Let's hope, for the sake of our great nation, that those who wish to see America defeated in this war in Congress will somehow have a change in heart.
Listening to Petraeus- The president had the courage to change course on Iraq. Does Congress?
(September 10, 2007; Page A14)
Today, Gen. David Petraeus -- commander of our forces in Iraq -- returns to Washington to report on the war in Iraq and the new counterinsurgency strategy he has been implementing there. We hope that opponents of the war in Congress will listen carefully to the evidence that the U.S. military is at last making real and significant progress in its offensive against al Qaeda in Iraq.Mr. McCain is a Republican senator from Arizona. Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut.
Consider how the situation has changed. A year ago, al Qaeda in Iraq controlled large swaths of the country's territory. Today it is being driven out of its former strongholds in Anbar and Diyala provinces by the surge in U.S. forces and those of our Iraqi allies. A year ago, sectarian violence was spiraling out of control in Iraq, fanned by al Qaeda. Today civilian murders in Baghdad are down over 50%.
As facts on the ground in Iraq have improved, some critics of the war have changed their stance. As Democratic Congressman Brian Baird, who voted against the invasion of Iraq, recently wrote after returning from Baghdad: "[T]he people, strategies, and facts on the ground have changed for the better, and those changes justify changing our position on what should be done."
Unfortunately, many more antiwar advocates continue to press for withdrawal. Confronted by undeniable evidence of gains against al Qaeda in Iraq, they acknowledge progress but have seized on the performance of the Iraqi government to justify stripping Gen. Petraeus of troops and derailing his strategy.
This reasoning is flawed for several reasons.
You can read the rest at The Wall Street Opinion Journal.
So, please refresh my memory.
ReplyDeleteWHEN was it that either you or McCain or Lieberman were right about anything in this war?
The anti-war crowd is calling it a civil war. How is it a civil war if the traning, money and weapons for the insurgency is coming from other countries like Iran and Syria?
ReplyDeleteShane Hanson said...
ReplyDeleteThe anti-war crowd is calling it a civil war. How is it a civil war if the traning, money and weapons for the insurgency is coming from other countries like Iran and Syria?
And your proof of this is ?
Do a google search, you anonymouse Idiot.
ReplyDeleteLord what a crock. Please define victory in a situation in which we are backing the Sunnis, who all along have been the primary enemies of US forces, which is pissing off the Iranian aligned Shias who run the US backed government. It's a great victory for Iran, but when asked, the majority of IRAQIS say that things have gotten even worse since the "surge".
ReplyDeleteAs the GAO reports, violence in Iraq is NOT down. It can only be considered down if you don't count Shia on Shia deaths, Sunni on Sunni deaths, people shot in the front of the head (considered by the administration statistics to be common crimes and not sectarian violence), and people killed in car bomb attacks. That's stretching pretty far to get a desirable statistic. Furthermore, since the surge the problem of displaced Iraqis has actually increased. Much of the decrease in violence in some areas can be attributed to the near completion of ethnic cleansing in many formerly mixed areas. Over a million displaced people within the country does not bode well for stability any time in the foreseeable future, not to mention the 2 million or so refuges who are straining neighboring countries to the max. If this is Bush's idea of "kicking ass", I'd hate to see what failure looks like.
We hope that opponents of the war in Congress will listen carefully to the evidence that the U.S. military is at last making real and significant progress in its offensive against al Qaeda in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteI notice they left out the 2nd part of this statement: "We hope that no one listens to the evidence that the U.S. military is not making real and significant progress in its offensive in Iraq.
Examples to follow.
A year ago, al Qaeda in Iraq controlled large swaths of the country's territory.
AIQ is a relatively insignificant bogeyman in Iraq. They're a minor player. To suggest otherwise is only for propaganda purposes, to draw a tenuous, fraudulent link between 9/11 and Iraq.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0710.tilghman.html
A year ago, sectarian violence was spiraling out of control in Iraq, fanned by al Qaeda. Today civilian murders in Baghdad are down over 50%.
The implication is that, if civilian murders in Baghdad are "down over 50%" (an arguable assertion), that means that sectarian violence is no longer spiraling out of control in Iraq. That is false.
Particularly, Patraeus said that "civilian deaths of all categories" have declined "over 45 percent Iraq-wide since the height of the sectarian violence in December."
The AP says that 2,172 Iraqi civilians were killed in December 2006 and that 1,809 Iraqi civilians were killed last month. That's a reduction of just 17 percent.
And if you compare August 2007 with, say, August 2006, the AP shows that the death rate for Iraqi civilians has actually increased by something like 100 percent.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003634166
Unfortunately, many more antiwar advocates continue to press for withdrawal.
At this point "antiwar advocates" can be referred to simply as "the American people."
Confronted by undeniable evidence of gains against al Qaeda in Iraq
Gains against AQI? Was that the metric against which the surge was to be judged, the triumph over a tiny minority of the armed insurgents in Iraq? I thought the surge's success would be measured by the political progress which it was meant to enable. What happened to that?
they acknowledge progress but have seized on the performance of the Iraqi government
That's because "the performance of the Iraqi government", particularly in the direction of reconciliation, was and is the most crucial element of this war. Talking about "success" while lacking its most crucial element is nonsense.
But let's face it, without nonsense, what on earth would Bush apologists have to talk about?
I was going to take some time To address the failure of local religious and otherwise leaders to put a sizable dent in a problem that has ballooned to monstrous proportions recently. Undoubtedly you’ve probably caught the faint sulfur dioxide olfactory aura of this pressing problem whilst engaged in fighting off sleep in the midst of the latest television assault on our collective senses – the evening “news”. Yes the city fathers and the archbishop have gotten the panties in a twist over a plague that threatens the very loose and thin fabric which barely contains the dregs of civilized discourse and real stopping power. And it’s getting worse. Recently a well renowned Republican figure was forced to confront his own frailty of human nature, as he was forced by public pressure to directly atone for his grave and disgusting social faux pax.
ReplyDeleteFrom the New York Times, August 19th: “Although you’re probably still a-buzz after the successful passing of legislation I sponsored requiring mandatory ass-gaskets for all public facilities, my accomplishment is, I suspect, somewhat blemished by troubling thoughts and barely audible curses spat in my general direction, the result of a possible qualm I no doubt supplanted in the minds of my constituents with concrete affect concerning events of a delicate nature that occurred the other day whilst on a short break from the rigors and late summer heat of D.C.. I feel an apology is owed or at least a feasible clarification is appropriate, as well as a rapid rapprochement in case feelings were damaged or one’s sense of decency and the parameters of good taste were breached beyond repair. For the record and in front of all that is holy and righteous, what I mean to suggest in the spirit of humor was not meant in any way to imply that I consider the use of my local municipal public swimming pool as my personal urinal or bed pan. Nor should it be misunderstood by implication that municipal swimming pools also often contains a deodorizing urinal cake (strawberry scented, no less) contained within a plastic mesh guard container, designed to prevent solid objects such as cigarette butts, small photographs of George Bush or Dick Cheney, Juicyfruit gum, or various grades of used paper from being flushed and possibly causing a plumbing stoppage. As much of a gargantuan misinterpretation as this could possibly be taken, it does not take very much imagination to deduce that a reasonable person of average intelligence could extrapolate this false impression to a ridiculous heights of absurdity where they would consider any public recreation facility a small building or other structure, in which such toilets are contained for medical purposes, or to use where access to washroom facilities are not possible, such as in small aircraft or some of the more popular low-end massage parlors. Please humbly accept my act of contrition in case the aforementioned misapprehension in fact has come to mind, and let me know if there’s anything I can do to clear the air of this malfeasance. And for the record, I use the proper facilities, and no, I don’t urinate on toilet seats or in the milk cartons. Oddly enough, some radical feminists, or otherwise persons not possessing a penis, have condemned the practice of men standing to urinate as sexist and politically incorrect, not to mention the fact that they always miss no matter what they say to the contrary. Some universities in Germany have removed urinals after protests by feminists and pencil-dick Rockabilly homosexuals. In Germany, toilet ghosts have been sold for public places and homes because standing while urinating is now viewed by many as too sexist. If a man raises the seat of a regular toilet to urinate, the “toilet ghost” , in a voice that imitates former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, enunciates the phrase ‘Hey, stand peeing is not allowed here and you will be punished with fines, so if you don’t want any trouble, you’d best sit down’. But I digress. I do not pee in pools
Shane,
ReplyDeleteBecause the anti-war crowd is insane. They have the same reaction to the truth that a vampire does to a cross and garlic.
otter,
Please don't feed the trolls, it only serves to encourage them.
These "brave" anonymous trolls are not interested in the truth. They are interested only in the Democratic party line.
These "brave" anonymous trolls are not interested in the truth. They are interested only in the Democratic party line.
ReplyDeleteThat's quite ironic, considering that your comment consists of nothing but a fact-free toeing of the GOP party line. Project much?
McCain and Lieberman are in their fifth year of supporting a war that is over. They bought this Administration's nonsense over and over again. The latest thread says that we can shrink back down to where we were this February, and this is somehow a plan. We fought a war we shouldn't have. We botched it. We can't "win" it, because it isn't ours to win. It's a civil war and we need to get out.
ReplyDeleteThese two Senators aren't helping. They're doing what Bush does. Desperately asking for more time because what they hung their reputations and career on is in tatters. Bravery would be to admit the mistake and fix, not hope for one more do-over.