Working? Sounds like chaos to me. Oops....I forgot. Iraqi lives don't matter to the Bush Administration....just like they didn't to Saddam Hussein. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070801/ts_nm/iraq_dc_27 Sunni bloc quits as bombs kill over 70 By Mariam Karouny and Peter Graff 1 hour, 7 minutes ago BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The main Sunni Arab political bloc quit the Iraqi cabinet on Wednesday, plunging the government into crisis on a day when suicide bombers killed more than 70 people with massive strikes in the capital. The Sunni Accordance Front said its five cabinet members and Deputy Prime Minister Salam al-Zobaie would resign from Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government. "This is probably the most serious political crisis we have faced since the passage of the constitution. If unresolved the implications are grave," the remaining deputy prime minister, Barhim Salih, a Kurd, told Reuters. Maliki spoke to U.S. President George W. Bush by video link and reassured him "dialogue with our brothers in the Accordance Front will not stop" despite the boycott, Maliki's office said. White House spokesman Tony Snow said after the call: "The president emphasized that the Iraqi people and the American people need to see action, not just words ... on the political front," Snow told reporters in Washington. The Iraqi government said 1,653 civilians were killed in July, a third more than the previous month, despite a fall in the number of deaths among U.S. troops. Fifty of Wednesday's dead were killed when a suicide bomber in a fuel truck packed with explosives targeted motorists at a petrol station, police said. Another suicide bomber killed 20 people outside a popular ice cream shop across town. Another bomber killed three in southern Doura district. The Accordance Front said it was quitting Maliki's coalition because he had failed to meet about a dozen demands, including granting the Sunni bloc a greater say in security matters. Those standing down include the ministers of culture, women, planning, and higher education, and the junior foreign affairs minister. Their withdrawal may have little practical effect on a government already paralyzed by infighting. The Shi'ite bloc of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr withdrew in April. But the withdrawal was a blow to reconciliation efforts: luring the large Sunni bloc into government had been hailed as a major achievement when Maliki took power last year. The United States had hoped the inclusion of Sunni Arabs in the Shi'ite-dominated government would reduce sectarian violence. But laws aimed at reconciliation have not been passed. Washington acknowledged the setback. "Democracy is hard," said U.S. embassy spokesman Phil Reeker. "Is it frustrating? Yes. It's frustrating for us, it's frustrating for them, it's frustrating for the Iraqi people." Haidar al-Ibadi, a parliamentarian close to Maliki, told Reuters the Front was trying to persuade the Americans to withdraw support for the prime minister. "They are sending a message to Washington that Nuri al-Maliki is no longer accepted, and trying to bring the political process to square one. They will not be successful." The Sunni Front's deputy president, Tareq al-Hashemi, will remain in office for now, as will Sunni Arab Defence Minister Abdel Qader Jassim. The Front's 44 members also remain in the 275-seat parliament, which is on recess until September. TALKS PLANNED Salih, the Kurdish deputy prime minister, told Reuters plans were under way for a summit of Iraq's main factions in the next few days, seeking a new, more stable accord. "The crisis is grave and its implications should not be underestimated, but I hope it offers an opportunity to address the causes of political instability afflicting this country." Hashemi told reporters the Front was still open to talks and could return to government "if they introduce reforms." Political setbacks in Iraq could also hurt Bush, who faces a showdown in Congress next month when his Iraq commander reports on progress after sending 30,000 extra troops this year. The military reported that four more soldiers had been killed on Tuesday, July's last day, taking the month's toll to 78, the lowest since last November. "The surge has done what we wanted it to do in terms of bringing down the violence," said the U.S. embassy's Reeker. "The hardest part is taking advantage of these security gains to move the political process forward." But deaths among Iraqi civilians, which had fallen by more than a third in June, rose back to the level of previous months.
yeah, bush admin doesnt care about iraqi lives...thats why they wants to leave immediately with no somewhat stable system in place
Insights from someone who's been in Iraq for a little more than 8 days. <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QPI_kqzDpRQ"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QPI_kqzDpRQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
Iraqi lives certainly aren't the reason they are staying, because our presence their is the main fuel for the insurgency.
so its the US soldiers forcing people to blow up markets. i see. It would be one big circle jerk of roses if the military wasnt there. I always overlook these things... fiction can be fun
I thought the administration was big on the idea of 'foreign fighters' leading the insurgency? Would they be in Iraq to fight the jihad against the Americans if the Americans weren't there? I thought the whole plan was to 'fight the jihadists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here'? Or are you saying that the violence is only a domestic insurgency and Iraq is unrelated to the war on terror?
Yourself and others have made this charge that liberals are more interested in party politics than in seeing the US succeed. This is a very serious charge and one that is the equivalent of saying that they are treasonous. While many are very skeptical of reports of progress can this honestly then be said to deliberately wishing the country failure? For that matter would continuously embracing positive news while ignoring negative amount to putting party politics ahead of truth? I agree with you that we should be open minded about this but how open minded are we to begin with if we are quick to accuse someone that doesn't agree with us as being treasonous.
the U.S. isn't responsible for Iraq's civil war. Well in a way they are, since they left the power vaccum and planned so poorly that the civil war is the result, but I am talking about the attacks on America and the Iraqi govt. currently running things(kind of). If the U.S. military leaves then the Iraqi govt. will have to work out its own problems, fighters who were specifically motivated to fend off the foreign occupiers and their allies have lost their main incentive for fighting, and thus it decreases. Iraq will still have a civil war on its hands, but it already has that, and the U.S. is putting only small dents in that. Meanwhile our troops are targets and they don't have to be. They aren't ending violence in IRaq. They aren't making Iraq more stable(the Sunni block just quit). They are only serving as targets, and recruitment tools for some of the violence. Furthermore most of the plans to have the U.S. troops leave Iraq dont' just leave with nothing left behind. They include working with many nations to put together an international force to help with security. We don't have to shoulder the work by ourselves, and if we had an administration capable of diplomacy we wouldn't be.
No, it means liberals are blinded by their anger for Bush. They can't accept that things in Iraq are improving, because they are so programmed to stand against the war and are all about the Republicans taking a fall. They don't realize they are putting party politics above the country interests, and they are hardly treasonous. Anyway, why don't you just wait 7 weeks and let's see what the report comes back. I won't hold my breath, but I'm willing to reassess as the Republican party clearly thinks that there is some hope. Not being devoted to either party anymore, I will give each side it's fair chance. If you find that dispicable, then perhaps you have a problem with anyone who doesn't think like yourself.
No, they simply can't take seriously the 70th article that says "the media's just not reporting how great things are going" which is then wrong. By the way, today, a large Sunni coalition pulled out of the Iraqi government and may take 6 cabinet ministers with them. Yes, things are definitely improving.
do you mean liberals or democrats? they are not the same thing, please quit lumping them together. i want us out of iraq ASAP. other than that i want things to improve there but nothing could make me hate bush less. see these are all mutually exclusive things. are you purposefully trying to make this a black and white issue? what is your agenda?
I have a problem with someone who thinks the way you do, because Sishir was dead on... you are implying that "liberals" are treasonous. Furthermore, you've fallen back into your habit of posting a viewpoint at odds with "previously held" ones. Whatever floats your boat, NewYorker. D&D. Impeach Bush and Cheney.
liberals. I don't think I'm confusing the two. Liberals are the left, and align with dems or things like the green party. There are moderate dems just as there are moderate republicans. But generally speaking, a liberal is a dem and a dem is a liberal. There is no agenda on my part, the agenda is that the liberals on this board aren't open to considering that perhaps the surge is having some success. I mean, the haste at which positive news is dismissed is fairly alarming, and demonstrates a pattern of being dismissive and being party line. I don't think calling that out represents an agenda. In fact, I'm calling out the liberal's agenda. Now, no one complains when I bash Bush, but when I wear my moderate stripes, all of a sudden I'm a self-contradicting evil republican. I love it. You guys love to attack a person on a personal level as a means to win. Nice political manuevuring. Bravo, Bravo!
You know what, I really do think the liberals here are so anti-Bush and want to see him and his policies failed, that they have become blinded by the fact that there is indeed positive momentum. Not only do you have the brookings report (I love how they are attacked as closet iraq supporters to undermine their assessment), but there's other information as well. July was the lowest U.S. military death toll since November. But that's not all you get, wait till you read this: Wow, A muslim American congressmen and a California dem who has supported troop withdraw see progress???? I guess you will attack them now too???? think that's a lot, there's still even more: Need a source: http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/IBD-0001-18565289.htm Now, I think there's reason to think that the surge may be working. This is backed up by New York Times reporter John Burns, never accused of being a shill for anyone on Iraq. He told radio host Hugh Hewitt on Monday "there's no doubt that those extra 30,000 American troops are making a difference." Now, I know you all will dismiss these guys as pro-Bushies or whatever, but geez, are you so closed minded that you can't admit that something positive has been happening recently. If anything, casualities are down, despite an INCREASE in troops. Perhaps the hard part is that you can't admit that everyone who mocked the whole concept of the surge was wrong. That it actually was a viable strategy. All I am saying is keep an open mind ye liberals. Set aside your partisan ways for a couple of months and lets see what happens. Forget about how this will benefit the republicans and Bush...think about how it might benefit America.
What exactly do you think is going to happen in September? You do realize that the report is of course going to come back with some positives and some negatives, right? And that pro-war people are going to seize on the positives and say "it's working!" and the anti-war people are going to seize on the negatives and say "you're not meeting your goals!" and we're going to be right back to where we started. Anti-war people are going to demand a pull-out, and pro-war people are going to ask for a few more months to show more progress. And the cycle will repeat over and over.
I think if we see continued drop in casualities and that July was not just an aberation, and we begin to see dips in violence to iraqi civilians in September, then that's some positive momentum. Really, Bush has tried to spin things before, but people have seen through it. This is the first positive indications I've seen in Iraq in 4 years. I think it would be a shame to pull out now right when we see at least a sign of hope. So let's see if some of the positive news is followed up with results. What's wrong with that?
I know you guys are going to slam me for being negative and unreasonable, but reality calls and it absolutely amazes me how anyone can trust anything said by the people who advocated this war... here's the chart... http://icasualties.org/oif/US_Chart.aspx First thing you notice is how many tall lines are on the recent part of the chart. The second thing you notice is that there is a rough cyclical pattern (maybe mirroring cool weather?) that shows US deaths peak in the late fall. That the administration is touting July as the least tragic month since last Nov is not much to crow about. Last Nov was sandwiched between two of the deadliest months of the war. The fact that we haven't been close to Nov's total since the surge started... even during the hot months of May and June... is telling. Also, July 2007 averaged 2.87 coalition deaths per day, putting it well above the average for the entire war: 2.48. The 80 US deaths compared to other Julys: 43, 54, 54, 48. More info on July deaths: http://icasualties.org/oif/prdDetails.aspx?hndRef=7-2007
More good news just from today... If you did bother to read all those snippets of stories, you did see some good news... it is just overwhelmed by very, very bad news... and the very, very bad news comes on all fronts... strategic, tactical, political, economic, hearts and minds...
This looks relevant to the discussion. U.S. troop deaths show sharp July decline By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY BAGHDAD — The number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq has dropped sharply so far in July after reaching record levels in recent months, a possible sign that militants are weakening, the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq said Thursday. DECLINE: See July's troop toll "This is what we thought would happen once we took control of the safe havens" used by insurgents and militias, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno said Thursday. "We've now taken control of those areas." Though he called the drop in U.S. deaths an "initial positive sign," Odierno cautioned, "I need a bit more time to see if it's a true trend or not." The Pentagon has reported 61 U.S. troop deaths in combat and non-combat incidents from July 1 through Thursday — a rate that projects to a death toll of 70-80 troops by the end of the month. That would signal a return to average casualty levels seen prior to April, May and June, when an average of 110 troops died per month in the deadliest three-month stretch of the entire war. The unusually heavy toll in the spring followed an increase in U.S. troop levels — who now number about 154,000 — and more aggressive tactics after a new security plan began in mid-February. "We were going into areas we hadn't been before," Odierno told reporters. The recent decline in U.S. deaths may result from increased cooperation from Iraqis who report suspected militant activity, said Dennis McBride, executive director of the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies in suburban Washington. "We may be approaching a tipping point in terms of snitching," McBride said. "It can become not only OK to snitch, it can become your duty to snitch." The July death toll also has been inflated by an unusually large number of non-combat deaths. Of the 61 deaths reported so far in July, 51 resulted from combat and 10 from non-combat incidents such as vehicle accidents — a rate that could produce about 60 combat deaths by the end of the month. From April to June, there were an average of 104 combat deaths per month, Pentagon figures show. "The troop surge is being effective," McBride said, referring to the increased number of U.S. forces. Retired Army Special Forces Maj. Andy Messing, executive director of the National Defense Council Foundation in Alexandria, Va., said insurgents and militia members may be simply hiding out during the ongoing offensive. "We show up in greater force, and they reduce their presence and wait until we're worn down," Messing said. Also Thursday, a highly sophisticated simultaneous car bomb and rocket attack devastated a Shiite market district in a Baghdad neighborhood considered one of its safest, the Associated Press reported. Police and hospital officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to release information, told the AP 28 people were killed and 95 injured. Contributing: Paul Overberg in McLean, Va. _-----------------_ For all our fancy new toys and IED busting vehicles, tips from locals are mostly responsible for saving troop's lives. What I take from the article is that even if our presence isn't welcome, there is a growing acceptance among Iraqis that we're the lesser evil, from a stability standpoint, at least. The catch is whether it's those treasonous Dems, who want to call home the troops, have an affect on their perception that we won't stay long and thus they have a larger inclination to snitch. Counter intuitive and a little late for them....
The final total for the month was 80 US deaths. This is lower that the May figure of 126. But for perspective, last year the July figure was 43, down from 69 from May of that year. July of 2005 the total was 54, down from 80 in May of that year, and in 2004 it was 54, down from 135 in April of that year. The point is that anually the figures peak in May/April and then drop for the hottest summer months before shooting up again. The reduction in deaths may be attributable to the causes mentioned in the story, but the fact that they don't mention that July has been an off month in every year of the war makes me question their conclusions, and in any case 80 deaths in July is the highest July death total in the four years of this war, surpassing the second highest July by 26 deaths. This doesn't sound like something to cheer about just yet. EDIT: Rimrocker beat me to it. That's what I get for only looking at the most recent post.
