The surge, one year on

This kind of talk from the Dems is just why we came home from Vietnam with our tails tucked between our legs! Has everyone on the left forgot Abe Lincolns' words? A "House Divided" Get with the troops people. Not one of our brave men and women want to leave defeated. Period. excalmation point. Get it?

Ground control to RNC Gadfly Bruce & the rest of the wingnuts:

Where's the political reconcilliation in the Iraq Civil War? The Iraqi Government can't even agree what day of the week it is much less forge a compromise.

Time is long overdue for us to leave.

And to people like McCain who compare Iraq to Korea or Japan that is just plain silly. In fact it's right up there with John D. comparing the Iraq Civil War to our Revelutionary War 230 some-odd years ago.

9 US Soldiers Die in New Iraq Offensive:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-iraq,0,219744.story?coll=chi_tab01_layout

The last month or so, despite the troop buildup, violence in Iraq has elevated again.

The so-called "surge" was always a joke, the Iraqi's still have no government and no military to speak of and this troop buildup was supposed to fix that.

Of course violence is going to go down when you put troops on every street corner but the main problems still do and will always exist, these people hate each other and they hate us, we could stay there and waste money and lives for the next 100 years (as John McCain want's to) and it wouldn't change a damn thing.

The Neonuts in this administration should have thought of this BEFORE they decided to pre-emptively invade Iraq, instead they decided to lie to us and tell us that it would be easy and the Iraqi's would greet us as "liberators".

[Dem] "Sen. Ben Nelson, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, warned that Iraq remains “mired in political dysfunction.”

Being a cog in the Democrat-run US Congress, Sen. Nelson would know all about "political dysfunction".

Reid and the rest of the left wing surrender first movement just don’t get it. They don’t understand the nature of the enemy. The world is a dangerous place and we need leaders that understand that. Harry Reid is a fool and the dems that support him share at least that aspect in common.

“It was clear from my discussions that there's great hope in Iraq, that the Iraqis are beginning to see political progress that is matching the dramatic security gains for the past year,” he told reporters.
____________________________
Right, because we know we can believe everything our government tells us. Like Iraq was supporting Al-Quaeda, or it had WMD's, or it bought aluminum tubes from Niger, or he didn't have sex with that woman.

McCain in NH: Would Be "Fine" To Keep Troops in Iraq for "A Hundred Years":

"The United States military could stay in Iraq for "maybe a hundred years" and that "would be fine with me," John McCain told two hundred or so people at a town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire, on Thursday evening".

Full story here:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6735_mccain_in_nh_wo.html

Please!!!, pretty please Republicans, please, please, please nominate this senile old man!!!

But OBL has been caught, WMDs were found in Iraq, NO is rebuilt, the US leads in health-care, the economy is booming, gas prices are going down, foreclosures are at an all-time low, and illegal immigration is in check. All this and without Harriet Myers on the Supreme Court.

But you MSM-types and lefty loonies have to find some fault with our president. Well you go right ahead but you sure as heck wont stop me from voting for Ron Paul!

Ron Paul 2008
The South Will Rise Again!

“There is only one man who should decide when to withdraw from Iraq and that is (General) David Petraeus,” the Arizona Senator said.
____________________________
So it turns out the Commander in Chief is General Betrayus? It is nice to see that our republitard candidates have decided that the Iraqi Parliament and Prime Minister do not have a say in when the American troops leave. This must be some strange usage of the term Democracy that I am not familiar with.

Harry Reid is a mope that has been repeating the same stupid lines for the past year.

According to this website, December was the lowest month of 2007 and the second lowest since the invasion in March, 2003.

http://icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx

Also, since the full effect of the surge, the US casuality rate has dropped dramatically.

The 12-months ended Dec, 2007 is the lowest casualty figure in the last 10 months.

Decemeber, 2007 casulaty count was only 19% of December, 2006.

Also, the period of October - December, 2007 is the lowest three month casuality total of the entire war.

Why is it you lefty Bush haters can't handle that our military is having success?

Doug, stop with the DNC and DailyKook talking points. Iraq is not in a civil war.

And as far as me likening the situation to our own 230 years ago, you got it wrong. What I did say was that it took us more than a decade to get our political house in order. Did not liken the creation of this country and the Revolutionary War to the Iraq War or whatever it is this day.
The Iraqi government still needs to work together, but at the same time, the government is not fighting among itself and all factions are in the government. But the country is on the PATH toward peace and prosperity.

Terry,

Where is the Iraqi Government political/sectarian/tribal compromise solution that the surge was to have allowed "breathing room" to come about?

Where is there a shred of evidence that the Iraqi Government is even moving in the right direction?

If this is purely political for you, that's too bad - for you, especially our troops and what's best for America.

Why is it you lefty Bush haters can't handle that our military is having success?

Posted by: Terry | January 9, 2008 8:26 PM

Trickledown Boy,

Occupying a tiny helpless country doesn't prove anything.

This whole "surge" crap is all about Prez 26% and Darth "staying the course" until they can pass off their self-made mess to the new Democratic President on Jan 09.

Spin it a million times. It's the same old news: no progress.The war is neither going well or badly. Just the same.

Why is it you lefty Bush haters can't handle that our military is having success?

Posted by: Terry | January 9, 2008 8:26 PM

Reid and the rest of the left wing surrender first movement
Posted by: CJ | January 9, 2008 6:03 PM

Spoken more than likely by ones who wouldn't know what end of a gun is the "dangerous" end.

The days are long gone when democrats once supported American victories in a time of war.
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Ben Nelson root for the enemy instead of their own country....just like most of the posters here.

Paulo

So Doug Zook, you talk about the right "wingnuts," as a former military guy what do you think of your loony left brethren who still call Petraeus, Gen. Betrayus just like rncbs did in a post here? Gotta love your sick, demented, deranged loony left brethren, don't ya, Doug?

“There is only one man who should decide when to withdraw from Iraq and that is (General) David Petraeus,” the Arizona Senator said.

And we should have bombed the Chinese mainland back to the stone-age, invaded China, and dusted off the A-bomb, just in case, as Gen. Macarthur proposed as commander of armed forces in the Korean Theatre.

John D.,

You've put the Petraeus question to me before, but I'll repeat the answer one more time.

Petraeus is an honorable, patriotic, capable general doing the best he can working for the clueless, inept political leadership of Dubya and Darth.

So, what's your take on whack job posts like those of Paulo? As long as we're being candid here.

Has everyone on the left forgot Abe Lincolns' words? A "House Divided" Get with the troops people. Not one of our brave men and women want to leave defeated. Period. excalmation point. Get it?

Posted by: Paul Jaeger | January 9, 2008 5:23 PM

Ahh, noooooo. It's the Dems who are with the troops.

Putting our brave men and women in harms way for an immoral and illegal occupation that was based on faulty intelligence is what is being against the troops is all about.

And keeping them there when the Iraqi people and gov't obviously have no interest in a plitical solution is simply beimg stubborn and wrong.

12 months to go and America gets it freedom back.

Hail to the Chief, Barack Obama

Why is it you lefty Bush haters can't handle that our military is having success?

Posted by: Terry | January 9, 2008 8:26 PM

BAGHDAD - Nine American soldiers were killed in the first two days of a new offensive to root out al-Qaida in Iraq fighters holed up in districts north of the capital, the U.S. military reported Wednesday.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Defense Secretary Robert Gates is considering sending some 3,000 additional marines to Afghanistan to boost forces ahead of a Taliban spring offensive, a Pentagon spokesman said Wednesday.

Once again,Terry suffers from foot in mouth disease.

teeny juannieed,

It was a troll. But obviously the foam and spittle coming from your mouth is obscuring your vision.

Actually, Doug, Paulo is speaking the truth. Reid and Peloozi desire defeat, not victory. And, yes, most on the Left seek defeat as well. They do not desire victory in Iraq. They do not desire a stable, free, Democratic Iraq. They do desire a stronger and more belligerant Iran.

Doug, no matter how much success Gen. Petraeus and the U.S. military have been obtaining in Iraq, you keep trotting out that the Iraqi government is not completely functioning and you still call the situation in Iraq a civil war. It is true the Iraqi government still has a long ways to go, but it is being worked on. And, as far as a civil war, heck even the Left U.S. media isn't calling it a civil war anymore. Yet, you still do. And your buds still call Petraeus, someone you say is a decent, patriotic man, Gen. Betrayus.
It is one thing, Doug, to call a politician names, it is another thing to call a man with his life on the line and representing the troops names such as Betrayer. It seems to me the only thing Petraeus is "betraying," is the Loony Left and the Democratic party that seeks and desires defeat.
While Brian Baird is a liberal Democratic Congressman from Washington, one who voted against the war and the surge, he came back from Iraq in the Fall and said good things are happening there and pulling out now would be a mistake. Baird is a patriot, and now he is being targeted by your Lefty buddies.

Why is it you lefty Bush haters can't handle that our military is having success?

Posted by: Terry | January 9, 2008 8:26 PM

Terry,
There is no question our soldiers can't win militarily. What bothers me is that Americans are still dieing and Iraq is not any closer to political reconciliation today than it was when the surge began. Why does that make you proud? We have won! The Iraqi government is losing each day they cannot reconcile and Americans are still getting killed because of their inaction. Please trot out a false analogy to the American Revolution.

Just in case anyone missed it; There is still fighting going on in Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html?hp

Also, since the full effect of the surge, the US casuality rate has dropped dramatically.
Posted by: Terry | January 9, 2008 8:26 PM

Wow, I hope you will take a personal effort to inform the families of those 9 soldiers that were killed in the "New Iraq Offensive" of this fact. I'm sure they will be overjoyed by the news. Spoken like someone who sits behind a computer and hasn't suffered a loss from this fruitless, ill-conceived war for oil and corporate gain.

DD,they're in denial.Those 9 soldiers killed are meaningless to Repugnants.

After running our National Debt to 10 trillion they still call themselves "Conservatives".

You're dealing with sheep,not reality thinkers.

It seems everyone is missing the big picture here.

So, violence is down and that corresponds with the surge. Well, hazzah!

No one seems to be considering the fact that we are now all essentially accepting the premise that our goal in Iraq is simply to reduce violence to lower levels that it has been the last 4 years.

I thought our goal was 1) to find the WMD's that were the reason Iraq needed to be invaded in the first place, 2) destroy Bin Laden's network in Iraq, and finally 3) institute our brand of "democracy" on the Iraqi people.

Of course, there were no WMD's, nor Al Qaeda until they established themselves specifically to counter OUR unwarranted invasion, so that leaves us with the final "rationale."

In the name of helping to establish self-governance in Iraq, we have temporarily increased the number of troops. (Temporarily as all those surge troops will need to be stop-lossed in April when their tours expire) Violence is down from what it was a year ago, but what kind of marker is that? The goal, as others have pointed out, is to have the Iraqis stand up as we stand down.

Reporting temporary drops in casualties does not in any way suggest that this is happening. This is why many Americans; left, right and center, don't see any "victory" in the reduction of violence from its peak last year to what it is now.

Where is the long term solution, the reconciliation that the surge was SUPPOSED TO accomodate? It seems the "victory" will be staying in Iraq for, as John McCain suggests, 100 years or more.

That is going to be a tough sell for a public that is unimpressed with the "surge" and the resulting drop in violence to 2005 levels.

Actually, Doug, Paulo is speaking the truth. Reid and Peloozi desire defeat, not victory. And, yes, most on the Left seek defeat as well. They do not desire victory in Iraq. They do not desire a stable, free, Democratic Iraq. They do desire a stronger and more belligerant Iran.
.......

Posted by: John D | January 10, 2008 9:35 AM
---------------------------
John,
Come on man. At least I don't characterize republicans as actively desiring to weaken our nation by spreading our troops, destroy the constitution, and increase worldwide support for extremist factions. I just think that that is the end result of the policies this administration is engaged in. I know that you Republicans at least think you're pursuing the correct course of action. When you make a statement like this last post it insults your intelligence, severely. None of us want America to fail. The fact of the matter is we never should have been there in the first place, and we should get out. America would win by showing our government that we will stand up for what our country stands for. We won't be foreign aggressors. We won't torture. Disagree if you must, but do yourself a favor and stop this ridiculous characterization of Democrats plotting for a terrorist overrun nation by putting a stop to this perfectly executed and noble war.

Oh yeah and Paulo. Your post seems indicative of the misconception that a lot of people have when they are so distant from the realities of war. It's not a football game and we aren't rooting for the other team. This war is real, its ugly, and its un-American.

Actually, Doug, Paulo is speaking the truth. Reid and Peloozi desire defeat, not victory. And, yes, most on the Left seek defeat as well. They do not desire victory in Iraq. They do not desire a stable, free, Democratic Iraq. They do desire a stronger and more belligerant Iran.
.......

Posted by: John D | January 10, 2008 9:35 AM
---------------------------
John,
Come on man. At least I don't characterize republicans as actively desiring to weaken our nation by spreading our troops, destroy the constitution, and increase worldwide support for extremist factions. I just think that that is the end result of the policies this administration is engaged in. I know that you Republicans at least think you're pursuing the correct course of action. When you make a statement like this last post it insults your intelligence, severely. None of us want America to fail. The fact of the matter is we never should have been there in the first place, and we should get out. America would win by showing our government that we will stand up for what our country stands for. We won't be foreign aggressors. We won't torture. Disagree if you must, but do yourself a favor and stop this ridiculous characterization of Democrats plotting for a terrorist overrun nation by putting a stop to this perfectly executed and noble war.

Oh yeah and Paulo. Your post seems indicative of the misconception that a lot of people have when they are so distant from the realities of war. It's not a football game and we aren't rooting for the other team. This war is real, its ugly, and its un-American.

DD,

Raver is right.

They build their own 'faith based' reality as they go. They have actually admitted this.

And they have the perfect faith based fool to lead them.

Doug,

I would say the Iraqi gov't accomplished about as much as the democratic Congress, even though the surge in Iraq has only been in full effect for a few months - not a year.

Trickled ON John E,

I don't think occupying a country when we are there at their gov'ts invitation is noy an occupation.

BillR,

I would shoot with one end of the gun and smack you useless head with the other.

Anon & DD,

Nine Soliders died for a good cause.

I'll apologize to their families if you want to apologize to the 80,987 families who lost loved ones at the Battle of the Bulge. After that battle today's media, and its loyal liberal lemmings would be calling for FDR's & Eisenhower's head.

Crazy Duck,

Please provide that proof of Bush running up $5 Trillion in debt.

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

Bob,
Looks like it went up from about 6 to 11 trillion under Prez. DimWit.

Where we went to school that totes out to $5 trillion.

BillR,

I would shoot with one end of the gun and smack you useless head with the other.

To coin your idols words...
bring it on!

I don't think occupying a country when we are there at their gov'ts invitation is noy an occupation.
Posted by: Bob | January 10, 2008 8:25 PM

I think the key words are
"I don't think". Thats obvious. What did you think the Iraqi government would do once their infrastructure was destroyed, their army disband, and a civil war starts, and terrorists that were not in Iraq before are now there? My post about the gun was to make the point that you war supporters think that all you need to do is be a republican to be a "good" American. You call us defeatocrats, cowards and yet when did you put your ass on the line for your country? I spent 2 years in a fire base in Nam for our country and you namby pamby sheep want to say who's a "good" American? How's the war look on your wide screen TV? Pus...

Good one Bill R.

I think Bob = Terry, BTW.

Lenin,

Try $3.5 Trillion - 1-20-01 thru 1-11-08

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

Even under your hero Bill Clinton, the debt went up $1.5 Trillion

Bill R,

Thank you for your service in Viet Nam. I'm sorry I couldn't join you but I had something I had to complete - Grade School.

If you elect one of your three stooges president (Hillary, Obama, Breck Girl), will their lack of military experience preclude them for sending troops into battle since only soliders like you know the true meaning of battle?

Terry,

The other 1.5 Tril are projected, of course. Check it out in two years.

It took Slick that long to slowdown the overrun from the previous 12 years of neglect by Reagan/Bush.

You don't seem to apprehend the very strategy of your Republican Supreme Soviet;
They want to destroy America's finances through overspending. It will allow them to 'drag government into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.'

Didn't you know that you want the government to fail??

Lenin,

If you want to project, lets include the projected $45 Trillion of unpaid social security and medicare beenfits that are promised to all of us.

It took Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress that long to slow down spending as BIll Clinton admitted in 1995:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n16_v48/ai_18614099

And when it comes to overspending, the GOP is bad, but the dems are the masters of the universe. Other than the funding for the war on terror, have you heard of any major cuts from the dems in spending - no they want to expand domestic spending to enlarge the nanny state.

I want the gov't to perform functions best by the gov't: national defenese, infrastructure and get oout of things they don't do well like: education, retirment investing, health care, etc...