy in Iraq

I’ve noticed you say the surge “is working” I would love to see your evidence of political reconcilliation, because Petraeus says there is none. Do you mean to say “will work”? Perhaps you’re thinking outside the box?

why do you think a political reconcilliation is necessary or must include the entire country. What’s wrong with a conferderation. You are twisting Petraeu’s words and taking the ones that agree with you out of context. You know that but I’m just pointing it out. Didn’t you guys hash that out at Daily Kos a week or so ago.

Only the dems and Al Queda want the surge to end. They have similar agenda’s unfortunately.

Bye the way I don’t think you would wipe your ass unless it was by the approved Democratic party method. You are one of the most vehement party hacks that post here. Embrace the obvious.

Uhmmm… It would be necessary because it’s the fucking goal?
Of course you had to leave out the other obviously non-partisan references. Any attempt to provide reality is always met with the childish attack the reality has a liberal bias. Instead of slamming me, the preferred technique would be to debunk the references with factual information, then I could look at your info , then back and forth etc…

again for clarity none of the sources cited have anything to do with the dem party—and ya know it, and while of course I accept you apology in advance, this kind of silliness does get on my nerves after awhile.

Factually, the goals of the surge have not been met. Stating those facts wouldn’t make me a “vehement party hack”.

" BAGHDAD �?? When President Bush announced in January what the White House called a �??New Way Forward�?? in Iraq, he said that Iraqi and American troops would improve security while the Iraqi government improved services. Responsibility for security in most of Iraq would be turned over to Iraqi security forces by November.

With better security would come the breathing room needed for political reconciliation, Bush said.

With less than a week to go before the White House delivers a congressionally mandated report on that plan, none of this has happened."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/19566.html

[/quote]

McClatchy “Truth to Power” is a reference. I see.

You listed Petreus, GAO, Embassy. They are words not sources and don’t really say what you think they do. You had little comment. Why would I apologize to a fool like yourself? The Dems are always indgnant about something. I’m glad my comments get on your nerves. Why don’t you have one of your other screen names agree with you. We haven’t seen the lumpy one in awhile. What a tool.

It’s fun to see the Dems in such a state of confusion They don’t whether to embarce Petreus (who they supported), distance themselves from his report or try and take credit for the surge. Must be tough but I’m sure the skillful leadership of Madame Pelosi will see you thru.

38

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Sanctuary Politics. The Dems are willing participants in being duped. What’s good for the US is very bad for the Democratic Party…as they have acknowledged publicly.

100M and Bradley. Do you two really think your opinion of the surge has nay value whatsoever. I mean, based on your tactical military experience and mission planning expertise, what would you expect the casualty rate to be and why?

The purpose of the surge was to eliminate sanctuary for terrorist cells silly. It has done so and is continuing to do so. Remember what’s good for the US is bad for the Democrats…so your mind has already been made up…why wait for the report.

I forgot your opinion is far more qualified than mine.
Also I was told by someone (oh, right…the president) the surge was for political reconciliation–which has gone backwards? Which of course I realize in your my little pony land means success.

Again it’s hard for realists to form real informed opinions when civilian deaths going up and troop deaths going up is just as good as them going down.

My opinion is both more qualified and informed.

Even the non-moonbat Democrats are backpedaling on the surge, which by the way is working. You guys fight wars with political considerations as the most important issue. Remember that.

Try reading something without having your mind made up first. Even more out of the box. Form an opinion without having your party do it for you. Back on your pony little boy…run along now.

First this war was started in part for political considerations, remember that?
And obviously I’ve had my opinion formed by reading nothing party related:
1.Petraeus (saying no advance in politics—he a moonbat?)
2.GAO
3. CRS
4. Jones Commission
5. Embassy in Iraq

I’ve noticed you say the surge “is working” I would love to see your evidence of political reconcilliation, because Petraeus says there is none. Do you mean to say “will work”? Perhaps you’re thinking outside the box?

why do you think a political reconcilliation is necessary or must include the entire country. What’s wrong with a conferderation. You are twisting Petraeu’s words and taking the ones that agree with you out of context. You know that but I’m just pointing it out. Didn’t you guys hash that out at Daily Kos a week or so ago.

Only the dems and Al Queda want the surge to end. They have similar agenda’s unfortunately.

Bye the way I don’t think you would wipe your ass unless it was by the approved Democratic party method. You are one of the most vehement party hacks that post here. Embrace the obvious.

Uhmmm… It would be necessary because it’s the fucking goal?
Of course you had to leave out the other obviously non-partisan references. Any attempt to provide reality is always met with the childish attack the reality has a liberal bias. Instead of slamming me, the preferred technique would be to debunk the references with factual information, then I could look at your info , then back and forth etc…

again for clarity none of the sources cited have anything to do with the dem party—and ya know it, and while of course I accept you apology in advance, this kind of silliness does get on my nerves after awhile.

Factually, the goals of the surge have not been met. Stating those facts wouldn’t make me a “vehement party hack”.

" BAGHDAD �?? When President Bush announced in January what the White House called a �??New Way Forward�?? in Iraq, he said that Iraqi and American troops would improve security while the Iraqi government improved services. Responsibility for security in most of Iraq would be turned over to Iraqi security forces by November.

With better security would come the breathing room needed for political reconciliation, Bush said.

With less than a week to go before the White House delivers a congressionally mandated report on that plan, none of this has happened."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/19566.html

McClatchy “Truth to Power” is a reference. I see.

You listed Petreus, GAO, Embassy. They are words not sources and don’t really say what you think they do. You had little comment. Why would I apologize to a fool like yourself? The Dems are always indgnant about something. I’m glad my comments get on your nerves. Why don’t you have one of your other screen names agree with you. We haven’t seen the lumpy one in awhile. What a tool.

It’s fun to see the Dems in such a state of confusion They don’t whether to embarce Petreus (who they supported), distance themselves from his report or try and take credit for the surge. Must be tough but I’m sure the skillful leadership of Madame Pelosi will see you thru.
[/quote]

McClatchy formerly Knight-Ridder? Was there better reporting done by a newspaper? (Jeebus you might be stupider than I thought)

And yes the references cited say the EXACT samething I said. NO POLITICAL RECONCILIATION----(THE GOAL)

Or post the link to total Iraq violence down with political reconcilliation—cuz I aint seeing it.

The rest of your post is the same drivel that infers somehow reality has a liberal bias which I just don’t believe.

39

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Sanctuary Politics. The Dems are willing participants in being duped. What’s good for the US is very bad for the Democratic Party…as they have acknowledged publicly.

100M and Bradley. Do you two really think your opinion of the surge has nay value whatsoever. I mean, based on your tactical military experience and mission planning expertise, what would you expect the casualty rate to be and why?

The purpose of the surge was to eliminate sanctuary for terrorist cells silly. It has done so and is continuing to do so. Remember what’s good for the US is bad for the Democrats…so your mind has already been made up…why wait for the report.

I forgot your opinion is far more qualified than mine.
Also I was told by someone (oh, right…the president) the surge was for political reconciliation–which has gone backwards? Which of course I realize in your my little pony land means success.

Again it’s hard for realists to form real informed opinions when civilian deaths going up and troop deaths going up is just as good as them going down.

My opinion is both more qualified and informed.

Even the non-moonbat Democrats are backpedaling on the surge, which by the way is working. You guys fight wars with political considerations as the most important issue. Remember that.

Try reading something without having your mind made up first. Even more out of the box. Form an opinion without having your party do it for you. Back on your pony little boy…run along now.

First this war was started in part for political considerations, remember that?
And obviously I’ve had my opinion formed by reading nothing party related:
1.Petraeus (saying no advance in politics—he a moonbat?)
2.GAO
3. CRS
4. Jones Commission
5. Embassy in Iraq

I’ve noticed you say the surge “is working” I would love to see your evidence of political reconcilliation, because Petraeus says there is none. Do you mean to say “will work”? Perhaps you’re thinking outside the box?

why do you think a political reconcilliation is necessary or must include the entire country. What’s wrong with a conferderation. You are twisting Petraeu’s words and taking the ones that agree with you out of context. You know that but I’m just pointing it out. Didn’t you guys hash that out at Daily Kos a week or so ago.

Only the dems and Al Queda want the surge to end. They have similar agenda’s unfortunately.

Bye the way I don’t think you would wipe your ass unless it was by the approved Democratic party method. You are one of the most vehement party hacks that post here. Embrace the obvious.

Oh, also I’ve long been a fan of confederation (and have posted as much), which is not say it would work, but I know the status quo won’t work.

And most importantly it’s an easy position you can flip flop on.

[/quote]
It’s like pounding sand with you. Nobody home upstairs I take it.

40

So there were how many goals again? And we should forget about anything showing progress - particularly, the military progress and the operations against al Queda in Iraq (not the mention the disintegration of the former Baathist Sunni insurgency) - and simply focus on the political situation? I would think that a lot of folks would disagree.

And progress is definitely being made:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/06/america/military.php

The Dems set up an independent panel to dilute the impact of the Petraeus Report. Then when it reports something that doesn’t fit the anti-war talking points, they express “immediate skepticism.”

With regard to casualties, it was predicted that casualties would rise with the surge. Yet they’ve declined since the surge went into full force – something noted by McClatchy, actually:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003636490

We should try listening to Petraeus today – something that’s not being done by the members of Congress intent on speaking and pontificating during his testimony…

The GAO report was focused on assessing particular areas ofthe Iraqi government’s progress (note limitations described here: http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWIzYzRkMzc5N2IzMGJlZjRjZWVlMTQxNGFiYWNjNmE= ). Petraeus’ report will be focused on the military progress.

There’s no question that there is work to be done – but the surge is working in attaining the military goals. And Petraeus is precisely the right man to run a winning counter-insurgency program.