why then are you marketing it as an example of republicans "wishing" for a terrorist attack to make W look good?
I never did. I even said, he's a random dude from Arkansas. That was some other posters. Look 99.99% of republicans dont want terrorist attacks. I may disagree with the Republican platform on most issues but i don't think anyone supports more terrorist attacks on America. I think this guy from Arkansas just got a little carried away and said something really really stupid. Just acknowledge that it was dumb and move on. it has no greater meaning in the context of politics.
more problems for the surrender at any Kost Krowd http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_go_co/iraq_democrats_1 [rquoter] Democrats praise military progress By KIMBERLY HEFLING, Associated Press Writer Wed Aug 8, 7:33 PM ET WASHINGTON - One senator said U.S. troops are routing out al-Qaida in parts of Iraq. Another insisted President Bush's plan to increase troops has caused tactical momentum. One even went so far on Wednesday as to say the argument could be made that U.S. troops are winning. These are not Bush-backing GOP die-hards, but Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin, Bob Casey and Jack Reed. Even Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, said progress was being made by soldiers. The suggestions by them and other Democrats in recent days that at least a portion of Bush's strategy in Iraq is working is somewhat surprising, considering the bitter exchanges on Capitol Hill between the Democratic majority and Republicans and Bush. Democrats have long said Bush's policies have been nothing more than a complete failure. The Democrats' choice to acknowledge the military's progress in Iraq signals support for the troops, a message that voters want to hear. But they still heap criticism on Bush and his Iraq strategy, which promises to be a prominent issue in next year's presidential election. All of Washington is waiting for the September assessment from Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker about the Bush administration strategy. Bush has called the plan a "surge" because it poured thousands more troops into the country. A key component of the January plan was that there be political progress in Iraq. Last week, the chief lawmaking body in Iraq went into recess until September without accomplishing much of what U.S. leaders had hoped they would. Levin, while saying military progress was being made, said the troop build-up could not be considered a success because its purpose was to make way for political reconciliation, and that hasn't happened. "The only hope is if they take the responsibility onto themselves and we end the open-ended military commitment," Levin, of Michigan, said Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition." Reed, a Rhode Island senator who visited Iraq last month, said there's been tactical momentum, but it "has yet to translate itself into real political momentum, which is the key, I think, to progress." Durbin, an Illinois senator who is traveling this week with Pennsylvania Sen. Casey, told CNN on Wednesday that "naturally" troops are routing out al-Qaida in parts of Iraq, but then explained there's no evidence of the government in the areas. In a conference call with reporters, Casey said one could make a good argument that U.S. troops have won the war, then accused Iraqi politicians and the Bush administration of not matching the intensity of the troops. "The troops have met every assignment, they've beaten the odds time and again, they've done everything we've asked them to," Casey said. California Democratic Rep. Jerry McNerney had a different take. After visiting Iraq last month and visiting with Petraeus, McNerney said signs of progress led him to decide he'll be a little more flexible about when troops should be brought home. "I'm more willing to work with finding a way forward to accommodate what the generals are saying," McNerney said.[/rquoter]
basso, why do you demean yourself by posting this crap? ^^^ A key component of the January plan was that there be political progress in Iraq. Last week, the chief lawmaking body in Iraq went into recess until September without accomplishing much of what U.S. leaders had hoped they would. Levin, while saying military progress was being made, said the troop build-up could not be considered a success because its purpose was to make way for political reconciliation, and that hasn't happened. "The only hope is if they take the responsibility onto themselves and we end the open-ended military commitment," Levin, of Michigan, said Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition." Reed, a Rhode Island senator who visited Iraq last month, said there's been tactical momentum, but it "has yet to translate itself into real political momentum, which is the key, I think, to progress." Durbin, an Illinois senator who is traveling this week with Pennsylvania Sen. Casey, told CNN on Wednesday that "naturally" troops are routing out al-Qaida in parts of Iraq, but then explained there's no evidence of the government in the areas. In a conference call with reporters, Casey said one could make a good argument that U.S. troops have won the war, then accused Iraqi politicians and the Bush administration of not matching the intensity of the troops. "The troops have met every assignment, they've beaten the odds time and again, they've done everything we've asked them to," Casey said. What is there to argue about? No one has ever questioned, to my knowledge, the superb ability of our troops and the lower echelon of our military leadership. These Democrats don't say "The Surge" is working. They say the troops are doing their end and doing a magnificent job. When has anyone said anything that's at odds with that? Durbin, an Illinois senator who is traveling this week with Pennsylvania Sen. Casey, told CNN on Wednesday that "naturally" troops are routing out al-Qaida in parts of Iraq, but then explained there's no evidence of the government in the areas. Are you reading what he's saying? D&D. Impeach Dildo and His Battery.
no one, or at any case at least not me, is claimimg the surge "has been a success." we, including the good senator, are only noting its progress. why do you work so hard to rebutt any signs of hope?
basso, I'm being realistic. We can kick the ass of anyone... anyone who we match our military against, in any kind of a straight-up fight. I have never thought differently. Vietnam, however, made it abundantly clear that fighting an insurgency, in the middle of a civil war, and as an outside power, just isn't going to work. We had a slim chance if the invasion and occupation had initially been handled right, but that was totally blown by Rumsfeld, with strong backing by the ultimate decider, Bush, and by Cheney. It is a damned shame. I was against the invasion and occupation, but I've been watching this whole thing play out, as I watched Vietnam, a conflict during which I wasn't a little kid, but was lucky not to get drafted into, unlike some of my friends. This entire conflict has been maddening. Bush and his people could not have handled it worse. If he had put in competent leadership, and I like Petraeus, and kicked Rumsfeld to the curb within a year of the invasion, they still might have pulled it off, despite ignoring every competent voice from the military prior to the balloon going up. Today, it is simply too late. We are having our men and women killed and maimed for no logical reason. We cannot win. We disagree about that, obviously, but you continue to hurl slander at people like me, instead of attempting any kind of thoughtful discussion. Think about it. D&D. Impeach Bush and Cheney.
i have. i'm not asking you to renounce your opposition to the war, merely to acknowledge that there is progress in the current strategy, and perhaps it's too soon to preemptively sound retreat.
ive posted them already, but ill play. "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
via TPM -- Aarrgghh! False New Media Meme Claims That War Critics Across The Board See Progress In Iraq Okay, this is getting serious. The media carnival about alleged war critics Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack "suddenly" expressing optimism about the surge is now threatening to balloon into something much larger than those two, a meme much more grotesque and Frankenstein-like. Call it a Franken-meme. The new Franken-meme goes like this: War critics in general -- not just the Dynamic Duo from Brookings -- are now "conceding" that real, honest-to-God military progress is being made in Iraq. I'm not kidding. Take a look at this piece by the Associated Press, which claims in its headline: "Even some critics of President Bush's Iraq war policies are conceding there is evidence of recent improvements from a military standpoint," the piece tells us. But here's the funny thing, though: All the evidence offered in the article in support of this thesis -- with the possible exception of one very dubious piece of info -- is thoroughly bogus. Let's get the easy one out of the way. With tedious and depressing predictability, the chief piece of evidence cited for the piece is -- yup -- the O'Hanlon and Pollack Op ed. You already know the drill on this one. The second piece of evidence: "Leading anti-war Democrat Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania predicted that U.S. commanders will begin drawing down troop levels early next year and that Congress can be more flexible in setting a fixed deadline for ending the U.S. occupation." But this prediction by Murtha simply isn't a concession of progress in any way. What Murtha has been saying is that commanders will be forced to draw down troops because the military's overstretched -- and as a result, there's less of a need for a fixed withdrawal timeline. Whether you agree with Murtha or not, this simply doesn't support the AP's thesis. Indeed, GOP House leader John Boehner recently attacked Murtha for not acknowledging progress in Iraq. The only piece of evidence here that comes remotely close to supporting the AP's thesis is that Dem Senator Dick Durbin recently said that the troops were "making some measurable progress, but it's slow going" and that the troops were showing "some progress towards security." But as Steve Benen argued the other day, even this isn't really an expression of confidence in any meaningful broader sense. As Benen says, Durbin is pointing to isolated pockets of progress that don't add up to progress on the broader mission in any way. But even if you count Durbin's tepid confidence in isolated bits of progress, that's only one person -- the other scattered voices in the piece aren't even described as war critics. The AP isn't the only big news org that's playing this phony game, by the way. Today's Washington Post ran a piece on Anthony Cordesman's report demonstrating real pessimism about our prospects for success in Iraq. The piece strongly stressed Cordesman's view that we could conceivably succeed in Iraq if this, that or the other fluke took place -- without noting that Cordesman himself said he differed with O'Hanlon and Pollack's assessments of the situation in Iraq. Just a stunning omission. Even better, WaPo described Cordesman's "optimism about the war" -- even though he wrote: "From my perspective, the U.S. now has only uncertain, high risk options in Iraq." That strike you as optimistic? Anyway, ladies and gents, you're watching a new and very ugly media Franken-meme grow before your very eyes. You've been warned... -- Greg Sargent http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/08/associated_pres_6.php All these reports coming out right before September to support the surge? Does anyone else find it more than just a coincidence?
I don't think anyone here is doubting that our military is having some success. They've been having successes all along the way. There was never a time when they weren't having some operational successes. The point is that now possibly more than ever those operational successes don't mean progress is being made in stabilizing Iraq overall.
you're incredible mark, truly. you've not only proved every point i've tried to make in this thread, but you've underscored it in such a fashion that no sane person could possible miss the message you're trying to deliver: You do not want to hear good news from Iraq. Thanks for being so forthright. If there was ever any doubt, it's been erased now.
This is truly a bizarre piece... there's really no fact that supports the first half of the story. In fact, the first half reads like an op-ed instead of a news report. Levin, Reed, Durbin, and Casey all say the troops are doing a good job, but the rest of the picture is failing. Duh. As for McNerney? From the trip report on his web site:
What amazes me is how low the bar has now been set. It is now the argument of those in favor of staying in Iraq that if things are even a whit less horrible, in any quarter, if there is any sign of "progress," it is an argument to continue a war in which "victory" has still not been defined and in which the Pentagon has apparently not even planned for an exit strategy -- ever. Remember the 2000 debates in which Bush said he would never engage in a war in which both the definition of victory and an exit strategy were not clear? Now to ask for either gives comfort to the enemy and amounts to a wish that the troops would fail and, therefore, die. I mean, Jiminy Cricket. What the **** has happened? We are still embroiled in a religious civil war whose end no one can predict or even truly imagine. In fact, the only answer to that factor in this war (in other words the factor) is to say, "Well, we wouldn't call it a civil war." Call it what you want. There is still no strategy for dealing with a country in which two groups are hell-bent on killing each other and we are actually incidental to the major conflict except to occasionally pass out arms in the day that are used against us in the night. Or, rather, the only realistic strategy to end this decades-long (century-long?) dispute militarily is to kill every single one of the aggrieved parties. Or, at least, to kill so many on one side of that war that they cede power permanently to the other side. So which is it? Will we knock off the Sunnis or the Shia? And what will then become of the Kurds? The reason there is no way to define victory for the US here is that the US cannot be victorious in a civil war between two parties of which we are not one and in which we refuse to choose sides. And yet... And yet, if less Americans died in the crossfire this month we are meant to take it that we are "winning." Who will rule Iraq when we "win?" The bloodthirsty majority or the bloodthirsty minority? And how exactly will our "victory" stop them from killing each other? No one knows. No one wants to talk about it. Instead they talk of Al Qaeda who only came there to kill Americans and whose only vested interest in Iraq is continuing to do so. Civil war? What civil war? Don't look over there where the country we liberated is dead set on killing each other! Look over here, where Al Qaeda=Iraq, where 20% of the insurgency is the only part we care about! Over here where we have a clear enemy and we can win through might alone. Over here where questions of defining an undefinable victory (militarily, that is) or exit strategy equal aid to the enemy and hatred of our own country. That's awesome, basso.
I liked it better when you called me a traitor. The only good news I want to hear is that we're leaving this lie of a war. So basso I'd really like to know. What's working in Iraq? The government's not The power isn't There's no water Oil is not paying for anything People are leaving the country in droves AQ is stronger than ever Americans and Iraqis are dying daily We're arming our enemies Really… What's working?
basso, quite frankly after all the spin and outright lies you have been putting out for the past four years I don't trust you enough to have a nuanced debate. If people hadn't been vigilant and zealous in opposing you, you would still be talking about the wonderful job that Rumsfeld was doing, and all the bad news out of Iraq is all part of a traitorous plot to get dubbyah and ruin the USA. You have played dirty, and others have had to take up your dirty tactics to keep the game fair. In this light, you shouldn't (but of course you will) blame people for being weary of giving you an inch when in the past you would take that inch and run a mile. The same in true in the larger context of the people of the USA and the White House spin machine. So against my better judgment, just to see the details of how you will spin it, I’m going to act like I am speaking to a person that I can trust. From my perspective the surge is having an effect. That effect will last as long as the surge lasts and then it will evaporate. But more importantly, the surge requires a second phase that is nearly impossible. This is the Iraqi part of the equation, and IMO makes the whole issue of whether we are making any progress on the ground totally moot. So essentially the technical US military portion of the 'greater surge plan' this matters not at all because the next required step won't work. We have moved forward 1/10th of a meter on the 6 mile road to peace. As I see it this doesn’t particularly call for a reevaluation of my position that the current situation is broken. Minor progress will inevitably occur as a part of stochastic resonance. It also seems like your other tactic is to turn the debate from winning the war in Iraq, to a proxy argument about the Petreaus, as if admitting the surge is a validation of everything that has occurred in Iraq for the past four years. Creating short term gains for TV and for military morale has been done before. See Operation Rolling Thunder. If I were to put a number on the chance of ‘the surge’ working, I would currently place it at less that 5%, probably closer to 1%. I am currently divided on whether the White House really believes it will work, or whether they believe it is as unlikely as I do and simply care about getting something they can positively spin. That is a totally honest assessment based on the successes of the surge. So I have gone against my better judgment and tried to be honest with you, but I fully expect you to run with this and talk about how the libpigs admitted that the war is being won and just and I'm just refusing to admit it for political resons. The fact of the matter is nobody trusts you enough to debate freely on the subject, and if you are honest with yourself you will fully understand why.
In other words another of the things that 9/11 changed is that clear goals and a feasible exit strategy, when committing troops to battle, are now treasonous ideas. Now you see basso, this is why your side and your president have lost the good will of the overwhelming majority of the American people. You're a frigging clown.
