NYTimes: It's working

There is a lot of information that points otherwise too. The problem with first hand accounts is that they are limited. I agree we shouldn't dismiss them out of hand and as I said I'm willing to take the original piece's account at face value but that doesn't mean that we should extrapolate that to saying that things have turned a corner.

 

do you have a link to verify that "democrats/liberals" think progress in iraq is a threat to them?

how do you feel about prominent republicans wishing for more terrorist attacks on america so people will support bush again? your republican leaders publicly call for american citizens to be killed just so people will get inline w/ bush and not a peep from any of yall. instead you continue to throw out baseless accusations about people opposed to the war wanting it to go bad. but when your leaders actually wish for more terrorist attacks for partisan gain not a peep.

basso
trader jorge/big texx
donkey magic/new yorker

feel free to chime in anytime guys!

 

The link is working now and have read the article. I would like to point out that article is an Op-ed also and it is the author who is saying that Ellison is seeing signs of success not Ellison himself.

Ellison's quote is: "What they're doing is respecting people, giving the people some control over their own lives."

Taking it at face value what he is saying is that he does see improvement in how the US military is conducting things but that doesn't automatically mean he is seeing success. Without more of the context of Ellison's quote, which isn't given its hard to tell what is Ellison's opinion regarding the chances for success.

 

Being skeptical is fine, but many here are too quick to attack and dismiss positive news, to the point that it's clear that partisan politics is a key motivator. That's an observation, not a reactionary attack on them. I'm only asking that people stay open to some positive news.

I have not changed my mind. I'm only holding judgement. That's nothing unusual. New evidence comes in, and you say, ok...let's see where this goes. To call it a dramatic change is in fact reactionary.

And calling my observation that liberals are putting thier political views above what's best for the country "treason" is a fairly reactionary attack as well. I simply don't see that. You're rationale is faulty since treason is a punishable crime, yet putting party or personal interests ahead of a nations is not>

The constituation defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.

So I think you are guilty of what you accuse me of....a bunch of political rhetoric. Frankly, I'm surprised you would take that sort of approach.

Anyway, I think Clutch would have changed your name considering it was your real name you were trying to protect. YOu should do it anyway since won't your historical posts still be up there with your name?

 

First, Representatives can't be Senate officers... Clyburn's the House Majority Whip.

Second, there's nothing in this quote that says real progress in Iraq is a threat to Dems. He's talking about the numbers behind votes and the reality that Republicans aren't going to do anything but stand with Bush until at least the report comes out.

(Caveat: I'm at work, so I didn't watch the vid... just relying on the quote posted.)

 

Well, regarding US fatalities, July ended up being not the best month since last November, but tied with February and March.

The discrepancy may have a little to do with both the urge to promote "good" news about the surge and the death of 8 US soldiers the last two days of July.

But hey, over the first two days of August, only 5 US soldiers have died, so that is marked improvement... an average of only 2.5 deaths per day during the most recent 48 hours compared to 4.0 over the previous 48 hours.

It's working.

 

Why are US casualties the metric of success? I think we can all agree that this war is a hell of a lot more than just insurgents fighting American soldiers.

How many suicide bombings last month? IED explosions that did not call American troops? (either civilian deaths or injuries of soldiers instead)

How about the number of civilian casualties? Oil facility attacks? Are utilities increasing the amount of energy output? That too where are these casualties occurring? Are they away from areas that are affected by the "surge?"

I could go on and on, but that's sort of the point. There are tons of questions to answer before anyone can say "yes, we have progress." And no one has bothered to answer those. In fact, the Bush administration refuses to comment on half of those questions. (For example, they stopped reporting data on utilities and refuse to release counts of civilian casualties even though they are collected)

So until we get a real picture, none of this new data means anything.

 

it's working --

Water taps run dry in Baghdad

By STEVEN R. HURST

BAGHDAD - Much of the Iraqi capital was without running water Thursday and had been for at least 24 hours, compounding the urban misery in a war zone and the blistering heat at the height of the Baghdad summer.

Residents and city officials said large sections in the west of the capital had been virtually dry for six days because the already strained electricity grid cannot provide sufficient power to run water purification and pumping stations.

Baghdad routinely suffers from periodic water outages, but this one is described by residents as one of the most extended and widespread in recent memory. The problem highlights the larger difficulties in a capital beset by violence, crumbling infrastructure, rampant crime and too little electricity to keep cool in the sweltering weather more than four years after the U.S.-led invasion.

Jamil Hussein, a 52-year-old retired army officer who lives in northeast Baghdad, said his house has been without water for two weeks, except for two hours at night. He says the water that does flow smells and is unclean.

Two of his children have severe diarrhea that the doctor attributed to drinking what tap water was available, even after it was boiled.

"We'll have to continue drinking it, because we don't have money to buy bottled water," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070802/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

 

long live the surge.

Last night while watching one of the news channels they pointed out how the rationale behind the surge seems to have gone a full circle.

The idea initially was to take focus off of training Iraqi forces in order to concentrate on security. But now that Gates has admitted they underestimated the political difficulties it seems that they are going back to placing the focus on training Iraqis to handle security again.

So in other words after the surge we are right back where we started.

 

Can you imagine?

130 degree days on end without water, electricity, indoor plumbing. It must be devastating.

 

That would be horrible state side, but imagine it in the middle of an Iraqi summer.

I've said it before, but it deserves to be said again and again. What a horrible mess. This administration are such bunglers. They have screwed things up so in credibly much, cost so many lives, and damaged so many people and families it is just criminal.

 

Better than being dead, I suppose. Any wonder why the Iraqi middle class, the ones who could afford it, have fled the country? Close to 3 million Iraqis have left Iraq. After having caused this insane, deadly, chaotic mess, the United States has let a few dozen into our borders as refugees. Ain't we special??


D&D. Impeach Bush and Cheney.

 

Yes we are, we've just lost our way a bit.



Iraqi refugees

Main article: Refugees of Iraq
Further information: Iraqi diaspora

As of 2007 more Iraqis have lost their homes and become refugees than the population of any other country. Over 3.9 million people, close to 16% of the Iraqi population, have become uprooted. Of these, around 2 million have fled Iraq and flooded other countries, and 1.9 million are estimated to be refugees inside Iraq.[125]

Roughly 40 percent of Iraq's middle class is believed to have fled, the U.N. said. Most are fleeing systematic persecution and have no desire to return. All kinds of people, from university professors to bakers, have been targeted by militias, insurgents and criminals. An estimated 331 school teachers were slain in the first four months of 2006, according to Human Rights Watch, and at least 2,000 Iraqi doctors have been killed and 250 kidnapped since the 2003 U.S. invasion.[126]

A May 25, 2007 article notes that in the past seven months only 69 people from Iraq have been granted refugee status in the United States.[127] As a result of growing international pressure, on June 1, 2007 the Bush administration said it was ready to admit 7,000 Iraqi refugees who had helped the coalition since the invasion. According to Washington based Refugees International the U.S. has admitted fewer than 800 Iraqi refugees since the invasion, Sweden had accepted 18,000 and Australia almost 6,000.[128] As many as 110,000 Iraqis could be targeted as collaborators because of their work for coalition forces.[129]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Iraqi_Freedom#Iraqi_refugees

 

thanks - i think it is wrong to try to spin stuff like this for partisan gain, but i didnt see the guy saying that he wanted things to go badly in iraq just to make bush look bad as yall allege. he was specifically talking about petrious' report in september, right? what i really wanted was someone saying they want iraq to do badly to make bush look bad - that is the line that has been parroted throughout this thread. i do find it humorous that you bush-supporters continue to ignore the fact that some of your own leaders wish for more terrorist attacks just so people will support bush and his war again.

basso, care to comment on republican leaders wishing for more terrorist attacks on america? ive asked a few times and not a peep from any of yall. if a "democrat/liberal" actually said something along the lines of "we need iraq to go bad so people will turn against bush" i would like to see it. here are republican leaders saying they want more attacks to make bush look good. do you support this? yes or no?

"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country,"
Dennis Milligan - Arkansas GOP Chairman

"Between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public’s going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we’re seeing unfold in the UK."
Rick Santorum - former senator and current douchebag

 

have you ever thought that as bad as it is, maybe things are going exactly as they want them to go?

it is either total incompetence or total criminality and i dont believe that these are stupid people running our country.

bush is stupid, but he is nothing more than a cheerleader. im talking about the people actually running things - they are not dumb.

 

The problem is though you are making a charge without substantiating it. Again can you prove this is partisanship and not a matter that people actual believe that they believe their criticism is that they believe that the Admin's strategy is wrong?

Why I feel that your view is reactionary is how quick you jump to "You're putting party interests ahead of country" rather than consider the merits of why people are dismissing positive news.

I will admit that "treason" is a strong word and why I brought that up is so you appreciate the seriousness of the charge you are making. Treason isn't limited to external enemies but also to internal enemies, and while none of this rises to the level of the criminal charge to claim that people are willingly putting party interests ahead of country is to say that they are betraying their country to an internal group which is why I said the equivalent of treason. That is still a very serious charge which you haven't substantiated other than to say that I'm being reactionary. Perhaps so but that still doesn't support your charge.

To be precise I'm not accusing you of political rhetoric but am accusing you of intellectual dishonesty. Something that I have accused you of before and one that your own history would support. Considering you have shifted positions and that you have admitted to taking positions you don't support for the sake of inciting.

As I said I had asked Clutch and he wasn't inclined to do so. I could continue to pester him about it and he might change my name or he could get annoyed and ban me. Clutch has a lot to do running this site and rather than have him go out of his way I'm fine taking the rookie route. As for previous posts I have been very careful the last year with which threads I posted in.

 

Yao Ming Kicks Ass, I don't think I'll ever get used to this new moniker. Guess I'll figure out some way to shorten it and come up with something I don't have to think about every time I need to type your moniker. The spelling is a bit awkward for me.


D&D. Impeach Bush and Cheney. Support Hill Country Peaches.

 

Alright, well, then, let me soften my statement and say that SOME posters here are in my view putting party politics up over the best interests of the country. My substantiation of it was the perceived lack of interest in actually considering the news as potentially positive and indeed trying to find multiple ways to dismiss it by attacking the source and the means of assessment right when the article posted.

If people said - I'll wait and see if their isn't something funny about this report, then that might indicate to me that there was some openess - but that wasn't the case, it was BAM - this is a bunch of B.S.! And that's where my rationale for suspecting this was a partisan thing as opposed to a critical evaluation. That's it. I'm not a conservative or a liberal, there are things I lean toward both ways and things I'm just in the middle on....but I'm not anti-liberal or anti-conservative...and I will resist whichever side I feel has crossed a boundary.

You are free to label me as intellectually dishonest, and there is no way to really put up any kind of defense to it, but I don't see myself as being disingenious. Certainly, not happy about the war, and conventional wisdom is that it has been an utter disaster....but I still hope for success ya know? I mean, who on earth doesn't? That's what bothers me, I suspect there are people who want us to lose just to have egg on Bush's face and would be depressed if things in Iraq worked out. It certainly would be disasterous for liberals politically, you have to admit that you know?

 

Thanks, I will... you are intellectually dishonest and disingenuous. Repeatedly, you have failed to name anyone who doesn't "hope" for "success," even though success has never been defined in any meaningful way.

Again, as has been pointed out before, there's nobody on this board and probably an incredibly low number of Americans who want this to "fail" or who would be depressed over Iraq working out. There are however, many Americans who want to choose the course best suited to the reality of the situation... and many Americans who are crying for real leadership. And it wouldn't be disastrous for Dems politically. The pendulum always swings and it's coming back from the far right so fast now that a victory parade down Constitution and fireworks over the Washington Monument ain't going to change it drastically (as if that's going to happen...).

And again, I can't understand the wait crowd. Wait for what? It's Bush's war, Bush's strategy. Petraeus is Bush's general, selected after others didn't say what Bush wanted. Why would we want to wait to hear from a General who is stupid enough to put himself in the position of being used by a failed President? Why are we playing games with a President, an administration, and a party so cowardly that they have to hide behind the skirts of a general nobody had heard of a year ago? Petraeus is going to say exactly what the administration wants him to say.

As for me, see my sig. I'll stand with Madison who, in the grave 171 years, is still smarter about our current situation then the entire administration and all their supporters.