Good. About the lowest level, I mean.

...with or without suicides and "accidents". Any accident which does not inlcude "enemy fire" isn't counted.

We have accidents and suicides during peacetime also.Its the demographics.

Well lets all kiss President Bushes ass !!!

Right after the worst month since the surge began.

The point?

If the Iraqis are standing up (finally) then why do we need to be there? especially for the next hundred years?
If this is a blip, after 5 years, and the Iraqis still can't find their ass with two hands and an anatomy text book, why are we still there?

I mean, other than Bush's ego.

McCain translation-

My friends, in May we had no one die in Iraq. No deaths, nbo murders, no suicides, no suicide bombimbs, no snipers, no heart attacks, no still borns, no nothing. My friends, the surge is working better than we thought.

Bring them home. Bring them home. Bring them home.

This is bad news for Obama and the dems who are rooting for an American defeat.

"This is bad news for Obama and the dems who are rooting for an American defeat"

More blithering from the dim witted right. What? "The dems hate America" didn't fit this topic, tool?

"We have accidents and suicides during peacetime also."

Thank you Captain Obvious!!

"This is bad news for Obama and the dems who are rooting for an American defeat"

More blithering from the dim witted right. What? "The dems hate America" didn't fit this topic, tool? Posted by evilpolock at 2008-06-02 12:35 AM | Reply

That's right. Now, we will hear about how we are "winning" the war. A huge logical fallacy of course though. Premise for war: Saddam WMDs and links to Al Qaeda. So, to win the war, we had to remove the threat of WMDs from Iraq and disintegrate all ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. That was the clear and stated objective, stated to the American people and the world. But these objectives were realized before the first shot was fired, because they never existed. So, what can be meant by "winning this war", when the premise for the war never existed. Maybe a better word is "damage control". We're doing a kick ass job of "damage control" these days in Iraq. After 5 years on the "damage control" front in Iraq, we are kicking some real ass. Nah, scrap that damage control stuff--too complex a thought, doesn't make a good "talking point". Let's just call it a war. "The War Against Something That Didn't Exist". Wow, profound.

Iraq W-A-R. Yeah, going good. We're warring our asses off over there. We got "warring" in da howse. But what about that little footnote thing called GWOT? What does that stand for again? Global War on Terrorism? Seems like we forgot about that, we are so busy warring our asses off in Iraq. How about that great job we're doing neutralizing the Taliban and AQ in the tribal areas on the Afghan-Paki border? Yeah, our little dictator friend in Karachi got thumped, despite killing Benazir Bhutto, and the new government is telling us to fuck off and die. What a brilliant display of political statesmanship from Bush there. Yeah, we don't seem to do so well negotiating with democracies these days. Dictators are so much easier for ol' Dubya. He looks up to them I think (in envy). And our ol' friends the Taliban? Didn't they harbor OBL? Heard something of that back in 2001. They seem to be just thriving these days. Bin Laden? Alive and kicking, bad kidneys and all. Well golly gee willikers batman, maybe GWOT isn't going as well as The Iraq War (aka Operation Iraqi Freedumb)? So, in summary, we suck at going after those responsible for 9/11, but we kick ass at damage control of a country we attacked that was of no threat to the U.S. AWESOME! McCain is a shoe-in now! Woooh! what a relief.

with or without suicides and "accidents". Any accident which does not include "enemy fire" isn't counted.

Posted by nutcase


right of course, but look also at the 'accidents' that happen in the course of training and when we weren't AT WAR with islamic terrorists.a WAR they started and a WAR that clinton wanted to treat like someone breaking into his house.............


so I understand how all of you are going to do your best at making this insignificant..BUT IT WONT WORK.....and dont even TRY to tell us two things.
dont even THINK about telling us the god damned surge didnt work.......
and the other.......well just below this headline in the houston chronicle is a sub heading that reads..
"civilian casualties also fell in may as a truce with shite extremists took hold"
and dont even try and tell us that the american trained Iraqi army doesnt have anythimg to do with this truce holding. we 'aint' buying what you are selling.

Bring them home. Bring them home. Bring them home.

Posted by Jomama at


you know old boy, I agree completely and wholeheartedly with you.............all the way 100 and ten percent...........the difference is I want them all home when the job is done and you want them home in defeat with their tails between their legs because it would be political expedient.
and that might not be your intentions but it will be what will happen if your boy obama is in the white house.

"This is bad news for Obama and the dems who are rooting for an American defeat"

More blithering from the dim witted right. What? "The dems hate America" didn't fit this topic, tool?

Posted by evilpolock at 2008-06-


no, bud, its the sad, sad truth. your side is invested in defeat and thats the only way for your side to regain the white house and to keep the soros wing of the dems happy. its losing a war to win the white house..........and your side calls US party over country'rs.............

and oh yeah..........I really dont believe that any of you libs hate this country but sometimes I have to stretch my faith in all of you to the limit with some of the anti american....anti capitalistic...anti patriotic...rhetoric that can be read here.

My friends, with all this good news coming out of Iraq I have arranged with my friends in the media to provide us with reports and pictures from Fallujah. There will be some restrictions on the pictures and reporting, of course, because of national security reasons, my friends, but otherwise the work of these embedded reporters will be completely uncensored, my friends.

My friends, together with the pictures and reports of the ethnically cleansed, excuse me, my friends, I meant peaceful Baghdad neighborhoods and the Berlin Walls, excuse me, my friends I meant zoning separating them from each other, I can confidently state that my timetable for the occupation of Iraq will now only be 87 years, my friends.

Excuse me, my friends, I misspoke, I meant the mutual co-operation between our two great countries, my friends.

This is bad news for Obama and the dems who are rooting for an American defeat.

Posted by fwthom at 2008-06-01 11:05 PM | Reply |


Ya Know... Another Trillion Dollars or so, another 4,000 to 5,000 US Soldiers Dead, another 30,000 US Soldiers Wounded or maimed for life,another 500,000 Iraqi Civilians killed and a 100 Year Commitment to stay in Iraq while our own country falls the fuck apart econpmically.

Obama should be scared. We're obviously winning in Iraq!!

McCain translation-

My friends, in May we had no one die in Iraq. No deaths, nbo murders, no suicides, no suicide bombimbs, no snipers, no heart attacks, no still borns, no nothing. My friends, the surge is working better than we thought.

So my friends, we must stay in Iraq for the next 100 years to ensure that the oil... er I mean no one dies.

...........the difference is I want them all home when the job is done

Please define "The Job Is Done."

right of course, but look also at the 'accidents' that happen in the course of training and when we weren't AT WAR with islamic terrorists.a WAR they started and a WAR that clinton wanted to treat like someone breaking into his house.............




Iraq attached the US?

gee your dumb

"civilian casualties also fell in may as a truce with shite extremists took hold"



sub sub heading

"Thanks to Iran"

Interesting, the right feel they are winning the war because it is SAID that deaths are down. So how in the world do they equate winning with lower deaths in the MONTH of may respective of last years may or the year before that or the year before that or the year before that?

"Iraq attached(sic) the US?

gee your(sic) dumb"


*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*

Sounds like one hell of a cease fire, only 20 U.S. troops were kill during the may cease fire.......the surge is working.

Presently we have Scott McClellan telling us that the media did not do a very good job informing us about the truth about WMDs, Al Quaeda in Iraq, etc. when they were "sellling" this war. Why would anyone now believe what they tell us any more than before. Sorry, there is no free press in Iraq, our reporters are mostly afraid to venture out into the country to find out what is really happening, all we have is what the government tells us and their credibility is non-existent.
Secondly, we are involved in an occupation of Iraq not a war. The war ended with the defeat of Saddam's forces so there is absolutely now way we can now be defeated. The way Iraq chooses to run its affairs into the future will determine whether the cynical plot to appropriate their oil was successful or not, right now it looks as though it is not. Iraq is and will continue to be a member of OPEC and its oil will be exported at the same price as other OPEC nations but let the Iraqis pay to guard it and protect thier own oil fields, etc. We should be leaving Iraq as fast as it is safe for our troops to leave. When President Obama takes office that is exactly what we will do while the whining right can call us all the meaningless names they want, it just doesn't work any more. No one believes them or the government's reports of what is happening in Iraq any more.

"When President Obama takes office that is exactly what we will do while the whining right can call us all the meaningless names they want, it just doesn't work any more."
--DANNI

According to "President Obama," an exit would have to be accompanied by negotiations between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds.

How long do you think that will take?

BLT,
Somehow you conflate leaving Iraq, so that they can run their own country, with turning tail and running? As Ron White would say, next time you have a thought, let it go. There is no military solution which means there can never be victory. If you disagree, sketch out your scenario of victory. Give me your metrics. Who will be signing the peace treaty? Who will surrender?
We are now occupiers and referees of a civil war. That is our sole purpose there. If Iraq truly wanted the democracy your president has tried to force feed them, they'd have stood up long ago.
The reality is there will never be anything even vaguely resembling a democracy in Iraq, as long as religious leaders carry that much sway.

"How long do you think that will take?"

Not very long. I say we call them together announce we will be leaving and provide a time table. If they want their country to descend into chaos it is their choice but no more Americans should die because they don't want to get serious about peace.

Secondly, we are involved in an occupation of Iraq not a war.

Posted by danni at 2008-06-02 08:33 AM | Reply

This is the essence of the debate. The one Dumbfuck Bush Republicans can't seem to comprehend in their pea sized brains.

"This is the essence of the debate."

And....it was the reasoning behind McCain's hundred year comments. He doesn't like being reminded but permanent occupation is their goal whether they want to admit it or not. Just in the past few days he was caught lying about troop strength being at pre-Surge levels when in fact it is still above pre-surge levels. He knew that or else he is somewhat semile. The McCain supporters can choose which explanation they prefer but the thing is McCain intends a permanent large force in Iraq and the American voter should be made very aware of that fact.

Please define "The Job Is Done."

Posted by 726

Do I have to tell you everything? That is when you wipe and there is no brown on the paper.

This really is good news. Clearly the Iraqis are standing up so FFS let us stand down.

"Not very long. I say we call them together announce we will be leaving and provide a time table. If they want their country to descend into chaos it is their choice but no more Americans should die because they don't want to get serious about peace."
--DANNI

I don't know that announcing a timetable will make them start negotiating all of a sudden. Plus, isn't it all just a bluff if we're going to simultaneously say that the Iraqis have *this much* time to get their act together, but that we're going to wait for them to start negotiating to pull troops, which could take longer than the timetable?

Sounds conflicting.

I really do not believe there will be that much difference in troop withdrawls whether McCain or Obama are Pres. Both will do it in some orderly fashion. As some have pointed out, Obama will negotiate and tie the withdrawl to certain activities. Hey so will McCain.

What I do not get are those who believe that McCain wants a war for the sake of having a war. He knows perhaps as well as anyone what goes on in a war. Certainly he has and infinitely greater understanding that Obama. So why would he want US citizens in harms way for one more day than is necessary?

Maybe the real argument is over how long is necessary.

I was not really for this war when it started. But I feel that we have made a mess over there and we need to clean it up. People talk about our standing in the world. Certainly it has taken a sever beating because of this war. But imagine how much greater it will be if we leave things worse than when we started.

That is the challenge that faces Obama and McCain to withdraw as soon as possible without making it any worse.

"I don't know that announcing a timetable will make them start negotiating all of a sudden."

Then they only have themselves to blame if chaos erupts. We should tell them they have X amount of days before our troops begin leaving and nothing should disturb that timetable. That would put pressure on them to compromise, if not, it's their funeral. We have to stop letting them control our policy decisions by just refusing to compromise.

This is bad news for Obama and the dems who are rooting for an American defeat.

Actually, I think this is neutral to good news for Obama. Obama will do well as long as we have the stalemate/quagmire in Iraq. Even though we occasionally get good news out of there, esp. regarding our military, it's typically offset by a whole series of failures of the Iraqi government. I also can't picture McCain campaigning on "only" twenty deaths.

If things go very well in Iraq, where we get a rash of positive news before the election, or if things get very, very bad, I think it'll bode well for McCain.

All in all, I think most Americans are simply frustrated with Iraq and want some kind resolution with our next President. Either things should get very good and we withdraw, or they get very bad and we withdraw. The current scenario of mixed military successes and massive political failures is not leading to any kind of resolution.

Personally, I think Obama needs to be more aggressive in combating those who are charging him with meaningless propaganda, using words like "defeat", "surrender", or "appeasment". Kerry took the high road with these kind of accusations and by the time he responded, the damage was already done.

For every accusation of "appeasement" Obama receives, he needs to slam back at the real appeasers, who support giving amnesty to Iraqi insurgents who killed Americans, as well as those who support bribing warlords to not attack our forces.

In some ways this is great, but in another way it shows what a disaster Rumsfeld was and how poorly they planned for the post invasion. If they had gone in with the "Surge" level of troops far greater obviously things would have gone better... that can't be denied. Doesn't mean it was wrong to go in, just means it wasn't planned well enough.

truth is altough some of us think iraq is the be all and end all of the war in terror --it is not radical islam will continue it's war against the west no matter what happens in iraq-they are trainin 5 yr olds to continue on(palistinianmother last week refused an operation to save her son's life because it was funded by isreal)if yoy think this mindset can be changed by what happens in iraq you're dreamin
jasman

NEWJASMAN

Newsworthy

Truth is altough some of us think iraq is the be all and end all of the war in terror
-NEWJASMAN


Another bit of truth is Bush's Crusade in Iraq will be a recruiting incentive and inspiration for generations if not centuries..

Please define "The Job Is Done."



Posted by 726 at 2008-06-02


you know I dont have time now but I will REPEAT IT ONCE AGAIN for you later today. we have gone over this time and again about a secure iraqi govnt and all that I would think you smartest people in the universe called liberals would eventually understand.

Iraq attached the US?

gee your dumb

Posted by truthhurts


and you too......again I have a hard time understanding why you liberal fucks who tell us you are so much smarter than us cant comprehend a couple of things.
just today on stewart, he had on fred burton, a retired counterterrorist expert who said that iraq was a major state sponsor of terrorism and even more than suicide bombers......( jon was really disappointed in this info by the way) so you see sadaam......THE OTHER HUSSEIN.....wasnt the kindly old misunderstood grandfather figure that liberal fucks want us to remember him as.......
so call me you little names all you want....
THE SURGE IS WORKING and you just cant take it.....
its okay....I FORGIVE YOU.,.....

headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*

Posted by Zatoichi at


hey bud.....if thats you head hitting the desk....remember you might not have too many brain cells to waiste. I would imagine being around austin you already lose a whole lot on saturday night......LOL

BLT,
Somehow you conflate leaving Iraq, so that they can run their own country, with turning tail and running? As Ron White would say, next time you have a thought, let it go. There is no military solution which means there can never be victory. If you disagree, sketch out your scenario of victory. Give me your metrics. Who will be signing the peace treaty? Who will surrender?
We are now occupiers and referees of a civil war. That is our sole purpose there. If Iraq truly wanted the democracy your president has tried to force feed them, they'd have stood up long ago.
The reality is there will never be anything even vaguely resembling a democracy in Iraq, as long as religious leaders carry that much sway.

Posted by evilpolock at 2008

HEY....look....I rarely agree with you but anyone who can quote ron white is okay in my book. (hope that endorsement doesnt lose you you liberal fuck standing....LOL).....

but look.....you are describing a TRADITIONAL war ending and you are right about all of that but as we ALL KNOW or should know.....this isnt your grandpas war and wont be won in the same ways as you outline. that sort of ending has never been mentioned in this case as far as I can remember. NOW it would certianly be nice if it were wrapped up that nicely and all but was WW2 ended that way either what with the ruskies in berlin and all of that stuff?
anyway.....IF we left and they werent secure, they would be overrun with taliban, al qaida.....or you name it. they are making strides that the american left said COULDNT BE DONE>......wouldnt this whole discourse take on a wonderfully bi partisan tone if THE LEFT WOULD JUST ADMIT THAT WE ARE MAKING REAL PROGRESS?

wasnt the kindly old misunderstood grandfather figure that liberal fucks want us to remember him as.......



and you continue to make shit up.

the fact was that Iraq did not attack us and posed no threat.

there are all kinds of bad guys in the world

some work for us some we are against and sometimes they change positions.

but this was a war of agression and now we are occuppying a foreign country.

BTW the surge is not working, what IS working is paying the people who attacked us.that is where the success comes from.

how much have you paid to those people who have killed our soldiers to keep yourself safe today?

Not very long. I say we call them together announce we will be leaving and provide a time table. If they want their country to descend into chaos it is their choice but no more Americans should die because they don't want to get serious about peace.

Posted by danni at 2008


you know....SWEETY......(sorry,had to get that obama jab in...).....you arent far off here from what I want. all of us have been impatient with that government for some time. but I also remember people on your side telling us that things that ARE happening couldnt be done because of the years...or centuries...of problems in that region for various reasons.....so doesnt it make sense that you are right and thats the MAJOR reason they arent farther along...

HEY LOOKY HERE......ME AND DANNI ARE having a conversation and not a shouting match.....HEY LOOK OUT FOR THAT PIG IN THE AIR.......

we are not at war in iraq.

that is a fact despite all your rhethoric flourish.

we have troops in another country.

that country is in a civil war and we are in the middle of it.

some of the people there are hostile to our presence and attack us.

The one Dumbfuck Bush Republicans can't seem to comprehend in their pea sized brains.

Posted by USATrueandBlue7 at 2008-06-02 10:14 AM |


AND YET>....some people only deserve a fuck you for thier posts......

fuck you

....wouldnt this whole discourse take on a wonderfully bi partisan tone if THE LEFT WOULD JUST ADMIT THAT WE ARE MAKING REAL PROGRESS?


surrendering to our enemy is progress? or what term would you use for paying people who have killed american soldiers? blackmail? extortion?

this isnt your grandpas war and wont be won in the same ways as you outline.


Indeed a war of Choice

An unnecessary war which will inspre more harm than the enormous cost in men and money already incurred.

A war that hasn't even been started to be paid for envisioned by an incompetent who cuts taxes in time of war.

Yet he pleads for more war making authority leaving a country to suffer the outcome of a diminished Dollar because of the debt BUSH has incurred.


George W Bush, bin Laden couldn't have dreamed for a better accomplice in diminishing the West..

"so doesnt it make sense that you are right and thats the MAJOR reason they arent farther along..."

I just don't care. They can do what they want but I don't want one more American to die because of their intransigence. I don't want any more money rebuilding an OPEC country.

bin laden? who's he?

BLT,
I just read your little screed and you still haven't answered/addressed any questions, except for your sad "this is too complicated for libs to grasp" innuendo, as if you, Dubya and Gates sit around discussing the nuances of a non traditional war after your shift at Hardees.
So again I ask, what are the metrics? Hell, just give me one metric by which we can declare victory.
And try to address how, after removing and the butchering dictator and his family from power, and then killing them, that leaving Iraq to the Iraqis is somehow surrendering.

I don't want any more money rebuilding an OPEC country.




hey, hey, hey, its not like Iraq is putting billions in the bank or something.

Direct costs of the war at 12:23 DR time:

$524,872,123,456

Current and future indirect costs? Not less than $2 trillion, anybody's guess how much higher than that.

Hell, just give me one metric by which we can declare victory.



victory has no meaning. Its like saying we should declare victory over a tuna sandwich.

America is not at war in iraq. America is occuppying the country.

America waged a war of agression against Iraq.

America defeated their conventional forces.

America is now in the process of nation building.

Hitler did so by creating puppets answerable to Berlin.

We are doing it by presence of our forces, preferential politics, selective use of our arms, paying certain parties off, and building a permanent occupation structure.

welcome to 21st century imperialism.

welcome to 21st century imperialism.
~TRUTHHURTS


I wouldn't use imperialism it's not about power for the US it's diminishing the US in many ways.

It is 21st century Corporatism.

It's about getting oil to market and using a countries resources to achieve that aim.

If it was imperialism we would be reaping the benefits of that oil but 21 century Corporatism wants us to pay for the war and pay the markup on the oil.

Imperialism would have been to Patriotic for Bush & Co..


Socialize the costs Privatize the Profit

"Then they only have themselves to blame if chaos erupts. We should tell them they have X amount of days before our troops begin leaving and nothing should disturb that timetable. That would put pressure on them to compromise, if not, it's their funeral. We have to stop letting them control our policy decisions by just refusing to compromise."

Posted by danni

That's a fine sentiment. However, I don't think it is shared by the politicians who will be in charge post Bush. I agree with Sawdust; Obama or McCain, they're both going to wait until things improve to pull out. (coincidentally, that destroys the Rush-speak that Obama is a cut-n-runner)

Well stated.

always remember someone is reaping the benefits in Iraq

always remember someone is reaping the benefits in Iraq

~TRUTHHURTS

And it ain't Joe six pack or even BL2...

BL2 THINKS he is reaping the benefits

BL2 THINKS is a..........stretch........

The fact that it's been going on long enough and there have been enough deaths to compute a four year low says all that needs to be said.

Those responsible belong in prison. But they'll be out of Washington soon and start raking in the bucks for speaking fees and book deals.

Funny, just thinking about W writing a book makes me feel sort puky inside.

"(coincidentally, that destroys the Rush-speak that Obama is a cut-n-runner)"

If that occurs it also means Obama can't be believed either. That would be a big mistake on his part I think.

America is now in the process of nation building.

welcome to 21st century imperialism.

Posted by truthhurts

If that is true, how come their oil isn't flowing into our country?

I always thought that imperialism was taking all the natural recources out of a country for your own benifit.

I always thought that imperialism was taking all the natural recources out of a country for your own benifit.
~Shippy

welcome to 21st century imperialism.
~TRUTHHURTS


Take Two:

I wouldn't use imperialism it's not about power for the US it's diminishing the US in many ways.

It is 21st century Corporatism.

It's about getting oil to market and using a countries resources to achieve that aim.

If it was imperialism we would be reaping the benefits of that oil but 21 century Corporatism wants us to pay for the war and pay the markup on the oil.

Imperialism would have been to Patriotic for Bush & Co..


Socialize the costs Privatize the Profit

If that is true, how come their oil isn't flowing into our country?

I always thought that imperialism was taking all the natural recources out of a country for your own benifit.

Posted by Sniper


you seem to be under the impression that the goal was to make you better off.

someone is better off

FOLLOW THE MONEY!

(coincidentally, that destroys the Rush-speak that Obama is a cut-n-runner)

Unless of course he is courting the anti-war money from the hardcore left. We all know his idea of change. Look back to last week and his different speeches on Iran. Maybe he will echo the leader of Congress crediting the goodwill of the Iranians for the low number of deaths.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said that the time had come to give American troops "a course of action that is worthy of their sacrifice," by opposing Mr. Bush's plan to increase troop strength in Iraq. 2007

Top US congressional Democrats bluntly told President George W. Bush Wednesday that his Iraq troop "surge" policy was a failure.
Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi challenged the president over Iraq by sending him a letter, ahead of a White House meeting later on Wednesday.

"As many had forseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results," the two leaders wrote.

"The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation.

"It has not enhanced Americas national security. The unsettling reality is that instances of violence against Iraqis remain high and attacks on US forces have increased."

"The surge hasn't accomplished its goals," Reid said. "... We're involved, still, in an intractable civil war."

I guess we should have given up last year like Harry and the rest wanted....

THEY WERE ALL WRONG!

From Barack web site:

Obama has been a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq.

In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail;
In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;
In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq's neighbors;
In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.
In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president


no Democrat should be allowed to be president - especially Barack - who has no faith in the US and who gave "Aid and Comfort" to the enemy by talking about pulling out. This just provided hope to the Al Queda fighters in the field, and made our allies question our commitment. Whether you are for it or against the war should not matter. Once we have troops in the field we should NEVER let the other side think that we have anything on our minds but to win.

I would have put Harry Ried, Pelosi and Obama in jail for treason..that is what Lincoln did in the Civil war..and that is what should have been done today

"In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president"
==FOSHAFFER

Which isn't too disimilar from the Republican stance, that we should wait for certain conditions, and also contradicts his earlier calls for withdrawal.