Captain's Quarters -

dems like little dick durbin have already moved the goalposts.

they admit the military is doing its job well; they merely say that maliki is a failure and that therefore all military assistance to iraq is pointless.

dickie "gulag" durbin said as much in an interview at the chicago trib - available as video there.

but this new position misses the main point:

sure sure sure, ULTIMATELY a political rapprochement is necessary.

but only the military can make sure the codntions are right for that to take place.

and as punsitarian wrote at my blog - the astute bloggers - all this goalpost moving talk has only one effect" it motivates the enemy.

essentially it aids and abets them

the hillary durbin obama kennedy levin kerry crowd is prepping the ground to do to the iraqi's nascent democracy what they did to the south vietnamese nascent democracy.

i hope bush and petraeus do better WITH CONGRESS than nixon/ford and abrams.

PWERHAOS WE REALLY NEED A SURGE AGAINST DEMOCRAT GOALPOST MOVING!

It won't matter. Liberals will not accept ANY good news from Iraq - it goes against their agenda to get us out.

I don't think they are capable of supporting success.

We're doing this marvelous work with less than 200,000 troops! There are militaries around the world who cannot compete with us; and they've got millions of soldiers in them!

I'm also going to guess that the world wars, as they were known in the 20th Century, are now a thing of the past. Ditto, for the killing fields of the Civil War.

The only way American can have huge losses of life, (not from natural disasters), would come if the terrorists got the atomic bomb. And, then? We'd have to gear up, and go all out, using more force that we've been doing.

On the other hand? I don't expect we're going the "more force route," just as Israel is not.

Because Israel saw what happens when you win ground wars, but the civilians hate your guts.

In Irak? Well, that part didn't grow and fester, because the Iraqis are terrified "we're gonna leave."

It's one of the reasons I'm not so upset at how the Bonkey party wants to define, itself. They are the affirmative action crowd. In a world where that dreck doesn't sell to people.

That it did sell?

Yes. Vietnam was lunacy. So was the crap Truman pulled with the UN, where MacArthur was handicapped. For what? Korea? North and South is the same family. WIth one side in darkness; because their despot is even worse.

But we're not learning these lessons in schools, because the Department of Education stopped teaching.

This means that when the pendulum swings, the stuff that was ignored will be back in force.

And, we'll probably be choosing "containment" solutions for a lot of our problems. Not out-right irradication. Ditto. For drugs. And, the other stuff that messes up our commons.

Things will never be perfect.

The next president will be tasked, though, with cleaning up State. Cleaning up ALL the Executive Branch organizations. And, dealing with the Bonkey lawyers; which is all that's left for the left to use; against the "colosus."

Did Larry Craig just throw in a money wrench? (I keep reading at Drudge that other congress critters are coming forward to pressure him to leave.)

While the way media gets delivered also changes. Thanks to the Internet.

Reading, here, Patraeus' style. And, his realization that to win we need to stay on the offensive is great news.

That the Bonkeys work as a break? If they didn't, I fear the arabs would have just sat back to rip us off. That's what the vietnamese did. Till it was too late. And, now, when it's too late, they want capitalism.

IF Irak gets up and running; and doesn't fall into Turkey's hole; then there will be an economic boom. ANd, one that doesn't make the House of Soddies' richer.

Personally, I'd like men to see the army as a great destination. And, not bullshit college. This, too, seems to be turning. Again, our training of men is something to be very proud of. Even in WW2, we weren't sending men out who were as well trained as today's soldiers.

Sometimes, you can be in the midst of change, and not even see it happening.

We are in the right direction.

And, with both parties on the ropes, for dishonest dealings in congress; it's only a matter of time for the "stall tactics" just not to be worth it. You think things stay the same, that way? I don't. I think we're ready for a whole new wave. And, this will include opportunities.

Of course, it's a future. We can't foretell it. But I'm not so sure the affirmative action crowd has what it takes to lead. Which is why they need to step down.

Patraeus understands you can't win without fighting. And, you can't fight if the goal posts keep getting stolen while your men are at work.

The MSM? Aren't they also in the dog house these days?

Petraeus will tell Congress that sectarian violence has dropped 75% since last December.

If he does, he will be lying to Congress.

Good News and thanks for the post Captain.

I stumbled upon Mr. Hayes discussing his book on the partisan tv program, pretending to be a comedy headed by Mr. J. Stewart.

It was just another reminder, of the blind political slant we see everywhere.

Mr. Hayes offered professional basis, and was confronted with the opposite representing the Democrat mindset of today.

The partisan crowd cheered the snobby self righteous partisan named Stewart (whom years ago I found truly interesting).

Good news in Iraq, created by the toughness shown by our Bravest in Uniform, the excellent leadership provided by Gen. Petraeus, and the fine resolve of a strong President who has empowered the opportunity for a sincere victory in the GWOT by finding his 'Grant' and maintaining the fight.

Yet, as the 'Daily Show' reminded again (just as every other tv program we see these days), the left-liberal-democrat seems only interested in the vilification of the Republican Conservative and whatever endeavor they are engaged in...

As if the liberation of the millions in Iraq and Afghanistan mean nothing to Democrat Loyalists, nor the fight against those who destroyed the WTC long ago.

Nancy Pelosi claimed repeatedly that al Qaeda was not in Iraq, and that Iraq wasn't related to the GWOT.

And Democrats seem to still accept this fraud, as if the facts are meaningless, and the bias against the Republicans is all that matters.

It is overwhelming and rather sad.

We knew long before 9-11, the Arab World needed a sincere intervention.

Imagine if the USA actually helps build another lighthouse in the World, bringing dramatic, needed, positive change to the Middle East (like South Korea, West Germany, Japan, prior).

We can only hope and pray for the success, and the defeat of Radical Muslim Militancy.

If we succeed, we will have another slandered Republican President, like Ronald Reagan before, to be proven right, after the liberal 'enlightened' elite tried to undermine the successful policy at nearly every step.

Will there be any consequences for them?

Will the MSM simply revise history?

Will we ever achieve a sense of the truth?

The unethical nature of the modern Democrat Partisans seems so severe, it is hard to believe we can grow beyond this as a united Nation.

People are forgetting about the "Big Lie" concept that the Dhimmicrats will use on General Petraeus's report. Dingy Harry Reid has already declared "defeat" and has said that General Petraeus will be lying in his report. Dingy Harry and his cohorts have invested in their partisan politics and will continue to spread their big lie which the MSM will amplify in their articles.

However, the general will find out that many Americans will accept his judgements and his report and compare that to the Dhimmi's big lie.

Dingy Harry Reid has already declared "defeat"

He's not the only one:

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
February 24, 2006 2:51 PM

It Didn't Work

By William F. Buckley Jr.

"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes—it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."

One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed.

Couple things here -
Petraeus is under pressure to paint a rosy picture.

An independent GAO report has been leaked, and it paints a whole different picture of Iraq - WAPO

Congressmen and Senators flying out of Iraq had their C-130 come under attack while taking off... Iraq is the most dangerous country in the world right now.

The Leftinistra have painted themselves into a corner of which they cannot get out of unsoiled.

With the upcoming Fight For Victory Tour with Move America Forward, the moonbats, in their death throes will wail and gnash their teeth.

I can smell the Conservative Tsunami rising.

steve j,

One can't doubt that the liberal objective is complete failure for the war liberals voted for in
Iraq no matter what success our military has there.

I could quote democrat after democrat that has
come back from Iraq in the last several months and
talked about the success we are having defeating
Al-Qeada and stemming sectarian violence.

But they are just neocons carrying Bush's water now aren't they?

No matter what success we have in helping Iraq stabilize and work toward a free society liberals like you will continue to move the goal posts and
declare failure.

All so you can say "I told you so" and continue
your pathetic War on Bush.

Genocide in Iraq,

All out war in the Middle East,

Al-Qeada and Iran taking over trillions of dollars in oil revenues to finance terrorism,

No problem for the super intelligent liberal
steve j,as long as he can blame it on Bush.

If we could get you liberals out of your coffee
shop circle jerks to protest against the real enemies of the world,you know, the TERRORIST,the world would be a lot better off.

But that would mean you would have to actually come up with solutions to problems and carry them out,something liberals are not able to do.

This is why you liberals are always patting each
other on the back and having to tell everybody how intelligent you are,because it doesn't show.

Whining,criticizing events after they happen,and
making condescending smart-ass remarks about people you don't agree with is not a sign of intelligence,it's a sign of people who have learned nothing from history and have nothing to offer for the future.

Buy the way genius,
how is that Impeachment going?

Baxter writes "the success we are having defeating
Al-Qeada and stemming sectarian violence."

The success against Al Qaeda is due primarilty to the Anbar Sunnis turning on Al Qaeda. That beagn before the Surge was even announced and without it, the Surge would be a miserable failure.

Steve J you said

"The success against Al Qaeda is due primarilty to the Anbar Sunnis turning on Al Qaeda. That beagn before the Surge was even announced and without it, the Surge would be a miserable failure. "

Time to make up your mind mate is there progress in Iraq or not? You seem very confused?

You also overlook the fact that the Anbar rising came out of the USMC adopting a very COIN-like stance pre-Surge

So it only took the administration 4 years to take the military gloves off?

That's a long time to get a clue that war means killing the other guy in great numbers.

Kinda scary we've been attempting to fight the Iraq insurgency woth two hands tied behind our back.

You also overlook the fact that the Anbar rising came out of the USMC adopting a very COIN-like stance pre-Surge

BS

And further, the Sunnis in Anbar DO NOT support the central government or our presence in Iraq.

Time to make up your mind mate is there progress in Iraq or not?

Time for you to realize that we LOST the post-war.

Time for you to realize that we LOST the post-war.

Didn't Harry Reid say that?

I understand that the Marines in Haditha also massacred innocents.

John Murtha said so.

However, I've heard they were recently found innocent of those charges.

Hugh,

The Marines did massacre innocents in Haditha. That's why they initially lied about it.

Hmmm... Who to believe?

A general who's an expert on counterinsurgency and has no record of lying to anybody; the troops doing the actual fighting; the Iraqi government; Iraqi soldiers and police who no longer desert or go AWOL in large numbers; liberal antiwar Democrat politicians who've changed their minds and now support the current strategy?

Or people who post comments on a Web site?

That's a toughie.

Call me crazy, but I'll go with the former group and just laugh at the Web-site posters and their shattered dreams of defeat.

Congress will vote to continue the mission in Iraq. We'll win. The Great Humiliating Chastisement of George W. Bush and the United Imperialist States of America will never happen.

Hear that crashing noise? That's the sound of all your cherished fantasies collpasing into dust and bile.

I can picture Steve with hands over ears, "nah, nah, nah, nah, nah. I can't hear you".

I check in regularly with the Captain because he often has good insights into government pork and other political abuses. But his continual support of the Iraq occupation continues to defy reason.

Once again we have Lucy holding out the football saying "We've turned a corner", "Just a few more months", "Our new strategy is working", "victory is at hand", "You have to support the war if you support the troops".

The truth is that all the political tomfoolery here at home can't come close to the incredible waste, fraud and absolute criminal activity that has made Iraq the hell it is today. After 4 years, billions in (borrowed) funds and thousands of American lives, we have an Iraq that has less electricity , less clean water, less fuel, and far less security that before our invasion. Most of the white-collar workers have fled the country. There are 2 million refugees. Nowhere except Kurdistan can an American step outside our fortified bases without armor and weapons. The British are abandoning Basra, leaving our supply lines even more exposed. What little control the government has is due to Shiite militia groups.

I might have some small hope if someone competent was in charge. But the chief architects of this debacle are still calling the shots. This web site often calls for accountability, but never when it comes to the Iraq fiasco. When we get new leadership, perhaps we can salvage something from all this.

At least you've dropped that silly "Deployed!" thing from the side of the page.

An independent GAO report has been leaked, and it paints a whole different picture of Iraq - WAPO

One would certainly have to question (and I read the whole report that again was classified) the motives of a report written by a Bill Clinton appointee LINK who is nine years into a fifteen year tenure. And the GAO couldn't wait for a report from the Pentagon that would have changed much of their report.

But we are to trust the misanthropist such as ck and Steve for the true fate of the Iraqis?

"At least you've dropped that silly "Deployed!" thing from the side of the page."

Do you mean like the way the MSM and most of Euro's have dropped the word TERRORIST for Insurgents and Liberation is now called Occupation? Funny how a few words can change the meaning

The truth is that all the political tomfoolery here at home can't come close to the incredible waste, fraud and absolute criminal activity that has made Iraq the hell it is today.

Could you be describing Washington DC, Philly, Detroit, or LA? The "criminal activity" and murder rates in these citys make Iraq look like a schoolyard. I guess we know where those troops should be "deployed" when they are cowardly ordered home by our defeatist on the left.

Folks like Steve J point to the enemy's ability to conduct any operations AT ALL as proof we're losing. Thank God folks like him didn't run the country in the aftermath of Pusan, Bastogne, Corregidor, Meuse-Argonnes, Cold Harbor, Churubusco, Bladensburg, Elizabethtown, etc...

Steve J.
You brought up this quote:

"Petraeus will tell Congress that sectarian violence has dropped 75% since last December."

You said: "If he does, he will be lying to Congress."

Here's a non-government source that backs up what you say:

“This year's U.S. troop buildup has succeeded in bringing violence in Baghdad down from peak levels, but **the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago**…The AP tracking includes Iraqi civilians, government officials, police and security forces killed in attacks such as gunfights and bombings, which are frequently blamed on Sunni suicide strikes. It also includes execution-style killings largely the work of Shiite death squads. The figures are considered a minimum based on AP reporting. The actual numbers are likely higher, as many killings go unreported or uncounted. Insurgent deaths are not a part of the Iraqi count…Iraq is suffering about double the number of war-related deaths throughout the country compared with last year an average daily toll of 33 in 2006, and 62 so far this year. Nearly 1,000 more people have been killed in violence across Iraq in the first eight months of this year than in all of 2006. So far this year, about 14,800 people have died in war-related attacks and sectarian murders. AP reporting accounted for 13,811 deaths in 2006.”

Associated Press Worldstream
August 26, 2007 Sunday 12:10 AM GMT
Iraq violence down from peak late last year but still running at double the pace
BYLINE: By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer
SECTION: INTERNATIONAL NEWS
LENGTH: 1339 words
DATELINE: BAGHDAD

Tom W:
"Hmmm... Who to believe?"
The AP quotes actual numbers from their own accounting, which are minimum numbers. The government picks a number out of a hat(down 75%) with no supporting statistics, and their number just happens to fall in line with overall government goals. An independent news organization finds completely different results. I know who I believe. I know, the AP is lying.

Ed wrote:
The increased and newly-aggressive US forces have pushed al-Qaeda in Iraq off balance, and the result has been a "dramatic" decrease in both sectarian violence and roadside bomb attacks:

Why, pray tell, were our forces not aggressive the first four years? Who led them in passive way while public support at home evaporated? Who is acountable? What military leadership is committed to any doctrine except victory and the assertive use of force in destroying the enemy? I fear that although Petreaus now has the right idea, it may be too little, too late.

“Roadside bombs continue to be the largest danger to American forces, but those have declined over the period of the surge as well. Eight of the last eleven weeks have seen reductions in these attacks, and now the rate is lower than it has been throughout Iraq in over a year.” -Captain

“In the May-July period this year, the number of U.S. military deaths from IEDs soared to 203, accounting for 66 percent of all U.S. fatalities, according to the authoritative Web site icasualties.org, which tracks military casualties in Iraq. Those numbers have climbed steadily from the same three-month period in 2004, when 54 Americans were killed by IEDs, 31 percent of total fatalities.”

Even the Pentagon is part of the cut-and-run crowd:

“The daily number of IED attacks has increased six-fold since 2003, the Pentagon says. On one day in May, 101 of the 139 anti-U.S. attacks involved IEDs.”

Associated Press Online
August 20, 2007 Monday 8:43 PM GMT
US Military Struggles to `defeat' IEDs
BYLINE: By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent
SECTION: INTERNATIONAL NEWS
LENGTH: 1144 words

“The best estimate is that about one in three soldiers lost in 2004 was killed by an IED. Now it's more like four out of five, Newsweek reports. About 50 soldiers a month are killed or injured by IEDs, up from about 30 a year ago.”

The White House Bulletin
August 13, 2007 Monday
US Military Still Stymied By Iraqi Insurgents' Use Of IEDs
SECTION: IN THIS WEEK'S WEEKLIES
LENGTH: 624 words
Newsweek (8/20-27, Thomas, Barry, 3.12M)

50 a month now, 30 a month a year ago, sounds like a 66% increase to me.

The Johns of this world of course know how to fight a war better than the people who are actually fighting it.

The success that is now being experienced in Iraq is not as a result of an increasingly aggressive posture on the part of the coalition forces. It is the opposite. The increasingly aggressive posture is as a result of the groundwork which has been laid over the past four years.

The Surge would not be working if the Iraqi forces had not been built up to the point where they can now hold territory which has been cleared.

The effect of the tribes in Anbar turning against the insurgency is an under reported but hugely significant factor in creating the momentum for pacification. The tribes flipped because they saw first hand how al Qaeda operates and they also got to experience first hand the honorable manner in which (the vast majority of) American forces are carrying out their mission.

Those who complain that progress hasn't occured more quickly are saying more about their own mentality (and lack of historical knowledge) than anything else.

Why do all of you liberals want us to lose so badly. What the hell is the matter with you?

Joefrommass,

An excellent question... and you'll never get a straight answer from them.

joefrommass:

The answer to your question would take me far too long to detail. For me, this is not a game to "win" or "lose". Hundreds of thousand of people are dying. Anyway, I just happened to read an article the other day that reflects my answer to your question pretty well. It is written by a former CIA analyst. Read the part in bold:

http://counterpunch.com/christison08272007.html

I don't necessarily agree totally with the part at the end about the voters making a difference. People on the left always want to take credit for ending wars (like Vietnam). Truth is, the Iraqis will win this war, just like the Vietnamese people did. The left just likes to feel like they did something.

BTW, I live in Boston. Maybe we should go out for a drink sometime!

I would like to see the context of that 75% reduction in sectarian violence quote. Whether it is accurate or not is debatable. What is not debatable is the positive trends, both military and political, that have developed since the surge began. Liberals are horrified by any good news from Iraq that they always have to downplay and lie about it.

Joefrommass,

The answer to your question is that many liberals are treasonous anti American scumbags who will do ANYTHING to further their political agenda. They don’t consider themselves Americans; they feel that they are some sort of transnational progressives who are more loyal to the UN than to America.

I used to not feel this way but it has become increasingly obvious whoose side they are rooting for and its not the U.S. Its kind of bizzare that they cheer on the Islamic facists considering that they will be the first ones to have their heads chopped off.

I don't know if I would believe any of the cheerleaders. You might want to read Anthony Cordesman. He says that basicly British have lost the south and while there has been progress in the surge, the government is non-functioning. What power does the Maliki have in the south? What do you expect with too few troops?

Why would you want to believe people who have been wrong from day one?

Republicans are just so STUPID.

The "Surge" will be declared a success and the war will continue without troop drawdown. American soldiers will continue to die at the rate of 3 or 4 a day. The country will continue to bleed cash by the billions. The Iraqi "government" will fall before Christmas and anarchy will ensue. The American public will be appalled by what they see on their television screens next winter and spring, and it will all be firmly and forever connected in their minds with the Republican party who kept clamoring for this war to continue.

This will all happen in an election year which means the Democrats will take the White House and hold supermajorities in both the Senate and the House, and they will be able to do whatever they please with the country (and the Supreme Court) for years to come.

Heckuva job, kids!

I'm afraid you've been had.

dave -

Were Bilal Hussein, Qais Al-Bashir or "Police Captain Jamil Hussein" contributors to this story? For you to quote the AP to attack the veracity of Petreaus is just -- ignorant.

dave -

Were Bilal Hussein, Qais Al-Bashir or "Police Captain Jamil Hussein" contributors to this story? For you to quote the AP to attack the veracity of Petreaus is just -- ignorant.

joefrommass:
“Why do all of you liberals want us to lose so badly.”

I am tired of waiting for my earlier reply to this to get approved, so I’ll repost.
Read the part in bold here:

counterpunch.com/christison08272007.html

This, written by an former CIA analyst, is a good synopsis of why I want the US to “lose”.
The first paragraph is “For overwhelming moral reasons, I do NOT want the U. S. and Israeli governments to be victorious in any present or future Middle East wars. I want them to lose such wars.”

For you, the US should win because you live here. I don’t think like that. I evaluate situations objectively. For example, if my brother tried to rape a woman, I would not want him to “win” and succeed with the rape. I would want the woman to “win”, by whatever means necessary. My connection to my brother does not matter. I evaluate situations in moral terms. 99.9% of people are unable to see situations which include themselves or their country objectively and in moral terms, which is why you are only concerned with “winning”.

Jack Okie:
I also quoted Newsweek, and the Pentagon also made a statement in the one article. So the Pentagon, Newsweek, the AP, Bilal Hussein, and Qais Al-Bashir have banned together to discredit Petraus? Sounds like a cool conspiracy.

Bill K posts that he is tired of hearing --"once again" -- "Just a few more months..."

The problem being, no one in the military or the administration is saying this now, nor have they ever said it before. They have always said we shall stay until the job is done, and there will be no timetable.

And yet you are tired of hearing "just a few more months."

I suggest that the problem is with your ears. And I don't think anyone can help you with that.

Dave=Traitor

joefrommass:
"Dave=Traitor"

This statement verifies all that I said in my post. It illustrates perfectly the complexity of thought in the mind of the average Republican.

Here's another way to answer your question. Multiply this story from today by a hundred thousand:

news.com.au/story/0,23599,22339301-38198,00.html

BTW, I mentioned it in my first answer to you, which is still awaiting verification, but I live in Boston! Maybe we should meet at a bar and watch a game together!

Dave

If you can compare America and Israel to rapist I think my comparing you to a traitor is pretty mild. No thanks on the invite

The link Dave provides from counterpunch.com/christison08272007.html points out just exactly how diseased the "reasoning" is from some corners of the left on this issue. Dave thinks Christison's comments are persuasive but they fail basic Debating 101 in a number of ways.

The assertion that over a million people have died in the Middle East as a result of "U.S. Policies" fails to account for the expected number of deaths under the Hussein and Taliban regimes, ignores the fact that the policies in place are not designed to encourage or sanction terrorist activities, which are responsible for many of the deaths and frequently target civilians, unlike officially sanctioned U.S./Coalition activities. Finally, the number itself is uncited and highly suspect given the ongoing debate about casualties. It is an overly broad, unsupportable assertion.

The most ludicrous assertion though is that hoping for U.S./Israel defeat is somehow a "moral" position. The vast majority of Middle Eastern governments are totalitarian dictatorships that regularly abuse and kill their citizens with little dissuasion from the West. These are the alternatives to U.S./Isreali/Western European influence (and not imperium, which is ridiculous given unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, the assert by the Abbas that the West Bank is not ready for Israeli withdrawal, U.S. military withdrawal from Saudi Arabia, U.S. acquiesence to Turkish refusal to allow miltary operations in Iraq to proceed from there, the use of minimal forces in Afghanistan, etc. etc. etc.). The current governments in the Middle East, Israel, Turkey, and now Iraq and Afghanistan, are the only legitimate democratic, representative states. All are notably allies of the U.S., despite some geopolitical disagreements.

Dave and Christison's prescriptions are ones that will leave the remainder of the Middle East to the tender mercies of either the autocrats currently abusing their citizens or the Islamists willing to continually shed blood for the Caliphate. They offer no real prescription for democracy, liberty, or civil rights in these countries, only the presumption that chaos will ensue. They ignore the fact that Europe, still in part populated with American troops, is not dominated politically or socially (beyond American cultural influences, which have a worldwide scope beyond any military presence) by the U.S. France and Germany are two key examples of this.

Finally, Christison completely bollocks-up the concept of "exceptionalism," confusing it with xenophobia and the idea of the nationalistic individual supremacy. American exceptionalism is based on the quality of the American experiment, not some arrogant notion of the individual superiority of American citizens as a group or race. While America has made plenty of mistakes in her history, the national ideals of liberty and republican democracy are clearly superior to the anachronistic and regressive authoritarian regimes of most Middle Eastern governments and radical Islamist movements. That the ideals are shared in some variety or another by most Western industrialized nations, and a large portion of Middle Eastern citizens themselves (if you take the time to ask) is proof of this.

Hope for American and Israeli defeat, is hope for the defeat of the only active powers promoting democracy in the Middle East. Claiming that those actions, because they come under the cloud of violence, are somehow anti-democractic, even as they remove dictatorships, is both ironic and ridiculous.

I used to think the stereotype of the self-loathing American

Dave

There is nothing complex about it. I think that if America is sucessful in Iraq that it is a good thing, while you think it is a bad thing. Nuff said. I don't need to hear anymore. I don't wish to understand your way of thinking because it is deranged.

(continued)

I used to think the stereotype of the self-loathing American was an exaggeration but Dave and Christison present classic examples of people willing to criticize their national interests out of context of the interests of the opponents of America, and with seemingly no regard (beyond the occasional lipservice to peace, despite the fact that few people seriously predict or expect "peace" in the Middle East in the absence of American influence or personnel.

It truly boggles the mind to hear such ideas seriously expounded.

I love this blog

Filistro said:

"The Iraqi "government" will fall before Christmas and anarchy will ensue. The American public will be appalled by what they see on their television screens next winter and spring"

Filistro,

This is what will happen is we precipitously withdrawal, not if we stay and continue with the new counterinsurgency strategy. I believe that many liberals want precisely what you described above to happen, which is why they want us out so badly without any regards to the consequences of such actions. Their hope is that genocide and chaos will fill the television screens right around election time so they can expand their political power. That is why they time the withdrawal about 8 months before the elections so they can maximize the bloodshed right around Election Day. Words cannot describe the contempt I have for people who would sacrifice millions of people to death and oppression so they can win politically.

I have no idea whether the surge will work or if it will just be a short term solution. What I do know is that abandoning the Iraqis to Al Qaeda and Iran would be an incredibly immoral and strategically stupid decision.

Tim W says.. Words cannot describe the contempt I have for people who would sacrifice millions of people to death and oppression so they can win politically.

Wow, yeah.. what Tim said! I couldn't agree more. Yet this is precisely what George W. Bush did by going to war in Iraq, and now continues, simply to make sure he'll hand his war off to the next president so nobody can say he "quit." 'Cause he's not a quitter, see? He's a TOUGH DUDE. He lands on aircraft carriers.

Oh, barf.

The fact is, Tim, chaos is goign to happen in Iraq no matter what we do. It will either be immediate or slightly postponed, but it is going to happen. What the Republicans are doing with this insane "Surge" (as opposed to an intelligent and well-planned drawdown) is making sure the chaos, the bloody aftermath and the stench of failure will stick to their party for years.

No, I'm wrong. It will stick for decades.

Dave's morality is turned upside down. He is cheering for those who deny basic human rights to others. He is cheering for fascism to defeat the rule of law. He is cheering for the rapists and head choppers to prevail over those who are trying to create a civil society.

Dave is confused beyond belief.

Who:
"The assertion that over a million people have died in the Middle East as a result of "U.S. Policies" fails to account for the expected number of deaths under the Hussein..."

According to HRW, Saddam killed or dissapeared 460,000 people of his 24 year rule. So Saddam's government is responsible for about 20,000 deaths per year. The moral thing to do, then, is for the US to bomb the f%%k out of Iraq for the next generation, so far causing 250,000 deaths per year over the first 4 years. Why is it moral to remove Saddam, and in the process kill people at 10 times the rate that Saddam did?

Unlike the rest of the first world, the US refuses to grant its citizens universal health care. This policy results in 18,000 deaths per year. The US government is responsible for these deaths. Would the moral thing for Russia to do, then, be to bomb the f#%k out of the US and kill over a million US citizens in the next 4 years?

You say that because Saddam was killing 20,000 people per year, the moral thing to is to bomb the crap out of the country, even if it causes 10 times as many deaths. But if we wanted to save that many lives, wouldn't it have been easier to just give American health insurance? We would have saved nearly as many lives, the lives would have been American lives (which we all know are infinitely more important than the lives of brown people), and it would have been a lot cheaper.

Who:
At 20,000 kills per year, it would have taken Saddam at least 50 more years to kill as many people as the US has already (amateur). Unless we expected Saddam to live to be 115, it would had been easier and saved more lives to simply wait for him to die.

Filistro said

"Yet this is precisely what George W. Bush did by going to war in Iraq, and now continues, simply to make sure he'll hand his war off to the next president so nobody can say he quit"

Filistro,

Did it ever occur to you that Bush is trying to achieve stability in Iraq because its in America's strategic interests as well as being the moral thing to do?

The idea that Bush invaded Iraq for political reasons is really not very serious or worthy of discussion. There were lots of reasons we invaded but politics was not one of them. Long bloody wars are never political winners. The administration never promised a short war or one with minimum bloodshed. Most analysts at the time thought we would lose 10,000 KIA taking Baghdad alone. Both the Republicans and Democrats have played politics with the war. The difference is the Republicans want to win politically by winning the war while the Democrats want to win politically by losing the war.

Dave

Your figure of of one million is pure leftist fanatsy. The anti-liberation IBC puts the count of innocent civilians killed at no more than 78,000, and a lot of these cannot fairly be considered as "innocent". The vast majority of innocent civilians have been killed by terrorists-insurgents and otherwise. Far from proving that the war was unnecessary the brutality exhibited throughout by these fanatics proves the necesssity of armed force to enable a civil society to be created in Iraq.

By reasonable estimates Saddam was killing innocents at the rate of about 25,000 per year. This does not include the hundreds of thousands who died in the wars he startd nor the tens of thousands (50,000 per year according to UNICEF) , who died because of sanctions.

The war to liberate Iraq has saved lives even as it is being fought. The coalition's mission is the most generous and noble undertaking ever carried out by a group of nations for the benefit of another nation.

dave said:

Read the part in bold here:

counterpunch.com/christison08272007.html

This, written by an former CIA analyst, is a good synopsis of why I want the US to “lose”.

LOL! That name in the URL set off my BS detector. This Christison clown is also a Truther and believes a missile hit the Pentagon on 9/11. Barbara Olson could not be reached for comment.

And filistro says of the evil Bush:

" He's a TOUGH DUDE. He lands on aircraft carriers."

Wow, I can't believe you people still have your panties in a wad over that aircraft carrier thing. Move on, for crying out loud!

By the way, according to the US Navy, Bush's predecessor staged 4, count 'em 4, aircraft carrier photo ops in his 8 years in office, or 4 times as many as Shrub did. Does that mean he's 4 times as tough as Dubyah?

Dave says;

"At 20,000 kills per year, it would have taken Saddam at least 50 more years to kill as many people as the US has already (amateur). Unless we expected Saddam to live to be 115, it would had been easier and saved more lives to simply wait for him to die."

Dave,

Your one million killed number is pure fantasy. I know you want it to be true but that does not make it so. Assuming 4.5 years of war, that works out to an average of 609 killed every day. There are only a handful of days of which I am aware of casualties exceeding or approaching those numbers. I am assuming that this is a present day extrapolation of the Lancet study, which was a political document meant to sway the US elections in both 2004 and 2006. Both of those studies were completely debunked and each one was about 10 times greater than multiple other sources such as the UN, Associated Press, IBC and the Iraqi government.

In regards to your post above, you also need to remember that Saddam's sons would have taken over and they were more ruthless and crazy than he was. You really need to get your "facts" from somewhere other than prison planet.com or counterpunch (two of the sources you posted links to).

I do admire the fact that you are quite open with your treason as it is refreshingly honest for a leftist, and yes rooting for your country to lose a war and spreading enemy propaganda is treason.

Del,

In addition to being a traitor, Dave is also a Truther so there is really no point in talking with him since he is obviously insane. Nothing we say will ever penetrate the fantasy land that he lives in.

My God, someone actually said "why I want the US to “lose”.

Losing the iraq war means more dead Americans, more caskets sent home, more grieving American families -- that's what you're hoping for.

dave.

You really are a jackass. You should be mocked and ridiculed at every opportunity. You've earned it.

The horrible thing is that US troop deaths have increased from last year at this time.

"My God, someone actually said "why I want the US to “lose”.

Losing the iraq war means more dead Americans, more caskets sent home, more grieving American families -- that's what you're hoping for."

Continuing this insane war will result in more deaths on both sides.

Only a sub-human moron values the life of one person more than another based on his NATIONALITY. None of us chooses our origin of birth, and the vast majority of us do not have the choice of uprooting ourselves and our families to move somewhere else simply because we disagree with the actions of our government. As a Christian, why should I cheer on the actions of the nation in which I live if I feel they are morally wrong? The Iraqis didn't start this war. The U.S. did. It is arguably the most morally repugnant action in the history of the United States, and that is indeed saying something. Only those without a conscience, or any working neurons, continue to support it.

"As a Christian, why should I cheer on the actions of the nation in which I live if I feel they are morally wrong?"

And as a Christian TCA, I believe it would be morally wrong to abandon the Iraqi to be slaughtered to the tune of millions, and I DO NOT cheer the deaths of either. Is it "Christian" to accept that suicide bombings that slaughter the innocent men women and children is some how moral, or do you think we are the cause of this?

I question your conscience, but will not judge it.

"It is arguably the most morally repugnant action in the history of the United States....."

Check your old testament TCA, you may find nations exterminated for far more "morally repugnant actions" that were ordered and sanctioned by Gods armys.

And may God bless you for your salvation.

TCA

This is one sub-human moron who can actually read despite the absence of a single working neuron. Did I say that you have to "cheer" for anything that you don't believe in? Jackass dave is rooting for more American deaths.

Are you? Is that the Christian thing to do?

Terry Gain:
“ The coalition's mission is the most generous and noble undertaking ever carried out by a group of nations for the benefit of another nation.”

Maybe we will be extra noble when we bomb Iran and use nukes. We are so generous.

Tim W:
“I am assuming that this is a present day extrapolation of the Lancet study, which was a political document meant to sway the US elections in both 2004 and 2006. Both of those studies were completely debunked…”

Let's talk about the debunking. Do you have a problem with cluster sampling? The US spends millions through the SMART initiative to train NGO’s to run surveys using cluster sampling. Reports using this method are put out from the groups such as the USGAO and USAID. Why would they do this if the method is inaccurate? Or do you have a different problem with the report? Talk to me.

“You really need to get your ‘facts’ from somewhere other than prison planet.com or counterpunch (two of the sources you posted links to).”

Show me what fact I got from prison planet. I did not link to counterpunch for any presentation of facts. Someone asked me an opinion about something, and I said my opinion was similar to one on Counterpunch. Opinions are different than facts. As to the one million number, this derives from the Lancet, a very prestigious peer-reviewed journal. The type of source that will never, ever, be used to back up anything on a blog such as this. The methodology used is far superior to that used for IBC, the UN, or the Iraqi government, and is the same methodology used by the US government in places such as Kosovo. When the methodology produces figures that support government policy, it is accurate. When it does not support government policy, it is useless and inaccurate. This type of viewpoint is normal for politics and right wing blogs, but not for science.

“I do admire the fact that you are quite open with your treason as it is refreshingly honest…”
Thank you. You are very correct that I do not blindly believe the government of the country I live in. For you that is treason. Fine.

Only one cannoli:
“Losing the iraq war means more dead Americans, more caskets sent home…”

How can this be correct? If American troops come home tomorrow, there will be no Americans there to come home in caskets. It’s only staying there that allows more Americans to die, and far more Iraqis.

“Jackass dave is rooting for more American deaths.”

No. Neither I nor the article I linked to said this, and it is you who is the jackass for saying I did. I am rooting for the US to lose as quickly as possible. They are going to lose anyway, and losing quickly saves lives. The sooner we lose, the sooner people stop dying. By rooting for the US to stay in Iraq indefinitely, it is you that is rooting for American deaths. But you really don’t care about that. The only thing you care about is “winning”, because of your pathetic inflated ego brought about by whatever insecurity you have (I hope it’s not the obvious one). No amount of dead people will convince you to outgrow that feeling.

I am rooting for the US to lose as quickly as possible. They are going to lose anyway, and losing quickly saves lives.

This is where, IMO Dave, you are fatally wrong in your implication. This analogy did not work for millions who perished in southeast asia when we deserted the Vietnamese. What part about the jihadist and al-queda returning to our shores don't you understand? Does their mission for the Califate just not compute in your world? Denial may be fine for those who would love to bring all our troops home and wait for the next attack, or worse have to send a half million back over there ten years from now.

What you also fail to comprehend is WE ARE NOT LOSING.

General Petraeus and the Small People in Congress

This week, General David Petraeus made his long awaited report to Congress on the state of the war in Iraq. As we all know, the general described the progress that has been made since the implementaion of the "The Surge" and his projection of the need to keep troop levels at the current number through the rest of the year and part of 2008. What is remarkable (and so disgusting) is the statements coming from the Democrats and far-left disparaging Petraeus even before he appeared.

For the record, General David Petraeus is a highly respected and highly decorated veteran with a sterling military record. Last January, he was confirmed by the Senate unaminously to take over the lead in Iraq. There was absolutely no opposition to his appointment. Yet, now, with his highly anticipated appearnce looming, suddenly the Democrats in Congress and their supporters on the far left began a campaign of character assassination against the general for the purposes of discrediting his testimony even before given. In spite of reassurances from Petraeus and the White House that his report had not been formed in consultation with the Administration, people like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid made public statements to the effect that Petraeus was merely going to parrot the policy of the Bush Administration and tell the Congress what a good job he (Petraeus) was doing. Thus, Petraeus was portrayed as a political hack, whose up and coming testimony could not be trusted nor believed. Reid even went so far as to cast doubt on previous statements by the General.

Then there were the mad hatters at Moveon.org, who this past week, took out a full-page ad in the New York Times describing Petraeus as "General Betray Us", a clear slap at the general's loyalty to his country. Yet, did any of the Democrats speak out against this outrage, even when called upon to distance themselves from the article? Not at all. They are much too afraid of the Moveon folks and the other far-left blogs to do that.

In the face of all this, General Petraeus appeared Monday, and in his professional and dignified fashion, made his report to Congress. He made all those empty suits in Congress look like the pygmies they were.

Regardless of what one thinks of the Iraq War, this attack on the character of General Petraeus was a disgusting spectacle made by hack politicians who were afraid the general was going to tell them things they did not want to hear, so they attacked the general even before he opened his mouth. They questioned the integrity of the very man who is on the ground in Iraq putting his own life on the line. Many of his detractors in Congress have not been to Iraq, yet they pretend to know more than the man leading the effort there. Their attack on Petraeus was also a slap in the face of every man and woman serving in Iraq.

By all accounts, General David Petraeus is a man of whom the military and the nation can be proud. He did not deserve the personal attacks laid upon him by the likes of Reid, Kerry and others. Where was the support from the Democrats for our soldiers fighting in Iraq? Where was the expression of hopes for victory?

To sum it all up, General Petraeus did what I knew he would do: He made his detractors in Congress look like very small people.

gary fouse
fousesquawk