Bush: 'Some progress' in Iraq war... Reid: Bush 'in state of denial'

US Navy Lt. Jason Nichols, currently serving in Iraq, and most servicemen, think Harry Reid is the one who's in a state of denial:

“Also, almost everybody I talk to in the military overwhelming supports our staying in Iraq until the job is done,” he says. “And I wanted to give servicemembers a chance to express their support for the mission. The disparity between what you see in the media and what military members say is pretty wide. Most of us in the military think we can win in Iraq, and most believe we are winning in Iraq.”

Sgt. Dave Thul of the Minnesota National Guard, currently serving witht he 34th Division, also thinks Reid is gaga:

“And what I can tell you from Anbar is that this is no longer the ‘wild west’ the media reported on even just six months ago.”

Thul serves as a committee-member with Appeal for Courage, but his primary duty is convoy escort. He frequently travels the roads from the east end of Al Anbar all the way to the Jordanian and Syrian borders.

“While I can't go into specific intelligence, I can tell you that the number of IEDs — by far our biggest threat — have dropped dramatically in the 12 months I’ve been here,” Thul says from his post in Al Asad, Iraq, just north of Ramadi. “Whereas it was once common to find two or three IEDs everyday by my company alone, we now have entire weeks where we have found none.”

Thul says the “the quality” of the insurgents he and his fellow soldiers have encountered, has dropped. “Where we once encountered IEDs that were well hidden and elaborately constructed, we now find most of the IEDs before they can be detonated against us,” he says. “They are hastily emplaced, poorly if at all camouflaged, and some don’t even detonate.”

Thul is also seeing a much greater Iraqi police presence in Anbar, as well as civilians flagging them down to tell them about weapons caches and suspicious men and activity in the area." [from author and ex-Marine W. Thomas Smith Jr.]

It sure looks like the Bush team is in a state of denial. About:

(1) Conditions in Iraq
(2) WMDs
(3) George Tenet's terror documents to White House

While The Bush team is saying there is progress, the United Nations is asking for help for refugees of Iraq. Yes, I said REFUGEES. Try to force that word from the Bush team's lips. Just try.

The Bush team has a huge presence in Iraq. Why is the Bush team NOT talking about the REFUGEE problem. It looks like the Bush team is thinking today the way it did in 2003. The Iraq problem is only military.

And civilians are having a huge problem. That's why the civilians wants the Bush team to go home. While the Bush team is talking progress, the civilians(Shiite and Sunni) would like the Bush team to go home. Why?

Most likely because they have been ignored. When did the ignoring start? 2003. By now it's a massive problem for civilians.

When the Bush team came to Iraq in 2003, did it have a plan for a transition from an old regime to a new regime. After all the team was going to remove a government. It only seems logical, rational and unstupid to have a new government plan to replace the government the Bush team was going to depose.

What did they come PREPARED to replace the old government with?

That question will likely enjoy a resting place right beside other questions like:
(1) Where are the WMDs? (People still believe)
(2) Where is that terror document from the CIA?

Just you try to hold the Bush team accountable for its JOB PERFORMANCE in Iraq and watch it wrap itself in the U.S. Flag or troop uniforms.

Bruce, what does the media really get to see in Iraq? Check out the Google video IraqThe Hidden Story.

How many years now has Bush been saying "We're making progress in Iraq"? He says it over and over again and things are only getting worse. Soldiers are still being killed. Civilian life is at a standstill.

And IED's have dropped but hundreds of people are being blown to bits every day? The quality of the bombs may have diminished, but the hate behind them hasn't.

Perhaps the president could follow his own advice and listen to his own generals. Unfortunately what the president calls listening is firing general after general and being turned down by countless other generals until he finds one who will go along with the administration's "theories" of life in Iraq. With all due respect to General Petreus, he's certainly not the president's first choice but he's apparently the only one who was willing to play the good soldier to the president's fantasies.

Visit Iraqthemodel.com for the view of two everyday Iraqis who don't see eye-to-eye with Hanoi Harry, either.

Who do you believe on the war? I'll take Gen. Petreaus, Lt. Nichols and Sgt. Thul, soldiers actually there, over politician Harry Reid and his internet robots.

Bruce, I assure you there are as many soldiers who acknowledge this catastrofark of a situation as those parrot the "Stars and Stripes" propaganda line.

Nice try, though.

Four years after mission accomplished & we're starting to see "progress".

More right-winged lies & bs spinning.

Bruce,
while your ProBush Rhetoric was well written I will subsequently dismiss it for anyone with half a brain with two very neat and unfortunate (for your argument) facts.

US Navy Lt. Jason Nichols is head of appeal for courage a group sponsored by right wing platforms and consisting of 2200 members (out of a possible half million that can join) so his group has drawn support of less than 1% (.44% to be accurate) of the people able to join.

A withdrawal(immediate or time frame less than 1 year) on the other hand is supported by 50%-60% of the AMERICAN populace and less than 25% are for staying in all major polls.

Confirmation will of course require reading the newspaper, but if you are here...

good luck on thinking instead of guessing America, I know you can do it!

Things are better in Iraq and Gonzo's testimony on the Hill makes him even more supportive of his AG.

Denial isn't strong enough a word....

Nice post ghoti! Isn't it wonderful how easy debunking right-wing propaganda becomes with a quick internet search.

Ghoti-

Nice spin!
The issue is not how popular the war is-which your stats support..
the question is if there is positive progress in the effort, which makes the boot on the ground view EXTREMELY valuable in supporting what has been reported as guarded positive progress..

Senator Reid's comments were political posing at its lowest!

Harry Reid is also the main person sho said he would stop pork barrel spending, yet added 40 million for bill boards in his state? Who is the on in denial.

I agree with finishing a job when you start it. However based on us not finding "weapons of mass destructions" was their a job in the first place.

Also the common Iraqis seem to be suffering more than ever because of weak leadership and suicide bombs, and secritarian violence.

I would recommend the government listen to other countries in the region because ultimately it is their people who are among the militias.

However, we have to come to the table with respect and be humble enough to listen.

The GOP is not in a "State of Denial" they're in a "State of Delusion".

Unfortunately there's still the 30%ers out there who can't put their Neocon loyalty aside for the better of our country.

Why do we have to continually hear from Senator Reid?

He is from an insignificant state. Its population only represents .8% of the US population.

Since his party by propoganda does not believe in the Electoral College by which Presidents are elected but in populist vote, medalist vs. match play , then maybe he should just "Shut UP !".

We are in Iraq because George Bush (as he himself has said) "wanted to be a war president."
We remain in Iraq for the reason that George Bush still wants to be a "war president."
It is his only justification for his amassing and holding the powers he claims permit his administration to intercept communications from citizens, to take and torture in foreign prisons, to hold prisoners indefinitely with or without basis.
We will be paying the price for these acts for years to come.
We have lost our position of moral leadership in the world; we seem to have lost our moral compass as well.

How sad. How sad for us all.

so let me get this straight ...we're making progress ...toward what? the death of all terrorists in the middle east? the universal message to all terrorists that the usa will not be the target of of any terrorist attacks? the establishment of a unified iraqi govt with sufficient anti-terrorist capability and pro-western orientation to demolish terrorism at it's roots and prevent it's spread world-wide while assuring sufficient pro-western hegemony to keep the oil supply flowing to the west as long as there is demand? the end of radical islam as a threat to free peoples everywhere? the consolidation of three separate cultures and traditions into a single unified national entity whose common goal is clearly democratic along the lines of it's western model ?
is all that what we are making progress toward?
are these our objectives? Is all this our mission? will we stay and fight until this mission is accomplished to our national leader's satisfaction?
does this sound reasonable? does it reflect a neo-imperialistic hubris predicated on false sense of a "faith based" manifest destiny which has lead to the destruction of all such misguided enterprises in history?

you-betcha

Perhaps the president could follow his own advice and listen to his own generals. Unfortunately what the president calls listening is firing general after general and being turned down by countless other generals until he finds one who will go along with the administration's "theories" of life in Iraq. With all due respect to General Petreus, he's certainly not the president's first choice but he's apparently the only one who was willing to play the good soldier to the president's fantasies.

Posted by: Patrick | Apr 23, 2007 10:28:27 AM

Patrick- Another - surrender before we win slanted point of view-
So when congress unanimously approved Patreus in January and by implication, the new Bush strategy what exactly did they think they were approving?
Was he willling to play the good soldier to congressional fantasies as well?

And please don't trot out the whole congressional ignorance defense - " well if I had known what was going to result - I wouldn't have voted for it(him)"

Harry Reid should be tried for treasonous statements. He clearly gave "aid and comfort" to the enemy.

Jim McIntyre
COL (Retired)

Shiite cleric Al-Sader pulled his people out of W.'s puppet Iraq parliament last week.

US troop deaths are on a record pace this month.

Last week saw one of the worst suicide bombings since the civil war in Iraq began killing over 200 people.

Stay the course Wingnuts!

One more for Bruce,Heartburn, and the Theocrats.

this war has been going on since March of '03
a little over 4 years.
a cost of ~$420,000,000,000. (wow, thats 10 zeros)
a death toll of 3300 AMEARICAN casualties.
a death toll of ~650,000 iraqis directly or indirectly
(hate to point out that Saddam was executed for killing ~120,000 directly or indirectly which was considered a war crime)

and we have possibly, might have, potentially will see, some progress.

meanwhile the CIA, Iraq Study Report, foreign intelligence all say that this is breeding new terrorists.

THIS IS WHAT IT IS ABOUT.

HOW IS ANY RESULT FROM THIS POINT WINNING??????

anyone ever heard of King Pyrrhus of Epirus?

I would challenge any of you to explain this not in terms of being right. As those who believe in god know "thou shalt not kill" but in terms of not being utterly and 100% wrong.

Does anyone know if I am allowed to include a private e-mail, because I would gladly sling ... with people off blog.

Col. McIntyre:

Exactly who are the "enemy?" Is it a nation-state? a highly organized group of terrorists with a nuclear weapon? What is this "aid and comfort" you speak of?

And exactly, given your and MY first-amendment rights, what is the treason you hear?

Thank goodness all people like you can do is spout your obnoxious, ultra right-wing, fascist blather at the bottom of newspaper articles.

Col. McIntyre: Sen. Reid and for that matter you, me, and everyone else in this country can say whatever they want - the constitution of the United States - the document you took a solemn oath to defend when you entered the military - gives us that right, and you swore to defend it. Now you seem to be backing off of that oath - you seem to think that people should be tried for treason for what they say. I didn't realize that this was the sort of thing the USA stood for.

Shame on you. You took an oath. You have now reneged on that oath - you seem to be against the constitution of the United States. Must not mean much to you. Makes me wonder why you identify yourself as a retired colonel. If anyone has betrayed his country, it is you.

Yes, I'm sure things are going swimmingly in Iraq, when even our allies there reject the moves this maladminstration makes.

To wit, the "gated communities" our troops were building have been rejected by Al-Maliki.

Don't they even TALK to the Iraqi people we're supposed to be helping?

Or did Halliburton get that contract, too?

For the voice of another soldier regarding Harry Reid and the war, see:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm

He calls Reid a "douche", among other things.

Ghoti-

There is a vein bulging out of your neck right now isn't there?

thanks for the sermon- and you call me a theocrat!

When you said that Bush does not listen to his Generals you were not accurate-so I had merely pointed out your ( intentional?) gap in logic- which you are still dodging.

Did or did the congress Approve the appointment of General Patreus ( answer is yes- trying to speed it up for you)?

With this approval was a very clear fact that the strategy was changing and that there was going to be a surge-

Breeding new terrorists- what a fakeout that is! if someone is able to convince themselves that the right thing to do is to blow up innocent people to get their message across-when their are political, peaceful ways to do it- I would suspect that their was some psychosis there way before we came.

Any argument supporting a pullout requires that winning is taken off of the table- We have to win there.

Breeding new terrorists- what a fakeout that is! if someone is able to convince themselves that the right thing to do is to blow up innocent people to get their message across-when their are political, peaceful ways to do it- I would suspect that their was some psychosis there way before we came.

Any argument supporting a pullout requires that winning is taken off of the table- We have to win there.

Posted by: heartburn | Apr 23, 2007 2:30:35 PM

Ever hear the old phrase "actions speak louder than words?" Suicide terrorism is the result of our foreign policies. It is a violent political tactic meant to dishearten morale in occupying forces. It may be a barbaric tactic, but it's a tactic that gets attention.

What does "win there" mean and what exactly are the consequences if we don't "win there"? Are the Sunnis and the Shia suddenly going to settle their differences, join forces and jump in their pickup trucks, cross the Atlantic and mount an attack against us here?

"if someone is able to convince themselves that the right thing to do is to blow up innocent people to get their message across-when their are political, peaceful ways to do it- I would suspect that there was some psychosis there way before we came."

By that logic, I suspect there was sone psychosis here before we came as well!

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/shows/road.to.baghdad/interactive/photo.gallery/6.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/shows/road.to.baghdad/interactive/photo.gallery/content.6.html&h=220&w=324&sz=16&hl=en&start=81&um=1&tbnid=yQxzqPcKu6z1AM:&tbnh=80&tbnw=118&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522shock%2Band%2Bawe%2522%2Bbaghdad%26start%3D80%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4GGLD_en___US205%26sa%3DN

John C - you are now in the head of suicide bombers? So tell me...What have these people been told to get them in a state of mind to believe that this is a reasonable solution? Who is telling them this?

When you find out you will find that those are the people that we are at war with- Al queda is operating there, Osama Bin Laden himself had made it very clear that Iraq is the perfect place to kill American "crusaders"

So yes leaving Iraq would provide a safe place for maniacs and Al Queda to operate w/o fear and to stage their very public goal of bringing terrorists here. May sound circular but, if it isn't valuable to our enemies, they would't risk fighting us there.. but you know that you are in their heads..

I will throw it back at you- what would WINNING in Iraq look like- I know the W word really makes the left sick to their stomachs.

Tony-

Posted by: Tony | Apr 23, 2007 3:24:19 PM

Is there more to your slide show?

Whats your point?

Jeff C., I see you are one of those that believe all bad things are because of the U.S.
It's our policies that cause the suicide bombers, you say. That thinking is so backwards it's not even funny.

So, the suicide bombers in the Phillippines are because of us too? What about in Indonesia? Saudi Arabia? Lebanon?

So, everything wrong in the world is because of the U.S.?

Jeff C., were there suicide bombers BEFORE George Bush?

In another post I descibed what is a Loony Lefter. One of them is a person who blames the U.S. for everything.

Al queda is operating there, Osama Bin Laden himself had made it very clear that Iraq is the perfect place to kill American "crusaders"

So yes leaving Iraq would provide a safe place for maniacs and Al Queda to operate w/o fear and to stage their very public goal of bringing terrorists here. May sound circular but, if it isn't valuable to our enemies, they would't risk fighting us there.. but you know that you are in their heads..

Posted by: heartburn | Apr 23, 2007 4:06:45 PM

You're right, al-Qaeda IS operating there. But guess what--they weren't BEFORE we got there. Because we ousted Saddam, we created the perfect haven for al-Qaeda to operate. But on a more important note, al-Qaeda isn't even considered public enemy #1 in Iraq anymore, the Mahdi Army is. It's another Nationalist -- not religious -- army fighting to take back their land from the "crusaders."

How about this, why did Osama bin Laden attack the U.S.? I have a hint for you: It's not because he "hates our freedoms." Bin Laden and his cohorts hate that the U.S. has erected military bases on holy land in the Middle East and they want us OUT.

Al-Qaeda is a stateless entity. If the Iraqis can pull their stuff together enough to get a handle on the security situation, al-Qaeda would be out of there and back to Afghanistan as soon as the Iraqis start attacking them and they see that Iraq is no longer a viable option.

Jeff C., were there suicide bombers BEFORE George Bush?

In another post I descibed what is a Loony Lefter. One of them is a person who blames the U.S. for everything.

Posted by: John D | Apr 23, 2007 4:17:24 PM

Yes, of course there were. I never mentioned George Bush. But since you brought him up, there sure seem to have been a lot more of them popping up in Iraq since we invaded. Where did we hear in the news about suicide bombings in Baghdad before 2003?

And I'm not blaming the U.S. for everything, much less suicide terrorism. It just seems that heartburn is one of those who have listened to Bill O'Reilly too much and believe that suicide terrorism gets its roots from religious fundamentalism rather than nationalism.

What is winning? I know from posts, saying were not winning, makes one part of why we're not winning. What is the vision the "stay the course / war on terror" person(s) sees when he or she say, "Yup, that's it. We won."? Is it a happy concensus of Iraqis living in peace without fear of radicals? Is it domestic prosperity for all Iraqis? Seriously, what is it? What is winning? Give me, us, a list of what things will look like in the Middle East, or just Iraq, once we've "won". Once you get that picture, or set of goals, sorted out, then we can say whether we're "Winning" or "Losing". How will we know when the end is in sight until we know what the end should look like?
Does anyone really believe this is ever going to end? I don't fear Islamic fundmentalist anymore, I fear we don't have the slightest clue as to what we're fighting for anymore.

JeffC

thanks again for the insight into the terrorist mind-

"It just seems that heartburn is one of those who have listened to Bill O'Reilly too much and believe that suicide terrorism gets its roots from religious fundamentalism rather than nationalism."

Islamic ( religious) fundamentalism and nationalism cannot be separated - the Koran is the only LAW you need.

so when you say- " Suicide terrorism is the result of our foreign policies."

Who do you mean by "OUR"? dang-thats almost as hard as defining "IS"

Heartburn-

"Shock and Awe" - "blowing up innocent people to get their message across-when their are political, peaceful ways to do it"

It goes both ways HB. I thought even you could have figured that one out.

heartburn,

"I will throw it back at you- what would WINNING in Iraq look like- I know the W word really makes the left sick to their stomachs."

This is the question that war supporters must answer. Unfortunately, the dream of a stable and democratic Iraq is dead. So what are we fighting for, and how will we know if we are winning?

The answer from "the left," if I could be so bold, is that the War to remove Saddam Hussein has been accomplished, the War to rid the world of WMD's is and was a lie, as was breaking the non-existent terrorist nexus of Bin Laden and Hussein. We are now in the War of Occupation, or Moderating a Civil War, so you'll excuse us on "the left" (apparently somewhere around 70% of Americans) for not being able to answer the question that the Bush-apologists must answer: what will winning look like.

So, heartburn, what WILL "victory" look like? Because, after all, "our mission in Iraq is victory."

My interpretation is that "victory" entails permanent bases in Iraq and multi-nationals controlling Iraqis oil wealth instead of the Iraqis. Victory, for Mr. Bush, means never having to say you're sorry.

Jeff C, who in the name do the Islamic terrorists kill others? When they behead people, who are they praying too? Who did the 9/11 terrorists (I hope you realize it was Islamic terrorists who flew planes into buildings and not U.S. agents?) pray to as they were hijacking and killing innocent people? Allah and Mohammed. To say the Islamic terrorists do it for national and not religious extremism is ridiculous.

While there were not suicide bombers in Iraq before we invaded, the reason it is and has been taking place has nothing to do nationalism and everything to do with Islamic extremists seeking to make Iraq the terrorist destination.

Tony- you would compare the "shock and awe" to nut jobs specifically targeting innocent people?

I am not so naive to think that innocents were killed in the attacks on Iraq- this is WAY different than targeting them. Consider the technology used - how much of the new weaponries functionality is based on very accurate targeting with the goal being - to avoid killing innocents. If we had the same motivation as the terroristrs, as you are proposing, we would use very dumb, cheap, indiscriminate weapons.

Your slide show agenda is nothing more than anti-US propaganda..

JeffC- to me,
Winning is when there is no more threat to the elected government in Iraq that the Iraqiis cant overcome.

Winning also means being able to show the world that countries that stand for the right things will stay and complete the job- not bail out because of domestic politics.

Winning also means NOT providing governments like IRan's or terrorists organizations any opportunity for using a US loss as propaganda to support their agenda.. Islamo Facism is a real threat to US and Europe

We owe the Iraqi people now-

HB-

The "Shock and Awe" portion of the US bombing campaign was in no way intended to eliminate military targets. As it's name says, the goal was to terrorize the Iraqi army and people into submission by a massive display of firepower in the midst of a city.

We conducted an operation in which we were certain civilians would be killed, in order to achieve a non military goal, to "shock and awe" the population of Baghdad.

Are the terrorists operating in Baghdad worse? Most certainly. But our hands are hardly clean.

"Winning is when there is no more threat to the elected government in Iraq that the Iraqiis cant overcome."

So, in other words, when all the Sunnis are dead?

"Winning also means being able to show the world that countries that stand for the right things will stay and complete the job- not bail out because of domestic politics."

"Standing for the right things?" You mean like fudging intelligence to start a war on false pretenses? And continuing to go to war despite international protests that were the largest in human history?

"Winning also means NOT providing governments like IRan's or terrorists organizations any opportunity for using a US loss as propaganda to support their agenda.. Islamo Facism is a real threat to US and Europe"

Iran's terrorist organizations were perfectly content on their side of the Iran-Iraq border before we came crashing in. And please enlighten us, are the "Islamo Fascists" going to mount an invasion and tell us to convert or die?

Tony- I guess you have it then. We spend Billions on smart weapons in order to scare civilians, when you could do the same thing with WWII bombs..

I see the light now-we are a horrible country, with a war criminal for a leader
I am not understanding your grudging compromise that the terrorists in Baghdad are worse though- using your assertion that our shock and awe was targeting innocent people, we would be much worse than any self employed terrorist.

I will be as respectful as possible when I say you are nuts..

HB-

You really need to start seeing the world not as stark black vs.s white, good vs. evil.

We do not live in a world where People, countries or actions are either wholly good or wholly evil. I wish we did because the world would be a far simpler place, however the reality is tht we live in a world where there are shades of grey.

The US led war in Iraq is not wholly an instrument of good, nor evil.

tony-

Fair enough- this is complex and clear lines of distinction would be helpful but unfortunately they do not exist-

When you place how the US has conducted the war on equal footing to suicide bombers you have taken an extreme position and have created a world of NO wrong or right, no evil or good in fact you have made everything evil.. this is inaccurate let alone nihilistic.

I was very clear that I was not naive enough to believe that the US has not brought any loss of innocent human life- you have not been equally objective..you have been intentionally anti-US to support your political point of view..

JeffC- Yes- I believe Islamo Fascist will take any opportunity they can to create as much death and destruction as possible here.. 9/11 was an opening shot- I hope the last one.

HB-

I have never placed them on equal footing, in fact, I clealy stated that they are not equal.

You simply cannot accept that anyone could possibly criticize any element of US policy in Iraq unless they hate the US and love the terrorists, which is absolute nonsense.

Tony- when you initially said;
"Shock and Awe" - "blowing up innocent people to get their message across-when their are political, peaceful ways to do it"

You were not clear in fact you were very specifically drawing a direct comparison with both your slide show and your comment about NOT seeing any distinction between terrorists and how the US military has conducted this war.. you did come around after I challenged your rhetoric..

I can say this - War is a horrible option, war is not always an evil option though.. In this case I believe that this war is as necessary as WWII was-

A typical left wing response to this is ALWAYS to throw the body count, so meticulously tracked, in the face of anyone that believes this .. or to challenge them to sign up if you believe this...

Harry Reids point of view is a dangerous, politically motivated BS move..and I will add is a typically ambivalent left wing way of thinking..

Some things are always right and some things are always wrong..

"your comment about NOT seeing any distinction between terrorists and how the US military has conducted this war.. "

A comment I never made.

Some things are always right and some things are always wrong..

Posted by: heartburn | Apr 24, 2007 1:41:40 PM

Is aerial bombing one of those two? Of course not.