Bad News For Libs - Progress In Baghdad Is Being Made

[red states rule]

Really ? You tell me how it is better. The entire region is chaos and the sunnis and shiites are spilling blood left and right ever day. You tell me how IRAQ NOT BAGHDAD is better NOW than it was before ? My claim is bullshit? Have you ever seen or heard of this much bloodsheed in IRAQ before we got there ? Saddam was an asshole but he kept the region was semi stable when he was there. Even Gunny agrees with me on this point which I never thought I would hear but IRAQ would be much better off if Saddam were just left alone. And my question to Red States is totally valid and he wont answer it obviously.

And no shit the commander in chief is a civilian by design. What do you think we are going to do send him to war so he can be killed and elect a new president every 30 days when the next one gets killed? Dont be so freaking stupid. Red States said ABOVE that he would sacrifice 300 million lives...So I asked him how come he isnt serving and is he willing to sacrifice his own life? Its a valid question and I baited him earlier and he fell for it, now I pose the question. He is a coward who is willing to sacrifice everyones life but his own. He is a POS Coward !!!!!

I will listen to the people who live in Iraq who say their lives are better off not liberal appeasers

 

[T-Bor]

WOW...Everyone !!! Look at this...If this is not a biased comment I dont know what is. So Red States you will listen to the people who say their lives are better huh ? What about the people who say their lives arent better will you listen to them ? Here take a look at this news article

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070319/ap_on_go_ot/iraq_poll

Looks to me like its not going so good. See I can find articles too that support my opinions. Its not hard. And this one makes your current comment look assinine. Maybe now you can see how biased you really are. Im trying to help you Red States, as cruel as I sound I really am trying to help you. Your sick and you need help. But the first step to healing is admitting you have a problem. You can do it here, in front of everyone. Cmon Red states, we are routing for you !!!!!!

I will listen to the people who live in Iraq who say their lives are better off not liberal appeasers

 

[red states rule]

WOW...Everyone !!! Look at this...If this is not a biased comment I dont know what is. So Red States you will listen to the people who say their lives are better huh ? What about the people who say their lives arent better will you listen to them ? Here take a look at this news article

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070319/ap_on_go_ot/iraq_poll

Looks to me like its not going so good. See I can find articles too that support my opinions. Its not hard. And this one makes your current comment look assinine. Maybe now you can see how biased you really are. Im trying to help you Red States, as cruel as I sound I really am trying to help you. Your sick and you need help. But the first step to healing is admitting you have a problem. You can do it here, in front of everyone. Cmon Red states, we are routing for you !!!!!!

Since libs love to govern by polls.............


Iraqis: life is getting better

MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.

The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.

One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.

Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month.

By a majority of two to one, Iraqis believe military operations now under way will disarm all militias. More than half say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces.

Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, said the findings pointed to progress. “There is no widespread violence in the four southern provinces and the fact that the picture is more complex than the stereotype usually portrayed is reflected in today’s poll,” she said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Nice DODGE OF THE QUESTION RED STATES. LOL!!!!!!!!

There is no dodge because its an illegimate question. Kinda like asking if you have quite beating your wife yet.

As for who says its better? Go read what the Iraqis say. IDIOT. ITS NOT YOUR FUCKING OPINION OR MINE THAT COUNTS, ITS THEIRS AND ONLY THEIRS

 

[red states rule]

WOW...Everyone !!! Look at this...If this is not a biased comment I dont know what is. So Red States you will listen to the people who say their lives are better huh ? What about the people who say their lives arent better will you listen to them ? Here take a look at this news article

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070319/ap_on_go_ot/iraq_poll

Looks to me like its not going so good. See I can find articles too that support my opinions. Its not hard. And this one makes your current comment look assinine. Maybe now you can see how biased you really are. Im trying to help you Red States, as cruel as I sound I really am trying to help you. Your sick and you need help. But the first step to healing is admitting you have a problem. You can do it here, in front of everyone. Cmon Red states, we are routing for you !!!!!!

On War Anniversary, Nets Stress Dire Views of Iraqis, Skip How Iraqis Don't See Civil War
Posted by Brent Baker on March 19, 2007 - 21:55.
ABC anchor Charles Gibson led on Monday night, the fourth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, with the results of a door-to-door survey of more than 2,000 Iraqis conducted for ABC News (and USA Today). Gibson started the “sobering report” with how “fewer than half the Iraqis, just 42 percent, said life was better now than it was under Saddam Hussein.” Gibson, however, failed to explain that when asked, “compared to the time before the war in spring 2003, are things overall in your life much better now, somewhat better, about the same, somewhat worse or much worse?”, fewer than 42 percent -- 36 percent -- said worse and 22 thought things are the same. A poll of 5,000 Iraqis reported in the Times of London discovered, as highlighted by FNC's Brit Hume, that “49 percent said life is better under the current Iraqi government” and “just 26 percent preferred life under Saddam Hussein.”

NBC anchor Brian Williams opened by emphasizing the length and cost of the war: “U.S. involvement in this war is now longer in duration than the Korean War, longer than World War I or World War II. And here are the numbers of great importance to all Americans. So far, at least 3,218 Americans have died. At least 24,000 have been wounded. Estimates of Iraqi dead are close to 60,000...” CBS's Katie Couric began with how “the war goes on, there is no end or victory in sight, thousands of Americans are dead, but the President says victory is still possible.” Reporter Allen Pizzey, who on The Early Show had insisted that “Iraqis have very little to be thankful for,” also delivered a dire assessment on the Evening News: “And so four weary and blood-soaked years on, the so-called coalition of the willing has become the coalition of those who are stuck with it.”

The ABC survey found that 56 percent of Iraqis don't believe there is a “civil war,” with 42 percent thinking there is, but ABC's World News skipped that finding. The British poll determined 61 percent don't believe they're in a civil war compared to 27 percent who think they are in a civil war, yet Couric asserted the nation is in the midst of one:


“There seems to be no end to the misery for Iraqi civilians caught in the middle of what even the Pentagon now calls a 'civil war.' From suicide bombings to murders by death squads, Iraqi civilians have paid a terrible price for four years of war. Estimates of the dead range from thirty thousand to as high as six-hundred thousand...”
The PDF with the full results of the ABC survey. Scroll down to page 14 for the better/worse question, to page 36 for the civil war one.

Hume's March 19 “Grapevine” item on FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume:


“On this fourth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war a new survey, based on an unusually large sample of Iraqis, indicates that contrary to many Western analysts most Iraqis do not believe their country is embroiled in a civil war. The poll of more than 5,000 Iraqi adults was conducted by the British market research firm Opinion Research Business and reported in our sister publication, the Times of London. 61 percent of the respondents did not think the situation qualifies as a civil war there. 49 percent said life is better under the current Iraqi government. Just 26 percent preferred life under Saddam Hussein. And 64 percent want to see a united Iraq under a central national government.”
The Times of London's summary of the poll: “Iraqis: life is getting better."
The same paper's March 18 article about the civil war question: “Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?”

A version of the combined articles as posted by The Australian: “It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis.”

Noel Sheppard's earlier NewsBusters take on the poll.

The MRC's Brad Wilmouth helped gather transcripts of how the broadcast networks led their March 19 evening newscasts:

ABC's World News. Charles Gibson led:


"Good evening. Four years ago, on this day, the war in Iraq began. In four years, so much has changed. And we believe that if you watch World News this evening and through the week, you will come to have a better understanding of where things stand in Iraq, the good and the bad from the Iraq perspective. There is a popular belief that you cannot talk to Iraqis, that you can't get around the country because of the danger, and there is truth to that.

“But ABC's Terry McCarthy traveled throughout Iraq for a series of reports you will see this week. And ABC News has conducted a poll, more than 2,000 interviews of Iraqis in more than 400 towns and cities. It is a sobering report of a nation. Fewer than half the Iraqis, just 42 percent, said life was better now than it was under Saddam Hussein. Why? The answer is the violence -- 80 percent of Iraqis tell us they have experienced attacks nearby. In November 2005 when last we polled, 63 percent of Iraqis said they felt safe in their neighborhoods. Today, that is 26 percent. In November 2005, 71 percent said their own lives were going well. Today, that is down to 39 percent. And perhaps the most chilling questions for Americans and the American military, we asked Iraqis if it is acceptable, in their minds, to attack Americans. In early 2004, 17 percent said yes. Now, more than half, 51 percent, say it is acceptable to attack Americans. And among Sunni Muslims, the number is 94 percent."


CBS Evening News. Katie Couric teased:

"I'm Katie Couric. Tonight, the United States enters a fifth year of war in Iraq. And the President insists it can still be won."

George W. Bush: "It will be won if we have the courage and resolve to see it through."

Couric: "We'll look tonight at the costs, the accomplishments and the search for a way out after four years of war."

Couric began the newscast:

"Hello, everyone. Four years ago tonight, this broadcast began with the news that the United States was about to invade Iraq. The White House was telling Americans to prepare for what it hoped would be a short conflict, but also for loss of life. The President said, quote, 'We will accept no outcome but victory.' Tonight, the war goes on, there is no end or victory in sight, thousands of Americans are dead, but the President says victory is still possible. Jim Axelrod begins our coverage of Iraq: Four Years of War."
Allen Pizzey later ended a piece from Iraq:

“And so four weary and blood-soaked years on, the so-called coalition of the willing has become the coalition of those who are stuck with it: American troops who can't go home yet and Iraqi forces who have to learn to take their place. The shock and awe invasion has become slow surge and even the White House admits there's no end in sight.”

NBC Nightly News. Brian Williams, in opening teaser:

"On the fourth anniversary of the Iraq War, President Bush says more time and patience are needed as Democrats protest the war without end."
Williams led:

"Good evening. The war that started with the sharp, blinding impact of precision-guided weapons hitting their targets in Baghdad in the middle of the night has now gone on for four years. The fifth year of combat in Iraq starts now. U.S. involvement in this war is now longer in duration than the Korean War, longer than World War I or World War II. And here are the numbers of great importance to all Americans. So far, at least 3,218 Americans have died. At least 24,000 have been wounded. Estimates of Iraqi dead are close to 60,000. And so far, over 2 million Americans have cycled through Iraq at least once. Earlier, on this anniversary day, before a live national television audience, the President talked about the fight so far and the stakes ahead. We begin here tonight with NBC's David Gregory at the White House. David, good evening."

http://newsbusters.org/node/11521

 

[red states rule]

What FACTS are you referring to ? If you are referring to the FACT that IRAQ is 1000 times worse than we got there...then yes that is a fact.. But you, like a typical republican..avoided the question. I never said you couldnt express your opinion, please point out where I said that. I doubt you can. However the question still remains red states that I posted above. You are afraid to answer it arent you?

Iraq, Democrats, and the Return of McGovernism
By Peter Wehner

Last Thursday, by a vote of 50-48, the Senate rejected a Democratic resolution to withdraw most American combat troops from Iraq in early 2008. The House Appropriations Committee, meanwhile, approved an emergency spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that includes a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. The full House is expected to vote on that legislation later this week. In the words of the New York Times, "The action in both houses threw into sharp relief the Democratic strategy of ratcheting up the pressure, vote by vote, to try to force the White House to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq."

Given these unfolding events, it is worth taking a step back and holding up to scrutiny the effort by Democrats.

Handcuffing Our Commanders: In wartime, day-to-day military operations are not neatly broken down into arbitrary categories that can be codified into law. Under proposals by Democrats, for example, the military might have to increase the number of lawyers to scrutinize battlefield decisions by military commanders. Do we really want our commanders on the ground to debate whether specific patrols represent allowable activity (under the banner of "protecting United States and Coalition personnel") or whether they amount to other, prohibited combat operations? Do we really want our commanders to rely on lawyers to determine if hot pursuit of an illegal militia would be allowed as "conducting targeted counterterrorism operations" or be prohibited as "policing a civil war"?

The plan by Democrats to micromanage the war is simply unworkable. There is no precedent in American history for succeeding in a war when the commanders were taking battlefield direction from Members of the House and Senate. In the words of the Los Angeles Times (in an editorial titled, "Do We Really Need A Gen. Pelosi?"):

"It was one thing for the House to pass a nonbinding vote of disapproval. It's quite another for it to set out a detailed timetable with specific benchmarks and conditions for the continuation of the conflict. Imagine if Dwight Eisenhower had been forced to adhere to a congressional war plan in scheduling the Normandy landings or if, in 1863, President Lincoln had been forced by Congress to conclude the Civil War the following year. This is the worst kind of congressional meddling in military strategy."

Volte-Face: Not all that long ago, leading Democrats thought arbitrary and rigid timetables were a very bad idea. Speaking at the National Press Club in 2005, now-Majority Leader Harry Reid said this:

"As far as setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that's not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don't want us there, and it doesn't work well to do that."

Six months later, the now-Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph Biden, put it this way:

"A deadline for pulling out ... will only encourage our enemies to wait us out." He added it would be "a Lebanon in 1985 [sic]. And God knows where it goes from there."

And three months later, the junior Senator from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton, said this: "I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal. I don't think you should ever telegraph your intentions to the enemy so they can await you." (emphasis added)

The arguments made by these Democrats were based on a time-honored truth: setting a date certain for withdrawal, regardless of conditions on the ground and the trajectory of events, is exactly what our enemies want. Osama bin Laden said this: "Success in Baghdad will be success for the United States. Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United States. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars." Ayman al-Zawahiri, the number two leader of al Qaeda, said that Iraq "is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era." He also said, "the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals: The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq."

As a general rule of military strategy, you don't want to take steps that are the equivalent of sending a gift-wrapped package to your adversaries. That is precisely what a date certain for withdrawal would be. Once upon a time, leading Democrats believed this and therefore argued against it. Now they are arguing for it. I'll leave it to others to ascertain why that might be the case.

Indifference to the Constitution: If Democrats want to end U.S. military involvement in the war in Iraq, they have the ability to do so. They can cut off funding for U.S. operations and troops. But the way they are going about it now has "no place in our constitutional culture" (to cite former Department of Justice lawyers David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee Casey). Messrs Rivkin and Casey point out that there are constitutional limits on Congress's ability to direct presidential action during times of war -- in particular, "Congress cannot use its power of the purse to micromanage the president's execution of his office."

The reason for this rests with the wisdom of the founders and the doctrine of separation of powers. The Constitution declares that the President, not the 535 Members of Congress, "shall be Commander in Chief." It is a core constitutional responsibility of the chief executive and not of a House Member who represents, say, the eighth district of California. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper #70, wrote, "Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks."

Justice Robert Jackson, when he was attorney general for President Franklin Roosevelt, said this: "The President's responsibility as Commander-in-Chief embraces the authority to command and direct the armed forces in their immediate movements and operations, designed to protect the security and effectuate the defense of the United States."

Just so. What Democrats are attempting is an unprecedented effort to arrogate war-making powers unto themselves.

The legislative branch has important and carefully delineated responsibilities when it comes to matters of war and peace. Those not among them are directing the daily movement of U.S. troops; limiting the number that can be sent; dictating when individual military units can be deployed and for how long; imposing a rigid date for withdrawal; and announcing that if the government of Iraqi doesn't meet certain benchmarks, an even earlier withdrawal will be triggered.

Impervious to Evidence: What is perhaps most striking about the Democratic proposals, at least in terms of their timing, is that they are advocating withdrawal at precisely the moment when the new strategy, which has been in place barely a month, is beginning to show signs of progress.

As General Petraeus noted in a recent press briefing, the Iraqi Council of Ministers has agreed on a hydrocarbon law and sent it to the Iraqi Parliament for approval; sectarian killings in Baghdad have been lower over the past several weeks; sectarian displacement of families is down, with some families beginning to return to their neighborhoods; a number of tribes in Anbar Province have joined with Coalition forces to fight terrorists operating there. The Iraqi government has completed the deployment of three Iraqi army brigades to the capital and the Iraqi legislature passed a $41 billion budget that includes $10 billion for reconstruction and capital improvements. And General Petraeus has only received two of the five brigades he has been promised. More are on the move.

It is still far too early to predict the outcome of events in Iraq. Whether the progress can be sustained is an open question -- but the wisdom of rigid timetables for withdrawal and setting a cap on troops levels is not. These are deeply irresponsible ideas; if they were to come to pass a calamity, and rivers of blood, would follow in their wake.



* * * *

Many Democrats believe an American defeat in Iraq is etched in granite. They would not be the first to lose heart and will in war. Yet it is one thing to give up on a cause; it is quite another to advocate legislation (17 different proposals in all, according to Senator Mitch McConnell) that would guarantee failure even before a new strategy is given time to work. This is especially the case when the preliminary trajectory of events is encouraging.

There will continue to be ebbs and flows in this war, as in all wars. But virtually everyone agrees that a loss in Iraq would be catastrophic for American national interests. We are facing among the most sadistic enemies we have ever encountered. There is much we do not understand about them and their worldview -- but one thing is clear: they probe for weakness; they interpret retreat as a supreme sign of weakness; and when they find weakness, they strike.

If we retreat from Iraq, Islamic jihadists will not go gently into the good night.

We are now engaged in a pivotal war, which is itself part of an epic struggle. General David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq who was confirmed by the Senate without a single vote in opposition, is one of America's great military minds and one of America's great military commanders. Why oh why, then, are so many Democrats spending so much of their time and creative energy in an effort to undermine General Petraeus's new strategy instead of supporting it? Even granting the partisan politics of this city, the effort by Democrats is a remarkably revealing thing to witness. "Come Home, America" and McGovernism are back with a vengeance -- and like Round One, in 1972, it will leave a lasting imprint on the minds of Americans, for years to come.

Peter Wehner is deputy assistant to the President and director of the White House's Office of Strategic Initiatives.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/newrep...ote=1&p=538794
__________________

 

[red states rule]

What FACTS are you referring to ? If you are referring to the FACT that IRAQ is 1000 times worse than we got there...then yes that is a fact.. But you, like a typical republican..avoided the question. I never said you couldnt express your opinion, please point out where I said that. I doubt you can. However the question still remains red states that I posted above. You are afraid to answer it arent you?

Veteran resolve
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
March 20, 2007


Over the weekend, several thousand military veterans and their supporters who back President Bush's war effort in Iraq turned out from around the country for the "Gathering of Eagles," so named by its organizers. They waved flags. They bore "spit shields." They carried banners of support for Iraq's fledgling government. In the current domestic political climate, that's a story. It's a countercultural story -- counter-media narrative, counter-opinion poll and certainly counter-climate for much of today's debate in Washington.

We can't know the crowd numbers for certain, and the conflicting numbers and reports show it. Private police estimates obtained by this newspaper figured on 10,000 to 20,000 anti-war protesters answered by counterprotesters numbering in the thousands -- "a large group of war supporters and military veterans waving American flags," wrote our reporter. The Washington Post counted "several thousand vets" in car caravans and buses. The New York Times called them "an unusually large contingent" -- although "large" for the NYT is "several hundred," sourced to anti-war regulars. The counterprotesters claim that they numbered 30,000. And, as is the norm, the National Park Service won't touch this one with a ten-foot pole. "The National Park Service never gives any estimate. It cannot be attributed to us. It is made up," said spokesman Bill Line. Into the numbers do protesters of every stripe pour their hopes and desires.
Forget the numbers game for a moment. Consider the substance. These military-vet counterprotesters are now swimming directly against the tides of public opinion and against the Democratic congressional leadership. Convinced of withdrawal's wrongness, they don't care that the latest CNN poll numbers show that only 35 percent of respondents support the Iraq war. Their banners bore messages like these: "Peace Through Superior Firepower" and "Marked for Death if We Cut and Run Now," over the once-famous, now-neglected photo of a purple-fingered Iraqi voter. Or the familiar and harder-edged statement: "Vietnam Vets Against Kerry." These messages were wildly popular four years ago. Today they are decidedly countercultural.
If a man's or woman's political measure is to be taken by constancy and resolve in service of heartfelt conviction (and we certainly think so), then the actions of these veterans and their supporters -- and countless others like them -- speak for themselves.


http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070...2046-3236r.htm

 

[red states rule]

Are you willing to sacrifice your own life Red States for this terrorism fight since YOU are so willing to sacrifice 300 Million lives. Are you willing to die. And again, since you are so adamant about winning, how come YOU have not enlisted ? How come YOU arent fighting since you are so willing to sacrifice 300 million?

Oh, and I can find articles that support my viewpoint also. Its all too easy, I however choose not to play that game.

Libs will be in mourning today as another victim of Bush's war in Iraq claimed another innocent bystander



Saddam's Former Deputy Hanged in Iraq
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer
1 hour ago


Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan listens to a ...
BAGHDAD - Saddam Hussein's former deputy was hanged before dawn Tuesday, the fourth man to be executed in the killings of 148 Shiites following a 1982 assassination attempt against the former leader in the town of Dujail.

Taha Yassin Ramadan, who was Saddam's vice president when the regime was ousted, went to the gallows on the fourth anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq.

Bassam al-Hassani, an adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, said the execution went smoothly, although Ramadan appeared frightened and recited the two shahadahs _ a declaration of faith repeated by Muslims _ "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet."

Al-Hassani said precautions were taken to prevent a repeat of what happened to Saddam's half brother and co-defendant Barzan Ibrahim, who was inadvertently decapitated on the gallows during his January execution.

Ramadan, who was nearly 70, was weighed before the hanging and the rope was chosen accordingly, al-Hassani said.

The execution took place at 3:05 a.m. at a prison at an Iraqi army and police base, which had been the headquarters of Saddam's military intelligence, in a predominantly Shiite district in northern Baghdad. Ramadan had been in U.S. custody but was handed over to the Iraqis about an hour before the hanging, according to al-Hassani, who witnessed the hanging.

Al-Maliki has not attended any of the executions, but representatives from his office, a judge and a prosecutor attended the hanging, along with members of the justice and interior ministries and a physician.

The prosecutor read out the court verdict upholding the death sentence and al-Maliki's decision to carry it out, the adviser said, adding that a defense lawyer who attended the execution received Ramadan's written will.

The contents were not revealed, although a Sunni cleric later said Ramadan had asked to be buried near Saddam.

Yahya Ibrahim, a member of the Association of Muslim Scholars, said Ramadan's body will be received by members of Saddam's tribe later Tuesday and will be buried near co-defendants Ibrahim and Awad Hamed al-Bandar in Ouja, on the outskirts of Tikrit.

The graves, along with those of Saddam's sons Odai and Qusai and a grandson Mustafa, are in the courtyard of the building in which the former leader is buried. Ibrahim also said three days of mourning would be held for Ramadan.

His sister, Khadija Ramadan, a professor at San'a University, was reached by The Associated Press in Yemen and said their 85-year-old mother was in deep mourning for her son.

In violence Tuesday, a parked car bomb exploded near a main bus station in central Baghdad, killing five civilians and wounding 18, police said.

A suicide car bomber drove his vehicle into an Iraq army checkpoint in a predominantly Sunni neighborhood in western Baghdad, killing one soldier and wounding another, police said. A roadside bomb struck the area about five minutes later but caused no casualties.

At noon, a car bomb exploded in a tunnel in downtown Baghdad, killing three civilians and wounding seven others, police said.

Seven civilians also were wounded in two separate attacks in southeastern Baghdad as the war entered its fifth year. The U.S.-led invasion began in the early morning in Baghdad, when it was still March 19 in the United States.

Late Monday, U.S. and Iraqi troops also engaged in a major operation as part of a security crackdown in the volatile Hurriyah neighborhood in northern Baghdad, state television said. Witnesses said many people were reported holed up in two Shiite mosques, surrounded by U.S. forces.

The state-run Iraqiya network said six civilians had been killed. The U.S. military did not comment on the reports.

Badee Izzat Aref, a lawyer representing several former regime members, told The Associated Press by telephone that he was with Ramadan's lawyer when the condemned man called to report that he would be hanged.

"He told the lawyer that he was not afraid and asked him to not to appeal to anybody to stop the execution," Aref said.

Ramadan also called family members living abroad to tell them he was to be hanged and ask for their prayers, Aref said. "He told his family that he is going to face death with courage."

Ramadan was convicted in November of murder, forced deportation and torture and sentenced to life in prison, but an appeals court ruled that was too lenient and he was sentenced to death. Besides the four executed, three other defendants were sentenced to 15 years in jail in the case, while one was acquitted.

One of the highest-profile figures remaining to be tried for Saddam-era atrocities is Ali Hassan al-Majid, one of six defendants facing charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity stemming from Baghdad's military campaign in which more than 100,000 Kurds were killed. Al-Majid, who is Saddam's cousin, also is known as "Chemical Ali" for allegedly ordering poison gas attacks.

Ramadan, who became vice president in March 1991 and was a Revolutionary Command Council member _ Iraq's highest political body under Saddam _ maintained his innocence, saying his duties were limited to economic affairs, not security issues.

Human Rights Watch and the International Center for Transitional Justice have said the evidence against him was insufficient for the death penalty. U.N. human rights chief Louise Arbour also filed an unprecedented legal challenge last month with the Iraqi High Tribunal against imposing the death sentence on Ramadan, saying she recognized "the desire for justice of victims" but the trial had "failed to meet the standards of due process."

Saddam was executed on Dec. 30 for his role in the killings. Two of his co-defendants in the Dujail case _ his half brother Ibrahim who was former intelligence chief, and al-Bandar, former head of Iraq's Revolutionary Court _ were executed in January.

Ibrahim plunged through the trap door and was beheaded by the jerk of the thick rope at the end of his fall, causing a furor; the Iraqi government said the decapitation was an accident.

Saddam's Dec. 30 execution drew international outrage after a clandestine video showed the former president being taunted on the gallows. Another leaked video showed Saddam's corpse with a gaping neck wound.

Saddam's regime was predominantly Sunni and many members of the sect have protested the executions on the grounds they were politically motivated by the newly empowered Shiite majority in Iraq.

Ramadan was No. 20 on the U.S. most-wanted list issued shortly after the invasion began. He was captured on Aug. 20, 2003.

Born in 1938 in the northern city of Mosul, Ramadan joined the underground Baath Party in 1956 and became close to Saddam. After the 1968 coup by the party, he held several ministerial posts and became a member of the regional command in 1969.

During the 1980s, he was deputy prime minister and was for a time considered the second-most powerful man in Iraq after Saddam.

He was said to have presided over many purges carried out by Saddam to eliminate rivals and strengthen his political control.

He once described the U.S. Congress as little more than an extension of Israel's Knesset, or parliament.

At the height of the standoff leading up to the war, Ramadan also suggested in 2002 that Saddam and President Bush fight a duel to settle their differences and spare their people the ravages of war.

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.js...itn_saddamaide

 

[red states rule]

What FACTS are you referring to ? If you are referring to the FACT that IRAQ is 1000 times worse than we got there...then yes that is a fact.. But you, like a typical republican..avoided the question. I never said you couldnt express your opinion, please point out where I said that. I doubt you can. However the question still remains red states that I posted above. You are afraid to answer it arent you?

U.S. Action in Iraq Matters
By Rich Lowry

When President Bush announced a surge of troops into Baghdad in January, Democrats pounded him for the folly of putting U.S. troops in the “middle of a civil war.” Two months later, the question is, What happens to a civil war if only one side shows up to fight it?

The Shia militias that had become the main driver of violence in Baghdad are ducking and covering. Mlitia leader Moqtada al-Sadr is in hiding, perhaps in Iran. His fighters aren’t resisting U.S. troops who have begun conducting patrols in his stronghold of Sadr City. According to Gen. Dave Petraeus, 700 members of Sadr’s Mahdi Army have been detained in recent months.

This hardly means that peace and harmony reign in Baghdad, but it has reduced the killing significantly. If at the beginning of the year anyone had predicted such progress from the addition of just two U.S. combat brigades in Bagdad (six brigades eventually will be part of the surge), he would have been derided as a delusional optimist.

This progress might be transitory, but it illustrates the falsity of a key assumption of Democrats. They prefer to talk of Iraq in terms of a civil war because it suggests that nothing can be done about the violence, that it is running its own hermetic course. Well, it clearly isn’t. What the U.S. does matters. If we hadn’t surged, Baghdad already might have descended into the genocidal fury toward which it was headed earlier in the year.

The other side of the Iraqi civil war — the car-bombing Sunni terrorists — hasn’t stood down, of course. But these are the people that Democrats express a notional interest in fighting. In a January letter to President Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said “counterterror” should be one of the “principal” missions of U.S. troops. Sen. Carl Levin wants to restrict U.S. troops to “an anti-terrorist mission to go after al-Qaida in Iraq.”

According to a U.S. intelligence report quoted by the New York Times, captured materials from al Qaeda in Iraq say that the group sees “the sectarian war for Baghdad as the necessary main focus of its operations.” So the Democrats profess to want to fight terrorists in Iraq, and al Qaeda in Iraq is making Baghdad its focus. It would stand to reason, then, that the Democrats wouldn’t want to undermine our effort to control Baghdad. Our counterinsurgency mission there is a counterterrorism mission. It aims to squeeze out terrorists, neighborhood by neighborhood.

Nonetheless, Democrats in the House and Senate are attempting to force our troops from Baghdad, exactly as al Qaeda in Iraq wants. There is an essential symmetry to the goals of Sunni militants and Democrats here at home with regard to the disposition of our forces — the fewer, the farther away from Baghdad, the better (needless to say, for vastly different reasons). In reporting on al Qaeda in Iraq’s strategy, the New York Times notes, “American forces, instead of withdrawing from the capital as the Sunni insurgents had hoped, prepared plans to reinforce their troops there.” Over the strenuous objections of Democrats.

Each side of the domestic debate concerning the Iraq War tends to get stuck in its own self-reinforcing narratives. For Bush and supporters of the war, it was a narrative of success. Negative developments were chalked up as the inevitable difficulties of any war, amplified by the liberal media. Bush broke out of that narrative to order the change of strategy that is the surge.

For Democrats, it is the narrative of defeat. Even as the civil war has deescalated somewhat in Iraq —weakening the force of the Democrats’ favorite “middle of a civil war” sound bite — and even as the surge has elevated the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq — the enemy that Democrats say they want to defeat — Democratic opposition to the surge has only intensified. Will they oppose it even more if it continues to work?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...q_matters.html

 

[T-Bor]

Um actually my opinion does count, especially since we vote in our officials I would say my opinion and everyone elses matters a whole bunch IDIOT !!!

And its a totally valid question especially since he stated he is willing to sacrifice 300 million american lives to win the WOT. Im trying to help him understand how thoughtful he is to be so courageous and noble to be willing to make such a sacrifice but yet unwilling to give up his own. I know he is a young lad, you can tell by the way he writes. So why not sign up?

Also, and I just have to say this, we all know there is no winning the WOT. I mean come on. You cannot eradicate a mindset. There will always be these believers around and there is nothing we can do about it. The more and more we exert our armies and stretch them out globally the weaker our nation becomes. But I know, its all about the little Iraqis and how much you care about them. LIAR !!!! You make me sick.

There is no dodge because its an illegimate question. Kinda like asking if you have quite beating your wife yet.

As for who says its better? Go read what the Iraqis say. IDIOT. ITS NOT YOUR FUCKING OPINION OR MINE THAT COUNTS, ITS THEIRS AND ONLY THEIRS

 

[red states rule]

Um actually my opinion does count, especially since we vote in our officials I would say my opinion and everyone elses matters a whole bunch IDIOT !!!

And its a totally valid question especially since he stated he is willing to sacrifice 300 million american lives to win the WOT. Im trying to help him understand how thoughtful he is to be so courageous and noble to be willing to make such a sacrifice but yet unwilling to give up his own. I know he is a young lad, you can tell by the way he writes. So why not sign up?

Also, and I just have to say this, we all know there is no winning the WOT. I mean come on. You cannot eradicate a mindset. There will always be these believers around and there is nothing we can do about it. The more and more we exert our armies and stretch them out globally the weaker our nation becomes. But I know, its all about the little Iraqis and how much you care about them. LIAR !!!! You make me sick.

and seeing how libs are fucking everything up - voices will count in 08

When libs lose they will then be able to rant how the election was stolen, all the votes were not counted, and how their voices were drowned out by the right wing conspiracy of talk radio and Fox News

 

[T-Bor]

Question avoided...again...typical Republican not answering the question..Debate tactic #1.

 

[red states rule]

Question avoided...again...typical Republican not answering the question..Debate tactic #1.

Nice dodge from the truth. The surge is working, the US militray is winning, and libs are sulking

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Um actually my opinion does count, especially since we vote in our officials I would say my opinion and everyone elses matters a whole bunch IDIOT !!!

And its a totally valid question especially since he stated he is willing to sacrifice 300 million american lives to win the WOT. Im trying to help him understand how thoughtful he is to be so courageous and noble to be willing to make such a sacrifice but yet unwilling to give up his own. I know he is a young lad, you can tell by the way he writes. So why not sign up?

Also, and I just have to say this, we all know there is no winning the WOT. I mean come on. You cannot eradicate a mindset. There will always be these believers around and there is nothing we can do about it. The more and more we exert our armies and stretch them out globally the weaker our nation becomes. But I know, its all about the little Iraqis and how much you care about them. LIAR !!!! You make me sick.

Please, go outside to barf.

The opinion of the Iraqis is the only one that counts. The reason is, because the question is, "are THEIR lives, or country better?" We have no way of knowing for sure, so it is only their opinion that counts.

And there is a way to win the WOT. I already stated it and you show NOTHING factual or meaningful to refute it. WINNING doesnt mean eliminating it completely. Like I said, if that was the requirement, then we didnt defeat the nazi's in WWll either. Or communism in the cold war, but last I heard, the cold war is over.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The more and more we exert our armies and stretch them out globally the weaker our nation becomes. But I know, its all about the little Iraqis and how much you care about them. LIAR !!!! You make me sick.

I have a tendency to do that, make brainless people sick.

Our armies are too stretched out? Huh, funny, how many terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11? HUH? What was that? I couldnt hear you. Let me help you,

0.0000000000000

In your rush to hatred, you forget that the same s t r e t c h i n g of resources applies to our enemies also. But the truth isnt what you are about, you and your liberal cronies want control and you hate President Bush. It is proven by the likes of Bullyshitface,,he is so hell bent on hating Bush, that he disparges the office of the presidency. He will deny it, but its true nontheless. His denial is akin to Manson claiming he didnt actually murder anyone, so he is innocent.

Fact is, ANYTIME you disparage the office of the presidency, you make it look bad in other peoples eyes. The people voted in President Bush,,, TWICE. Yea, yea, yea, dont come at me with the "he stole it" bullshit, or I will have so many links to stick up your ass to prove you wrong, you wont need toilet paper for a year, and for someone so full of bullshit, thats alot.

Anyways, when others, foreigners, read things like the President being called the things the class less idiot calls Bush, they think less of the US and the Presidency. Hey, they conclude, if President Bush is what these libs call him, then how stupid of the American people, how stupid and foolish they must be to elect the guy twice.

You and your neanderthal cronies will just keep on hating, hating and hating,. Liars, and hypocrites is what you guys are. Anti American treasonous scoundrals.

 

[red states rule]

Libs support the war as long as they can load funding bills for the troops with pork and bribes


Congress and Iraq: Pork has no place in 'emergency' war bill
Larding the Iraq funding legislation cheapens the debate over pullout.
With the House poised to vote as early as today on a $124.1 billion budget bill that would end U.S. involvement in Iraq next year, you'd think House leaders would let such a critical decision ride strictly on its merits.

But Democrats are having trouble rounding up votes for the measure. So the leaders are trying to buy votes the old-fashioned way — by luring wavering members with billions of dollars for parochial projects.

These range from providing "risk mitigation" at Mississippi's Stennis Space Center to storage fees for peanut farmers in Georgia.

It's hard to say which is worse: leaders offering peanuts for a vote of this magnitude, or members allowing their votes to be bought for peanuts. These provisions demean a bill that, if enacted, would affect the lives of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the balance of power in the Middle East and America's long-term security.

The provisions also violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the new majority's promise to cut back on "earmarks" — provisions slipped into bills that direct your tax dollars to a specific locale or politically favored project.

Last January, as soon as Democrats took control of Congress, the House passed new rules designed to curb earmarks, which had exploded under years of Republican rule. Yet here they go again, just 10 weeks later, including an assortment of dubious expenditures in "emergency" legislation to finance the war in Iraq and the wider war on terror:

*$25 million for spinach growers to recoup losses suffered when contaminated spinach sickened nearly 200 people and resulted in three deaths last year. (Instead of rewarding growers, the government would do better to direct money at safety measures to prevent future contamination.)

*$252 million for a government milk program beneficial to dairy farmers, inserted in the bill by Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the Appropriations Committee, which wrote the bill.

*$1.5 billion in livestock assistance for producers affected by wildfires or blizzards.

*$500 million to fight wildfires in drought-stricken states if current funds run out.

Top Democrats, including Majority Leader Steny Hoyer in the space below, argue that the measure includes no earmarks and that provisions unrelated to the war are aimed at emergencies.

A spinach emergency? A peanut storage emergency?

Please.

Such arguments ignore what voters, fed up with corruption and ethical lapses, wanted when they threw Republicans out in November and helped Democrats take control of Congress.

Voters wanted a break with the old ways that rewarded special interests at the expense of taxpayers. They wanted to get rid of lawmakers who sought loopholes and twisted definitions to pretend that questionable practices weren't really questionable at all. And the public wanted serious votes on serious issues, most prominently the war in Iraq.

Some projects in the spending bill, notably $6 billion for post-Katrina disaster relief on the battered Gulf Coast, have considerable merit. And we are not naive about the kind of horse-trading needed to grease the legislative process.

Even so, an emergency war funding bill — especially one that would set a hard exit date of Aug. 31, 2008, for U.S. troops in Iraq and impose strict readiness standards for deploying combat forces — is no place for extraneous issues. And certainly no place for bribes.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/03/post_41.html

 

[red states rule]

Thanks to the pork for votes policy by the libs in Congress, today's vote on the Iraq funding bill should pass. It should make it to the desk of the president where it will be DOA.

Word will come from the WH, that the pres. vetoed the bill due to pork, blah,blah,blah and fighting a war on a time clock, blah,blah. The military must have money now blah,blah,blah

Back to the congress. This will put them in the position of sending up a bill without a time table and pork, or not giving the military the money it needs. The moon bat libs will explode.

It gets better by the day.

 

[T-Bor]

Oh and this comment below is great. Your right, its the democrats fault that people think Bush is stupid. Yeap, it has nothing to do with himself and how he acts like a buffon? Oh wait, yes it is, and I have the links to stick up your Slanty eyed ass whenever you want em. People think less of the US and the Presidency because of their own fucking stupid ass actions and nothing else. You make me want to Vomit.

Anyways, when others, foreigners, read things like the President being called the things the class less idiot calls Bush, they think less of the US and the Presidency. Hey, they conclude, if President Bush is what these libs call him, then how stupid of the American people, how stupid and foolish they must be to elect the guy twice.

You and your neanderthal cronies will just keep on hating, hating and hating,. Liars, and hypocrites is what you guys are. Anti American treasonous scoundrals.

 

[red states rule]

Oh and this comment below is great. Your right, its the democrats fault that people think Bush is stupid. Yeap, it has nothing to do with himself and how he acts like a buffon? Oh wait, yes it is, and I have the links to stick up your Slanty eyed ass whenever you want em. People think less of the US and the Presidency because of their own fucking stupid ass actions and nothing else. You make me want to Vomit.

Libs have the same effect on me

The terrorists and the enemies of the US are jumping for joy as libs do all they can to surrender at all costs

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Oh and this comment below is great. Your right, its the democrats fault that people think Bush is stupid. Yeap, it has nothing to do with himself and how he acts like a buffon? Oh wait, yes it is, and I have the links to stick up your Slanty eyed ass whenever you want em. People think less of the US and the Presidency because of their own fucking stupid ass actions and nothing else. You make me want to Vomit.

Im impressed. You didnt miss a beat. ANOTHER DODGE. In a formal debate you would have had your ass handed to you so many times you would need some metamucil to calm it down.
WHat you did above is known as a red herring, and you lose points if your opponent points it out.
I never said its the dems fault, I simply said that making derogatory terms against him makes the AMERICAN PUBLIC look bad. TRY wiping that puke off your monitor so you can read what is actuallly posted by us.

People around the world, IF they think less, its because of the totally slanted biased liberal media. Yea, they call them insurgents. INSURGENTS??? My god, they are killing civilians, thats not an insurgency. You didnt see Washington, Jefferson or any other founding fathers killing civilians during the revolutionary war. CLUE, terrorism, ie. terrrorists, are defined by acts that cause the GENERAL PUBLIC ie. civilians to be terrified, by using acts such as violence and murder against the general public. You even admitted it yourself, that Iraqis feel less secure now,than before. What a fucking bafoon you are, asss handed to you again. HAHAHHAHAHHAHAH HAHHAHAHAHHHA BWAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA