No Wonder Libs Are Upset - The Surge Is Working

[red states rule]

MIL-IRAQ-US SOLDIERS
Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers

BAGHDAD, March 14 (KUNA) -- The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre.

Only 17 members of the US military in Iraq have been killed since February 14 till March 13, compared to 42 from January 13 to February 13; the rate was on the decline during the first month of the security crackdown, compared to a month before.

Two of the 17 soldiers died at US Baghdad camps of non-combat causes.

The remarkable decrease in killings among the US troops came at a time when more of these troops were deployed in the Iraqi capital, especially in districts previously regarded as extremely hazardous for them such as Al-Sadr City, Al-Azamiyah, and Al-Doura.

Meanwhile, US attacks on insurgent strongholds north of Baghdad curbed attacks against helicopters. Before the new security plan, many such craft were downed leaving 20 soldiers dead.

The US army in Iraq had earlier said that sectarian fighting and violence in Baghdad had dropped sharply, by about 80 percent, since the launch of the plan.

The statistics excluded US troops killed in other governorates such as Al-Anbar, Diyala, and Salahiddin.

As to the latest human losses, the US army announced Wednesday that two American soldiers had been killed, one in southern Baghdad and the other northeast of the capital.(end) ahh.

http://www.kuna.net.kw/Home/Story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=961365

 

[Paul Revere]

So 17 US troops killed is cause for you to cheer?

I have a link to a yahoo photo that seems to dispute your claim, but I am not yet privileged to post links on this forum.

Now that you make the claim that the surge is working in your educated opinion, then I expect that you will not see any need to escalate beyond this point. I expect that you will oppose all future calls for more escalations, surges, piling on the cannon fodder, etc. Any future increases should be met by calling back the coalition members (such as the British) that have pulled out, right?

You quote a Kuwati source, weren't they the ones that gave us the "Iraqi soldiers were throwing babies on the floor to steal the incubators" story?

 

[red states rule]

So 17 US troops killed is cause for you to cheer?

I have a link to a yahoo photo that seems to dispute your claim, but I am not yet privileged to post links on this forum.

Now that you make the claim that the surge is working in your educated opinion, then I expect that you will not see any need to escalate beyond this point. I expect that you will oppose all future calls for more escalations, surges, piling on the cannon fodder, etc. Any future increases should be met by calling back the coalition members (such as the British) that have pulled out, right?

You quote a Kuwati source, weren't they the ones that gave us the "Iraqi soldiers were throwing babies on the floor to steal the incubators" story?

Even NBC's Brian Williams reported on the NBC News the surge is working and prgress is being made, even though the area is still dangerous

If the Dems get their way, how will handing Iarq over to the terroists make the US safer and help the US win the war on terror?

 

[ErikViking]

So 17 US troops killed is cause for you to cheer?

I have a link to a yahoo photo that seems to dispute your claim, but I am not yet privileged to post links on this forum.

Now that you make the claim that the surge is working in your educated opinion, then I expect that you will not see any need to escalate beyond this point. I expect that you will oppose all future calls for more escalations, surges, piling on the cannon fodder, etc. Any future increases should be met by calling back the coalition members (such as the British) that have pulled out, right?

You quote a Kuwati source, weren't they the ones that gave us the "Iraqi soldiers were throwing babies on the floor to steal the incubators" story?

Hi, would you mind commenting on this?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=46577
I started the thread but it didn't draw much attention.

 

[red states rule]

Hi, would you mind commenting on this?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=46577
I started the thread but it didn't draw much attention.

9-11 changed the rules. There was no doubt Saddam had WMD's and was a threat. He ignored the libs beloved UN and continued to fund terrorist groups

To the Bush haters, Saddam was worth having around, and no matter what Pres Bush supports the moonbats oppose

 

[ErikViking]

9-11 changed the rules. There was no doubt Saddam had WMD's and was a threat. He ignored the libs beloved UN and continued to fund terrorist groups

To the Bush haters, Saddam was worth having around, and no matter what Pres Bush supports the moonbats oppose

The bottom line is:
The debate about troops in Iraq is bothersome. USA has a job to finish there. The glamourous victory might be won, but leaving now would be very disappointing.

 

[red states rule]

The bottom line is:
The debate about troops in Iraq is bothersome. USA has a job to finish there. The glamourous victory might be won, but leaving now would be very disappointing.

Oh boy, now the moonbats will target you and call you a lapdog for Pres Bush


Even the liberal media is starting to report some of the good news from Iraq


Williams in Baghdad: New Pockets of Peace, Iraqis Don't Want to See Americans Go
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on March 6, 2007 - 12:14.
Talk about your inconvenient truth . . .

Reporting from Baghdad this morning, and continuing a theme that MRC's Brent Baker spotted last evening, NBC Nightly News host Brian Williams let a cat out of the bag that could leave some serious scratch marks on MSM/DNC calls for stopping the surge and withdrawing US troops from Iraq. Williams said that US troops:

"are also aware, especially in the outposts, that it's the Iraqi people who are very reluctant to see the Americans go, because in many cases that's what's keeping the peace in town."
View video here.

Earlier, and even on a day in which he reported on nine American troops having been killed in two separate explosions, Williams also suggested that the security situation in Iraq is improving in some aspects:

"Six [US troops killed] in Salahuddin province and three in Diyala province. But note what we're not reporting this morning. We are not reporting another car bomb or suicide bomber, IED has gone off in central Baghdad or in Sadr City, the usual locations where the sad drumbeat of news on morning's like this one normally comes from. This conflict is changing . . . We have a conflict where the tempo may be changing and we have pockets of new peace, but it is still a very dangerous war."

Whoops! Will Williams' observations make it out of NBC, into the MSM at large and onto Capitol Hill?


http://newsbusters.org/node/11217

 

[ErikViking]

Oh boy, now the moonbats will target you and call you a lapdog for Pres Bush

Why? I mean, it isn't about liking war. It is about fullfilling comittments. The cost in lives would be a complete waste if things are left like this. And I talk about the hunderedthousand innocent civilians.

I actually get a bit upset thinking about it.

If USA pulls out of Iraq without stability in the country I suggest you hand over the armed forces to a nation with a higher feeling of responsabillity too.

 

[red states rule]

Why? I mean, it isn't about liking war. It is about fullfilling comittments. The cost in lives would be a complete waste if things are left like this. And I talk about the hunderedthousand innocent civilians.

I actually get a bit upset thinking about it.

If USA pulls out of Iraq without stability in the country I suggest you hand over the armed forces to a nation with a higher feeling of responsabillity too.

The moonbat libs will never join and fight the war on terror - they are to engaged with their war on Bush

Where was all the liberal compassion when Saddam was filling the mass graves, firing on US jets in the NFZ during the cease fire, funding terrorist groups, and stealing hundreds of million from the UN's Oil for Food Program?

Libs have a very rigid set of rules of engagment. If Pres Bush is for it - they will be against it. logic, truth, and facts be damned

 

[red states rule]

Pelosi hears boos at AIPAC
By Ian Swanson
March 13, 2007
Members of the main pro-Israel lobbying group offered scattered boos to a statement by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that the Iraq war has been a failure on several scores.

The boos, mixed with some polite applause, stood in stark contrast to the reception House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) received minutes earlier. Most of the crowd of 5,000 to 6,000 stood and loudly applauded Boehner when he said the U.S. had no choice but to win in Iraq.

Pelosi and Boehner were speaking at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual meeting. AIPAC has not taken a position on the war in Iraq or the supplemental spending bill to be considered this week by the House Appropriations Committee, but much of Boehner’s speech was about the future of the Iraq conflict.

Boehner sought to link the fight in Iraq to the future of Israel, as he said a failure in Iraq would pose a direct threat to Israel.

Pelosi said the U.S. military campaign in Iraq had to be judged on three accounts: whether it makes the U.S. safer, the U.S. military stronger and the region more stable.

“The war in Iraq fails on all three counts,” Pelosi said. Some of the crowd applauded before catcalls and boos could be heard. A spokesman for AIPAC argued the boos were in response to those clapping for Pelosi.

AIPAC leaders have said about 6,000 of their members are in town for this week’s annual meeting, which ends today. Members are set to lobby individual lawmakers on the Hill for the rest of today. A priority for the group is to convince Congress to approve tougher sanctions on Iran, which is seen as a growing threat to Israel.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-hears-boos-at-aipac-2007-03-13.html

 

[deaddude]

What exactly do you want to see happen in Iraq? What do you see as a reasonable measure of "victory" required before withdrawal is (in you oppinion) acceptable?

 

[red states rule]

There is progress being made in Iraq. Sometimes the liberal media will actually report the positive events happening in Iraq


Ted Koppel Tells Shocking Truth About Iraq and War on Terror (Updated w-videos)
Posted by Noel Sheppard on March 11, 2007 - 13:55.
Former “Nightline” anchor Ted Koppel was one of Tim Russert’s guests on Sunday’s “Meet the Press.” As amazing as it might seem, he made some truly shocking and compelling statements about the Iraq war and the war on terror that virtually no Democrat or media member is willing to accept or report:

First, Koppel made it clear that America’s premature departure from Iraq would turn the entire Persian Gulf region into a battlefield between Sunnis and Shia, “something the United States cannot allow to happen”
Second, he said the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are part of the war on terror that “has been going on for the past 24 years” starting when “the precursors of Hezbollah blew up the U.S. marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon” in 1983
Finally, he stated that America’s departure from Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of when it occurs, will not represent the end of this battle, but, instead, that it is just “going to be a different war” after that point.
Here are the shocking excerpts in chronological order (MSN video available here with segment 1 at minute 14:10, segment 2 at minute 19:00, and segment 3 here. Update: Dan Riehl has all three quotes edited together in one video here):

Koppel: I made a little note here of something that Ambassador Khalilzad said to you a moment ago. He said, “The region will not be stable until Iraq is stabilized.” It’s the one thing nobody talks about. Everyone is concerned about the United States being in the middle of a civil war inside Iraq. But they forget about the fact that if U.S. troops were to pull out of Iraq, that civil war could become a regional war between Sunnis and Shia. And the region, just in case anyone has forgotten, is the Persian Gulf, where we get most of our oil, and, I’ve talked about this before, natural gas. So, the idea of pulling out of there and letting the region, letting the national civil war expand into a regional civil war, something the United States cannot allow to happen.

Amazing. For those interested, I wrote an article about this very subject in November. I must say I find it extraordinary that any major media figure is coming out so strongly and making such a declaration, especially on such a popular Sunday talk show.

Yet, the best was still to come, as a little later on in the discussion, Russert asked Koppel a very telling question:

Ted Koppel, you are tonight airing on the Discovery Channel a special called “Our Children’s Children’s War,” the “long war” as you call it repeatedly, that this war on terror is much more than just Iraq, and it’s going to go on for a long time.

Amazing. Did Tim Russert just accidentally admit that the war in Iraq is indeed a part of the war on terror? Shocking. Yet, not close to as shocking as Koppel’s answer:

It could go on, I mean, Gen. Abizaid with whom I spoke talked into terms of generations. And, if you think about two things, that’s not so hard to imagine. Number one, the Cold War after all, lasted 50 years. Uh, we didn’t know it when we began it. We didn’t know it, we didn’t know how long it was going to be when we were in the middle of it. But, it lasted half a century.

If you look back at the elements of the war against terrorism, that war was going on, and has been going on for the past 24 years. We just didn’t connect the dots. 24 years ago, the precursors of Hezbollah blew up the U.S. marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. That was 1983, 241 Americans killed. In the interim between then and now you had two attacks on the World Trade Center, you had the blowing up of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, you had the attempt to blow up the U.S.S. Cole, you had the bombing of the two U.S. embassies in East Africa. This war’s already been going on for 24 years; we were just a little bit slow to recognize it.

Amazing. How many members of the Democrat Party or their media minions are willing to make such a claim? While you ponder that question, here was the third extraordinary statement by Koppel:

I see a lot of wishful thinking going on here in Washington right now. I mean when Congress talks about, first of all, setting these these milestones. And, the irony is if the Iraqis successfully meet the milestones, the implication is we stay. If they fail to meet the milestones we leave. That doesn’t make any sense at all. It ought to be the other way around. If they fail, we stay because they need us. If they succeed, we can start to pull out again.

So, I, I have this feeling that on the one hand, the Democrats are making a great deal of hay out of saying we have to get out of Iraq, and indeed we do at some point or another. But the notion that the war will be over when we pull out of Iraq, and even when we pull out of Afghanistan, you heard what Gen. Abizaid had to say, it’s not going to be over. It’s going to be a different war, but the war continues.

Wow. Shocking stuff that you won’t hear from most of the left, and virtually all of the media who are calling for troop withdrawals.

Bravo, Ted. Nicely done.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11343

 

[CSM]

Why? I mean, it isn't about liking war. It is about fullfilling comittments. The cost in lives would be a complete waste if things are left like this. And I talk about the hunderedthousand innocent civilians.

I actually get a bit upset thinking about it.

If USA pulls out of Iraq without stability in the country I suggest you hand over the armed forces to a nation with a higher feeling of responsabillity too.

Good points, but rather than handing over our military over our armed forces to any other country we should then just disband it. That is what most other countries have done and thus the US ends up trying to be the world's policemen. That is one thankless job; it's about time some other country take that burden...I vote for China in that role.

 

[ErikViking]

What exactly do you want to see happen in Iraq? What do you see as a reasonable measure of "victory" required before withdrawal is (in you oppinion) acceptable?

I would say that when the level of stability makes the use of American precense not needed. The victory is a soverign state standing for itself. It will enjoy our respect and we will respect it. I can't see that happening if civil war-like condintions put people into power. All that bloodshed... The nation emerging from that could possibly be a whole lot worse than the nation before.

Is that going to be hard? Most probably, - but that could serve as a good lesson too. You have promised the world not to abandon Iraq.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040524-10.html

The second step in the plan for Iraqi democracy is to help establish the stability and security that democracy requires. Coalition forces and the Iraqi people have the same enemies -- the terrorists, illegal militia, and Saddam loyalists who stand between the Iraqi people and their future as a free nation. Working as allies, we will defend Iraq and defeat these enemies.

America will provide forces and support necessary for achieving these goals. Our commanders had estimated that a troop level below 115,000 would be sufficient at this point in the conflict. Given the recent increase in violence, we'll maintain our troop level at the current 138,000 as long as necessary. This has required extended duty for the 1st Armored Division and the 2nd Light Cavalry Regiment -- 20,000 men and women who were scheduled to leave Iraq in April. Our nation appreciates their hard work and sacrifice, and they can know that they will be heading home soon. General Abizaid and other commanders in Iraq are constantly assessing the level of troops they need to fulfill the mission. If they need more troops, I will send them. The mission of our forces in Iraq is demanding and dangerous. Our troops are showing exceptional skill and courage. I thank them for their sacrifices and their duty. (Applause.)

 

[ErikViking]

Good points, but rather than handing over our military over our armed forces to any other country we should then just disband it. That is what most other countries have done and thus the US ends up trying to be the world's policemen. That is one thankless job; it's about time some other country take that burden...I vote for China in that role.

Yeah.. well it got a bit upset, I didn't mean that seriously... sorry.

China, by the way is a bit worrying ...

 

[red states rule]

CNN Reporter: Artificial Iraq Deadline 'Serves Only America's Enemies'
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on March 8, 2007 - 17:08.
Something is happening on the ground in Iraq. Something that even certain representatives of the MSM can't deny. Earlier this week, as NewsBusters noted here and here, NBC's Brian Williams, reporting from Iraq, offered some unusually positive observations. Now comes this eye-opening exchange from earlier this afternoon on CNN International between host Jim Clancy and correspondent Michael Ware, also reporting from Iraq:

JIM CLANCY: "The Democrats are pressing for a deadline, be it at the end of 2007, 2008 to bring all U.S. troops home. How is that going to affect General Petraeus, the Iraqi government and the Iraqis themselves?"

MICHAEL WARE: "Well, Jim, certainly in terms of the Iraqis and the war that's being fought in the streets and the deserts of this country, I mean, what's happening over there, what the Democrats are saying about timetables may as well be happening on the planet Pluto for all that it counts, to the bloodshed and endless combat that we're seeing day in, day out. All that it does, anyone setting time frames like that without real pre-conditions, anyone trying to put artificial deadlines upon this conflict is only aiding the enemies, so-called, of America, al Qaeda and Iran. It allows them some leverage to know when to put the pressure on, to know that the clock is ticking and to know where the pressure points are.

WARE: "So, in terms of the battle, day-to-day here, General Petraeus isn't looking more forward than five or six months. He's trying to make this surge work. But in terms of the broader strategic framework, it serves only America's enemies."

Nancy & Harry, are you listening?

Aside: Speaking of positive reports on Iraq come from unexpected sources, as I reported here for NB's sister operation Cybercast News Service, on Wednesday an al Jazeera reporter based in Baghdad told MFN spokesman MAJ GEN William Caldwell that residents of the city are experiencing positive changes.

UPDATE: mention by Rush -- Rush Limbaugh cited NewsBusters and me and read excerpts from this item during the 12:30 ET half-hour of his show of 03-08. Thanks, Rush!

http://newsbusters.org/node/11288

 

[CTRLALTDEL]

If the Dems get their way, how will handing Iarq over to the terroists make the US safer and help the US win the war on terror?

Are you telling me the Iraqis are gonna hand over their country to Al Qaida?? If so why THE HELL ARE WE DEFENDING THEM??

So according to Redstatesrules the SUNNIS AND SHIITES are allied with Al Qaida. How else do you explain the handing of Iraq over to terrorists??

 

[red states rule]

Are you telling me the Iraqis are gonna hand over their country to Al Qaida?? If so why THE HELL ARE WE DEFENDING THEM??

So according to Redstatesrules the SUNNIS AND SHIITES are allied with Al Qaida. How else do you explain the handing of Iraq over to terrorists??

If libs cut off the funding and the US leaves, al Qaida and Iran will take over

The tens of thousands will be slaughtered - much like what happened in Viet Nam

 

[maineman]

Are you telling me the Iraqis are gonna hand over their country to Al Qaida?? If so why THE HELL ARE WE DEFENDING THEM??

So according to Redstatesrules the SUNNIS AND SHIITES are allied with Al Qaida. How else do you explain the handing of Iraq over to terrorists??

Al Qaeda is a minor irritant in Iraq whose job is to keep stirring the pot. The real fight is between sunnis and shiites. The real fight is a civil war that saw 34K Iraqi civilians killed last year alone.

If America suffered 260 THOUSAND dead civilians** last year due to sectarian violence, who wouldn't call THAT a civil war?

And why are we in the middle of a civil war where both sides consider us intruding enemies?


**(do the math: 34K dead in a population of 26M extrapolated to a US population of 301M)

 

[red states rule]

minor? Hardly


Gregory Ignores Pelosi's Flub, Treats Retort to Bush on al-Qaeda in Iraq as Credible
Posted by Brent Baker on November 28, 2006 - 22:29.
Asked by a reporter about how “President Bush today blamed the surge of violence in Iraq on al Qaeda,” incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded with a disjointed answer about how “the 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the President is resorting to it again." Though al-Qaeda is clearly in Iraq and responsible for deadly bombings, and the 9/11 Commission conclusion was about links before September 11th, on Tuesday's NBC Nightly News reporter David Gregory treated Pelosi's off-base retort as credible and relevant. Without suggesting any miscue by her, Gregory segued to Pelosi's soundbite with a bewildering set up of his own about how “incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi disagreed, warning that such rhetoric about al Qaeda will make it harder for Democrats to work with the White House."

On FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume, after panelist Mara Liasson characterized Pelosi as “confused” and Morton Kondracke suggested she was just “mixed up,” Fred Barnes maintained that “she clearly screwed up here. The question was absolutely clear. 'President Bush today blamed the surge in violence in Iraq.'” Barnes argued the media wouldn't let a Republican get away with such a flub, telling Kondrake: “If some Republican had done this, if Bush had done this at a press conference, if Newt Gingrich had said it, if John Boehner had said it, if Roy Blunt had said it, you'd have been all over it. It would be inexcusable."

Neither ABC's World News or the CBS Evening News played the Pelosi soundbite.

The relevant portion of the story from David Gregory, who filed from Riga, Latvia, on the November 28 NBC Nightly News:

David Gregory: “Iraq's worsening civil war will dominate the President's meeting with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Concluding his visit to Estonia earlier today, Mr. Bush blamed the violence not on civil war but on Sunni terrorists.”

President Bush at a press conference in Estonia: “There's a lot of sectarian violence taking place, fomented in my opinion because of these attacks by al Qaeda, causing people to seek reprisal. And we will work with the Maliki government to defeat these elements.”

Gregory: “Back in Washington, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi disagreed, warning that such rhetoric about al Qaeda will make it harder for Democrats to work with the White House.”

Incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “The 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the President is resorting to it again.”

FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume, but anchored by Jim Angle, led its panel segment with Pelosi's exchange with the reporter, identified on-screen as Thomas Ferraro: “President Bush today blamed the surge of violence in Iraq on al-Qaeda and denied the country is in the midst of a civil war.”

After Liasson and Kondracke tried to explain Pelosi as “confused” and “mixed up,” Fred Barnes, Executive Editor of the Weekly Standard, retorted:


“She clearly screwed up here. The question was absolutely clear. 'President Bush today blamed the surge in violence in Iraq.' This is not -- the question is what about al Qaeda back before 9/11 or before we invaded or was there a link. The question was clear. She gave an answer that was about something else. She doesn't seem to think that al Qaeda is active there in Iraq, which it is. According to her answer. Now, if some Republican had done this, if Bush had done this at a press conference, if Newt Gingrich had said it, if John Boehner had said it, if Roy Blunt had said it, you'd have been all over it. It would be inexcusable.”

Morton Kondracke: “Oh, please, oh that's nonsense.”

Barnes: “Look, Nancy Pelosi is now going to be the Speaker of the House. Her party won. She did a tough job leading them in the last two years and we shouldn't go around just excusing the things she says, when you don't know what really happened.”

http://newsbusters.org/node/9314