'We're Winning The War' Spin In High Mode

[Nbadan]

Mission accomplished....again!

Lieberman thinks ‘the tide has turned,’ again
By: Steve Benen on Wednesday, November 7th, 2007 at 3:50 PM - PST


http://static.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/joereuters.thumbnail.jpg

Ass-hat extraordinare


It seems a memo went out to war supporters everywhere, issuing a collective call for the “stay the course” crowd to declare victory. Joe Lieberman is the latest to jump on the bandwagon that’s traveling in the wrong direction.

“I’m proud to say that the tide has turned in Iraq and we’re winning that war,” Lieberman said. “And if we don’t let down our troops, they’re going to bring home a victory that will protect us here at home from today’s threat — totalitarian terrorist Islamism that’s trying to take our liberty from us.”

What a very odd claim. We’re “winning” the war? Against whom? Also notice that that Lieberman subtly argues that most Americans and a majority of both chambers of Congress want to “let down our troops,” and that staying in the middle of Iraq’s civil war will “protect us here at home.” It’s as if Lieberman were randomly hitting all the right-wing talking points at once.

Of course, Lieberman might have a shred of credibility if he hadn’t been wrong about every possible aspect of this war for the last five years, including repeated claims about various tides having turned. TP runs through some of the greatest hits, but this gem from two years ago stands out: “The last two weeks…may be seen as a turning point.” That was in December 2005.

After a while, the boy who cries “mission accomplished” a few too many times, without any connection to reality, deserves to be ignored.

Crooks and Liars (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/07/lieberman-thinks-the-tide-has-turned-again)

[Yonivore]

Uh, we're winning the war and it's not spin.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Uh, we're winning the war and it's not spin.


against who?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Go Team!!!

[Yonivore]

against who?
You're really slow. Why bother even trying to post in this forum?

[George Gervin's Afro]

You're really slow. Why bother even trying to post in this forum?


Seriously. Are we fighting for our freedom in Iraq? Or Iraqi freedom? Are we fighting al-qaeda? Or Iraqi insurgents? Does winning include political progress?

You don't seem to want to explain your opinion and you want to rely on talking points. I guess that's the easy way out.. gotcha

[Yonivore]

Seriously. Are we fighting for our freedom in Iraq?
Yes. From foreign-born terrorist attacks.


Or Iraqi freedom?
Yes, because a stable Iraq is important to our national and economic stability.


Are we fighting al-qaeda?
Yes, as are the Iraqis. And, this is the battle that is nearly won.


Or Iraqi insurgents?
Not so much anymore. For the most part they've crawled back into their hole (from which not many people believe they will re-emerge although this is a possibility) or they've joined the fight against al Qaeda.


Does winning include political progress?
Yes, and there's progress on that front as well. This is why no one is saying we've won. Just that we're winning.


You don't seem to want to explain your opinion and you want to rely on talking points.
Just did and have been for going on 3 years.


I guess that's the easy way out.. gotcha
You wish.

[Holt's Cat]

How many more countries will be invaded and how many more hundreds of billion$ will be spent to protect us from 20 guys with box cutters?

[Yonivore]

How many more countries will be invaded and how many more hundreds of billion$ will be spent to protect us from 20 guys with box cutters?
As many as need to be, I suppose. Sorry, I'm not in that decision matrix.

[Holt's Cat]

How about directing those resources into improving domestic security instead of shooting up the ME?

[Yonivore]

How about directing those resources into improving domestic security instead of shooting up the ME?
We can't even get Congress to build a fence. Our military is way more competent at killing terrorists in the middle east than Congress is at stopping them from crossing our borders.

Say, when you become president, you can set the foreign policy agenda. How's that.

Right now, I agree with this president and think we're doing the right thing.

[clambake]

21k illegals crossed through border checkpoints this year. do you just like the look of a fence?

[xrayzebra]

We can't even get Congress to build a fence. Our military is way more competent at killing terrorists in the middle east than Congress is at stopping them from crossing our borders.

Say, when you become president, you can set the foreign policy agenda. How's that.

Right now, I agree with this president and think we're doing the right thing.

I agree with you about the fence. And about why we
are in Iraq. I don't agree with the President on amnesty
and a couple of his social programs.

[Holt's Cat]

We can't even get Congress to build a fence. Our military is way more competent at killing terrorists in the middle east than Congress is at stopping them from crossing our borders.

Say, when you become president, you can set the foreign policy agenda. How's that.

Right now, I agree with this president and think we're doing the right thing.

OK, when you are elected to Congress then you can criticize the leadership there.

[Yonivore]

OK, when you are elected to Congress then you can criticize the leadership there.
Try and stop me.

And, where did I say you couldn't criticize the president?

[Yonivore]

21k illegals crossed through border checkpoints this year. do you just like the look of a fence?
Maybe if we built the fences we could concentrate our efforts at checkpoints.

[Holt's Cat]

Try and stop me. :jack

Don't you have a blog to rip off this morn?

[Yonivore]

I agree with you about the fence. And about why we
are in Iraq. I don't agree with the President on amnesty
and a couple of his social programs.
I don't agree with much of his immigration policy either.

[Yonivore]

Try and stop me. :jack
Ewww. I hope I never encounter you while your masturbating...

Did you really have to share what personal habits you're engaged in at the moment? That's just creepy.



Don't you have a blog to rip off this morn?
Not yet.

[ChumpDumper]

It's easier to withdraw troops once you declare victory.

We will be withdrawing troops no matter what in a few months, so why not feel good about it?

[boutons_]

Poll: Iraq war opposition at record high

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Opposition to the war in Iraq has reached an all-time high, according to the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll released Thursday morning.

Support for the war in Iraq has dropped to 31 percent and the 68 percent who oppose the war is a new record.

Despite the drop in violence in Iraq, only one quarter of Americans believes the U.S. is winning the war. There has been virtually no change in the past month in the number of Americans who believe that things are going badly for the U.S. in the war in Iraq.

The public also opposes U.S. military action against Iran. Sixty-three percent oppose air strikes on Iran, while 73 percent oppose using ground troops as well as air strikes in that country.

Overall, 56 percent, of Americans are dissatisfied with progress in the war on terrorism.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation telephone poll of 1,024 American adults was carried out over the weekend. The sampling error for the full sample was plus-or-minus 3 percentage points; some questions were asked of a half sample of approximately 500 respondents and carry a sampling error of plus-or-minus 4.5 percentage points.

=================

But what do We The People know?
"It's Your Country"
(and "It's Your Money')

[Nbadan]

The public also opposes U.S. military action against Iran. Sixty-three percent oppose air strikes on Iran, while 73 percent oppose using ground troops as well as air strikes in that country.

Lucky for us Dubya/Cheney don't follow polls

[Yonivore]

Lucky for us Dubya/Cheney don't follow polls
Yes.

In the stunning speech he delivered today, Sen. Joseph Lieberman sheds some horrifying light on one of the issues that made last week’s Democratic presidential debate so contentious — the amendment he co-sponsored in the Senate declaring the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization for the purpose of imposing economic sanctions on the group. For her vote in the affirmative, Hillary Clinton came under withering assault from her rivals for supposedly giving President Bush a green light to attack Iran militarily.


The reason for [the] amendment was clear. In September, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress about the proxy war that Iran—and in particular, the IRGC and its Quds Force subsidiary—has been waging against our troops in Iraq. Specifically, General Petraeus told us that the IRGC Quds Force has been training, funding, equipping, arming, and in some cases directing Shiite extremists who are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers.

This charge had been corroborated by other sources….It was also consistent with nearly three decades of experience with the IRGC, which has been implicated in a range of terrorist attacks against the United States and our allies—long before the invasion of Iraq.

In light of this evidence, Senator [Jon] Kyl and I thought that calling for the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization was a no brainer. Rather than punishing Iranians indiscriminately, it would apply a set of targeted economic sanctions against the part of the Iranian regime that was responsible for the murder of our troops in Iraq….

[Indeed,] a bipartisan group of 68 senators, including several of the Democratic presidential candidates, had already signed onto a piece of legislation introduced earlier in the year that asked for the IRGC’s designation along exactly the same lines as our amendment….

I was wrong….

First, several left-wing blogs seized upon the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, offering wild conspiracy theories about how it could be used to authorize the use of military force against Iran.

These were absurd arguments. The text of our amendment contained nothing—nothing—that could be construed as a green light for an attack on Iran. To claim that it did was an act of delusion or deception. On the contrary, by calling for tougher sanctions on Iran, the intention of our amendment was to offer an alternative to war.

Nonetheless, the conspiracy theories started to spread. Although the Senate passed our amendment, 76-22, several Democrats, including some of the Democratic presidential candidates, soon began attacking it….

I asked some of my Senate colleagues who voted against our amendment: “Do you believe the evidence the military has given us about the IRGC sponsoring these attacks on our troops?” Yes, they invariably said.

“Don’t you support tougher economic sanctions against Iran?” I asked. Again, yes—no question.

So what’s the problem, I asked.

“It’s simple,” they said. “We don’t trust Bush. He’ll use this resolution as an excuse for war against Iran.”

I understand that President Bush is a divisive figure….But there is something profoundly wrong—something that should trouble all of us—when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran’s murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.

There is likewise something profoundly wrong when we see candidates who are willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment in the Democratic base—even if it sends a message of weakness and division to the Iranian regime.
Remarkable. The full text of the speech is here (http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=287039).

[Nbadan]

The reason for [the] amendment was clear. In September, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress about the proxy war that Iran—and in particular, the IRGC and its Quds Force subsidiary—has been waging against our troops in Iraq. Specifically, General Petraeus told us that the IRGC Quds Force has been training, funding, equipping, arming, and in some cases directing Shiite extremists who are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers

Where's the proof? Petraeus can say reindeer fly out of his ass....but I wanna see the shit covered reindeer....

...Oh, that's right...there is none.....

[Nbadan]

How many more countries will be invaded and how many more hundreds of billion$ will be spent to protect us from 20 guys with box cutters?

..the 911 plotters are in caves in Pakistan with their satellite dishes, phones and internet access most likely posting on liberal web-sites and plotting their next great caper...

[Yonivore]

Where's the proof? Petraeus can say reindeer fly out of his ass....but I wanna see the shit covered reindeer....

...Oh, that's right...there is none.....
You're unbelievable sometimes. Fucking IRGC and Quds forces have been captured, killed, and identified all over Iraq the past few years.

[Yonivore]

..the 911 plotters are in caves in Pakistan with their satellite dishes, phones and internet access most likely posting on liberal web-sites and plotting their next great caper...
Let's hope they fire up their satellite dishes and phones...let's hope.

[boutons_]

The Exec, neo-cunts, Fox news, and right-wingnut choir are all clamoring for hitting Iran, with exactly the same bullshit and lies they used to get into Iraq, covering their real agenda of Iranian oil.

Here's a Fox asshole, whose ass never has been and never will be in a foxhole:

http://digg.com/politics/Fox_Calls_for_U_S_Supported_Terrorist_Car_Bombings _in_Tehran

[Nbadan]

You're unbelievable sometimes. Fucking IRGC and Quds forces have been captured, killed, and identified all over Iraq the past few years.

The Quds, like Hamas and Hezbollah, aren't just fighting entities...they are also political, economic and social entities...many times friendly with the U.S....

[Nbadan]

Let's hope they fire up their satellite dishes and phones...let's hope.

You seriously believe Bin Laden is in a cave somewhere...

:lol

[Yonivore]

You seriously believe Bin Laden is in a cave somewhere...

:lol
I think he's dead. And, I think he's been that way since on or about December 17, 2001.

[Nbadan]

I think he's dead. And, I think he's been that way since on or about December 17, 2001.


Then who's making the bin Laden tapes?

[Yonivore]

Then who's making the bin Laden tapes?
I have no idea...I know I'm not.

[Nbadan]

Bush's Favorite Lie
By Robert Parry
November 9, 2007


When cataloging George W. Bush’s lies – even if you stick just to his fabrications about the Iraq War and the “war on terror” – there are so many to choose from, it’s hard to pick a favorite.

There’s the one about how before Sept. 11, 2001, Americans thought that “oceans protected us” – although perhaps not from Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads, which during the Cold War had school children hiding under desks and homeowners buying bomb shelters.

After taking office in January 2001, Bush was so confident about the protective oceans that he pushed aggressively for a "Star Wars" missile defense system.

Or there’s Bush’s oft-repeated claim that al-Qaeda terrorists are poised to dominate the world through a caliphate “stretching from Spain to Indonesia,” though in reality they are a bunch of crazed misfits forcibly exiled from their own countries and now living in caves along the Afghan-Pakistani border.

Bush also insists that Americans must heed what Osama bin Laden says, like when this homicidal maniac supposedly calls Iraq the “central front” in the “war on terror,” the American people must keep troops there indefinitely.

But it’s never explained why it makes sense for the United States to let bin Laden’s public declarations shape Washington’s policies.

There’s a chance, you see, that bin Laden is either completely nuts or perhaps clever enough to bait Bush into taking actions that actually help al-Qaeda, like getting the United States bogged down in Iraq, alienating the Muslim world and diverting military resources away from where bin Laden is hiding.

Link (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/110807.html)

[Nbadan]

BUSH: I don’t — you know, “quagmire” is an interesting word. If you lived in Iraq and had lived under a tyranny, you’d be saying, god, I love freedom — because that’s what’s happened. And there are killers and radicals and murderers who kill the innocent to stop the advance of freedom. But freedom is happening in Iraq. And we’re making progress.

- Dubya today....

[Nbadan]

We've tripled Saddam's decades old body count in just 4 short years.....

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/images/iraqdeaths.gif


The estimate that over a million Iraqis have died received independent confirmation from a prestigious British polling agency in September 2007. Opinion Research Business estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed violently since the US invasion.

This devastating human toll demands greater recognition. It eclipses the Rwandan genocide and our leaders are directly responsible. Little wonder they do not publicly cite it. Here is simple HTML code to post the counter to your website and help spread the word.

Link (http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html)

[xrayzebra]

We've tripled Saddam's decades old body count in just 4 short years.....

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/images/iraqdeaths.gif



Link (http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html)

Yes dan we know. The United States is the
bad boy in all of this. Just what is your agenda?
Tell us what you want. I have no problem with
telling you how I feel. But you never tell us what
your thoughts are, other than the U.S. is wrong
all the time.

[Nbadan]

Yes dan we know. The United States is the
bad boy in all of this. Just what is your agenda?
Tell us what you want. I have no problem with
telling you how I feel. But you never tell us what
your thoughts are, other than the U.S. is wrong
all the time.


See, Ray....what you don't understand is that we are in a defacto-war WW3 that has nothing to do with terra....it's a war of money....the Chinese know that they can never defeat us militarily.....but they control $1 trillion dollars of our debt, enough to send our economy into a serious tailspin if they so choose...in other words, they have us by the balls....so they build dangerous products utilizing their slave labor. killing median-paying manufacturing jobs in the U.S. in the process, ship them to the U.S. at basement bargain prices and let the consumer deal with the after-math.....who cares as long as they get $$ and the American consumer borrowers more Chinese money in the process.....tightening their grip on our balls.....

[101A]

What is China's endgame?

What are they trying to accomplish?

[xrayzebra]

See, Ray....what you don't understand is that we are in a defacto-war WW3 that has nothing to do with terra....it's a war of money....the Chinese know that they can never defeat us militarily.....but they control $1 trillion dollars of our debt, enough to send our economy into a serious tailspin if they so choose...in other words, they have us by the balls....so they build dangerous products utilizing their slave labor. killing median-paying manufacturing jobs in the U.S. in the process, ship them to the U.S. at basement bargain prices and let the consumer deal with the after-math.....who cares as long as they get $$ and the American consumer borrowers more Chinese money in the process.....tightening their grip on our balls.....

So much asking you for a serious answer. It
would be nice if we knew where you were coming
from. But never mind. I should have know I
was asking too much.

[Nbadan]

.....even with Dubya's record subsidies to the pharmaceuticals and insurance companies, without the added costs of the war in Iraq we would have been in surplus...Meanwhile, none of that Iraqi oil is getting to the American consumer, most is sold in the open market to guess who? China, Indonesia, and India...

[101A]

.....even with Dubya's record subsidies to the pharmaceuticals and insurance companies, without the added costs of the war in Iraq we would have been in surplus...Meanwhile, none of that Iraqi oil is getting to the American consumer, most is sold in the open market to guess who? China, Indonesia, and India...At the same price other people's oil is sold to us.

What's your point?

Again, what is China going to accomplish having us by the short hairs?

[xrayzebra]

.....even with Dubya's record subsidies to the pharmaceuticals and insurance companies, without the added costs of the war in Iraq we would have been in surplus...Meanwhile, none of that Iraqi oil is getting to the American consumer, most is sold in the open market to guess who? China, Indonesia, and India...

And so? You mean Bush's oil bunch aren't getting
their share? That damn Chenney.

Dan we don't need their oil if we could only drill
where the Cubans and China are. Off the coast
of Florida. Or if the no backbone pols would
allow drilling off the coast of Calif. and in Alaska.

But don't mention that.

[Nbadan]

What is China's endgame?

What are they trying to accomplish?

Destroy America's ability to act militarily by destroying it from inside...it takes a lot of money to run wars....right now, China is financing our misadventure into Iraq, but someday they will call that note on our children....

[Nbadan]

At the same price other people's oil is sold to us.

What's your point?

Again, what is China going to accomplish having us by the short hairs?

China can absorb high oil prices because they don't pay their people shit....meanwhile, Americans have to put higher gas prices on plastic...guess where the money to finance that debt is coming from?

[xrayzebra]

Destroy America's ability to act militarily by destroying it from inside...it takes a lot of money to run wars....right now, China is financing our misadventure into Iraq, but someday they will call that note on our children....

Well from some of your post you subscribe to this
strategy. Destroy the U.S.

[Nbadan]

Well from some of your post you subscribe to this
strategy. Destroy the U.S.

It's a matter of perception I guess Ray...

[xrayzebra]

It's a matter of perception I guess Ray...

Yeah, it is. But somehow I don't feel alone in this
perception.

[101A]

Destroy America's ability to act militarily by destroying it from inside...it takes a lot of money to run wars....right now, China is financing our misadventure into Iraq, but someday they will call that note on our children....So, they will eventually invade?

We have how many warheads again?

Our military, as it is, is VERY expensive, but one we would need to maintain to make sure nobody fucks with us wouldn't be so much.

I don't think they are trying to destroy us financially to weaken us militarily.

[Nbadan]

Yeah, it is. But somehow I don't feel alone in this
perception.


that's most likely because I have been conveniently categorized as a socialist by some.....although nothing could be further from the truth.......

[101A]

China can absorb high oil prices because they don't pay their people shit....meanwhile, Americans have to put higher gas prices on plastic...guess where the money to finance that debt is coming from?
Citibank/Chase/Wells Fargo

[Nbadan]

So, they will eventually invade?

We have how many warheads again?

Our military, as it is, is VERY expensive, but one we would need to maintain to make sure nobody fucks with us wouldn't be so much.

I don't think they are trying to destroy us financially to weaken us militarily.

Why should they have to invade?...cut off the money and we will destroy each other from the inside-out.....

[Nbadan]

Citibank/Chase/Wells Fargo

So those banks just pull credit out of their collective asses?

[101A]

So those banks just pull credit out of their collective asses?Nope.

They get money from the Fed.

IT pulls credit out of its ass.

[101A]

Democrats not as united as they would like against the war (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SQAJCO0&show_article=1)

It is interesting that there is a war funding vote in Congress right now - and no apparent surge of terrorists or insurgents in Iraq. They've usually been pretty good about creating turmoil at times like this.

[Nbadan]

Democrats not as united as they would like against the war (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SQAJCO0&show_article=1)

It is interesting that there is a war funding vote in Congress right now - and no apparent surge of terrorists or insurgents in Iraq. They've usually been pretty good about creating turmoil at times like this.

No, its just the spin that 'they've been 'good about creating turmoil at times like this', whatever that means...in reality secretarian violence is down because ethnic cleansing is almost complete in Baghdad, millions of refugees have fled to Syria Iran and other parts, which rarely gets shown by the M$M...in fact these neighboring countries cant handle any more refugees so they have closed their borders....

[101A]

No, its just the spin that 'they've been 'good about creating turmoil at times like this', whatever that means...in reality secretarian violence is down because ethnic cleansing is almost complete in Baghdad, millions of refugees have fled to Syria Iran and other parts, which rarely gets shown by the M$M...in fact these neighboring countries cant handle any more refugees so they have closed their borders....
Not spin; I've watched the news and noticed it.

They also did it leading up to the election last year.

Spin is claiming to know that the relative calm now is because the ethnic cleansing is just about complete. Guess it helps take the edge off about possibly being wrong.

[Nbadan]

Not spin; I've watched the news and noticed it.

Because the M$M would never spin Iraq!

:rolleyes

Iraqis Are Thankful For Bush (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJoeGsvzXNk)

[Nbadan]

Television: the Drug of the Nation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgOWTM5R2DA)

[Nbadan]

V for Vendetta (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TLD3Z6sJWA)

[Nbadan]

If a civilian in Iraq dies but the media doesn't count it in their the-Iraq-war-is-a-clusterfuck-so-we-have-to-do-body-counts
-to-make-look-like-we-are-turning-another-corner, does it count?

Iraq's numbers don't add up, U.S. says


BAGHDAD -- As U.S. forces begin to scale back in Iraq, the military is becoming increasingly reliant on Iraqi forces to report a wide array of crucial statistics, from the number of attacks on the local infrastructure to how many Iraqi civilians have been killed or wounded.

And just as Iraqi forces have had a mixed record in fighting insurgents, they have been spotty at providing data from the regions where they have taken command.

Iraqi officials have been reporting far higher civilian death totals than those reported by U.S. forces, and aides to American commanders now acknowledge that the U.S. military probably had been undercounting such casualties.

...

The questionable nature of the Iraqi-compiled data, which is expected to become even more problematic as U.S. forces shrink back to pre-buildup levels over the next six months, has placed American commanders in an awkward position.

The more successful they are in turning over military responsibility to Iraqis, the U.S. officials think, the less likely they are to get reliable evidence that their techniques are working.

LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraqstats30nov30,1,205026.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true)

Doesn't matter....Dubya got his headlines and the M$M was his patsy yet again....

[Nbadan]

Olbermann: Endgame Antics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOSLnZb4Has)

[JoeChalupa]

I think we are winning the war and things are very much improving, not that they hadn't been before. Let the troops do their job.

[2centsworth]

Destroy America's ability to act militarily by destroying it from inside...it takes a lot of money to run wars....right now, China is financing our misadventure into Iraq, but someday they will call that note on our children....
no dan, military spending is a measly 20% of our budget. It's your communist social programs that will bankrupt this country. NOW THAT's A UNDENIABLE FACT!!

[2centsworth]

I think we are winning the war and things are very much improving, not that they hadn't been before. Let the troops do their job.
a democrat without an agenda, how refreshing.

[boutons_]

'Let the troops do their job."

The whole point of Repugs/neo-cunts/suckers framing Iraq as "we are winning" militarily (co-inciding with the ethnic cleansing of Bagdad and partioning of Iraq) is to distract from the total failure of the surge, which was to allow the Iraqis to achieve political reconciliation.

AIN'T HAPPENING

The major dubya failure is that US/UK oilcs still haven't stolen Iraqi oil. 100's of $Bs more PER YEAR for permanent, oppressive occupation of Iraq is all dubya can manage of his oil grab before he slinks out of office as the worst president in US history.

Iraq is same as Viet Nam. The US supported a failed/incompetent/corrupt political class.

[JoeChalupa]

a democrat without an agenda, how refreshing.

As refreshing as a republican without an agenda. Come on man, it goes both ways.
But what is winning? Is it going to stop terrorism? No. Iran is next. The war on terrorism cannot and will not stop. There are many democrats who believe as JFK did that we must defend against any foe.

[JoeChalupa]

But the facts are that civilian deaths and attacks have fallen since the surge. And so have US casualties. Many of the people of Iraq have gotten their lives back and there is plenty of good news to go around.
It is the constant negative attitudes amongst many democrats that fuels the "they want us to lose" rhetoric from the right.
Iraq is going to cost trillions of dollars and we will be there years to come. But things are getting better but I do agree that the Iraqi government is the biggest obstacle to success and troop withdrawals.

[boutons_]

"civilian deaths"

The US and Iraqi govt have quit making civilian death records easily available.

"attacks have fallen since the surge"

The fact is that co-incidence doesn't mean causality.

"Many of the people of Iraq have gotten their lives back and there is plenty of good news to go around."

Maybe a few, and that's wonderful, but the vast majority who are still in Iraq are fucked, no water, no/intermittant electricity, rampant/pervasive corruption, esp by the govt, high crime rate, no jobs, etc, etc.

Iraq is still a much, much worse place now than in was in Feb 2003.

And those Iraqis who are coming back is due to, eg, Syria and Jordan refusing to admit them or let them stay.

I don't have a "negative attitude" nor am I Democrat.

Nobody likes to lose. The Americans haven't lost in Iraq, the military has done its job under the incredible incompetence of the dubya/dickhead Exec.

The dubya/dickhead Exec, EXCLUSIVELY, has lost Iraq. No one else is responsible, no matter how insane are the lies from, eg, Rove, trying to blame Iraq on a Repug-dominated Congress.

Strain as spinners may to paint Iraq as a success, it's an utter, total failure on every count.

[boutons_]

Below, remember that if you get your $40K sign-up bonues but get injured and can't complete the contracted term, "the Army wants you" to give the bonus back. Not only will your body and/or mind be fucked for an oil grab, the Army will be dunning you for $$$.

==================

Patriotism dwindling, Army turns to cash in search of recruits

12/03/2007 @ 9:18 am

Filed by Jason Rhyne

http://www.library.ohiou.edu/govdocs/images/UncleSam.jpg

For enterprising young people hoping to pay down their mortgages or start up a business, they can talk to their banks -- or they can try their local Army recruiter.

Starting in January, five US cities will serve as test markets for the Army Advantage Program, a new recruitment incentive package which will dole out $40,000 to enlistees willing to fulfill a five-year commitment in the service, reports the Cleveland Plain Dealer's Patrick O'Donnell (http://blog.cleveland.com/plaindealer/2007/12/army_will_offer_up_to_40000_to.html). The money must be applied to mortgages or used to benefit a registered business. Lower-dollar amounts will be offered for shorter stints.

"The old patriotic reasons aren't quite pulling in recruits for the Army as well as they used to. So the Army is adding a new financial incentive to the college tuition benefits and bonuses it already offers," writes O'Donnell. Cleveland joins Albany, NY; Montgomery, Ala; Seattle and San Antonio as the first to offer the incentive.

( the "college tuition" offer is a joke )

"The money is available to soldiers after they finish their enlistment and they show proof to the Army that they are trying to buy a house or have registered a business with their state," O'Donnell reports (http://blog.cleveland.com/pdextra/2007/12/how_the_army_bonus_program_wil.html). "If the house purchase or business start-up does not go through, they may keep the money." A spokeswoman for the Army told the paper that the new program would give the Army tools to compete with private sector opportunities available to potential recruits.

"This is a very difficult time to recruit for an all-volunteer army," she said. "We have to compete with the other options that are out there in the civilian world. This is a way of competing."

O'Donnell reports that one former local Army recruiter, David Hack, was surprised by the new bonus -- but said he didn't think it would be the deciding factor in whether young people decided to sign up.

"This is just icing on the cake," Hack told the paper. "The main selling point for a young man or woman is duty...You can't pay a person to put the uniform on. You can't pay him to run up the hill and charge live ammo."

( if it were "duty", why arenm't there enough suckers, esp red-state/"Christian" crusaders, feeling the call of "duty" ?)


The program is just the latest in an array of Army efforts to boost surging recruitment requirements. In August, the Army instituted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/26/AR2007082601266.html)a "quick ship" bonus that offered $20,000 in cash to recruits willing to begin their training within weeks of sign-up. According to the Plain Dealer, such bonuses cannot be added to the mortgage/business payout if a recruit is already receiving the $40,000 maximum amount.

In addition to bonuses and incentives, the Army has also recently lowered their recruitment standards in a push to meet goals. As reported last week by the Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/27/stepped_up_army_recruiting_enlists_many_with_probl ems/), the Army has "accepted a growing percentage of recruits who do not meet its own minimum fitness standards. The October statistics show that at least 1 of every 5 recruits required a waiver to join the service, leading military analysts to conclude that the Army is lowering standards more than it has in decades."

http://rawstory.com//printstory.php?story=8443

[Nbadan]

ut the facts are that civilian deaths and attacks have fallen since the surge. And so have US casualties. Many of the people of Iraq have gotten their lives back and there is plenty of good news to go around.

There are an estimated 4 million Iraqi refugees in Iraqi neighboring states is squalor camps- this is a huge story that the U.S. M$M has not reported....and remember as woeful at actually reporting as the M$M is, if the M$M doesn't report it, to most people, it didn't happen...

[Nbadan]

It is the constant negative attitudes amongst many democrats that fuels the "they want us to lose" rhetoric from the right.

...No, it's the only thing chicken-hawks have to attack war critics with, they did the same thing during Vietnam... and when they are unsuccessful at ending the fighting in Iraq, like Vietnam, they will blame the critics for losing the war.....

[xrayzebra]

Why should they have to invade?...cut off the money and we will destroy each other from the inside-out.....

Dan, just to put things in perspective. Before the trade with
China began, how much of our money did they have?

After trade began, where are they going to invest or spend
their money, except with us?

Have someone's currency doesn't make give anyone
dominance over the other. We also received something
of value from the country we bought those goods from.

I know this is a simplistic view, but you seemed to not
understand economics.

Have you ever read Dr. Williams columns. You know when
you go to the grocery store to buy something, they never
buy anything from you, and you have an imbalance of
payments since you spend more with them than they
do with you. But you got something of value in return for
you dollars. Food.

[boutons_]

spin the cholera in sewage-challenged Bagdad.

(the Green Zone cocoon's water and sanitation will be OK :lol )

"Cholera Crisis Hits Baghdad
By David Smith
The Observer UK

Sunday 02 December 2007

Iraqi capital fears an epidemic if stricken sewerage system collapses as the rainy season arrives.

Baghdad is facing a 'catastrophe' with cases of cholera rising sharply in the past three weeks to more than 100, strengthening fears that poor sanitation and the imminent rainy season could create an epidemic.

The disease - spread by bacteria in contaminated water, which can result in rapid dehydration and death - threatens to blunt growing optimism in the Iraqi capital after a recent downturn in violence. Two boys in an orphanage have died and six other children were diagnosed with the disease, according to the Iraqi government. 'We have a catastrophe in Baghdad,' an official said."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2220624,00.html

[JoeChalupa]

I still say things are looking better than they did months ago.

[Wild Cobra]

I still say things are looking better than they did months ago.
Definitely. All the Whacko Jacko's here can do is point out the negative news, which is rare today. I sure wish they would see some of the positive things.

You know things are a bit better there when the leftist media is silent about it.

[Nbadan]

Long article, but Tom Dispatch explains the Patreaus 'progress' dog-and-pony show and how the M$M is culpable of manipulating the truth once again...

Tomgram: Launching Brand Petraeus
"Progress" by the Numbers
By Tom Engelhardt


It was about this time of year in 2002, in the halcyon days of the Bush administration, that White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card offered a little political marketing advice to the world. In explaining why the Bush administration had not launched its "case" against Iraq (and for a future invasion) the previous month, he told a New York Times reporter, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."

It's a piece of simple business wisdom, and when it comes to manipulating the public, the Bush administration is still sticking to it five years later. The corollary, which Card didn't mention, is: Do your market research and testing in the dog-bites-man news months of July and August. And that's just what the Bush administration did in the run-up to what will certainly be its victorious battle with congressional opponents to extend its surge plan into next spring and its occupation of Iraq into the distant future. (As present White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten said in a meeting with the USA Today editorial board last week, he doesn't think "any ‘realistic observer' can believe that ‘all or even most of the American troop presence' will be out of Iraq by the end of Bush's presidency."

The core marketing decision was, of course, finding the right spokesman for the product. As Robert Draper, author of the new book Dead Certain, reported recently, the President was "fully aware of his standing in opinion polls" and so, earlier this year, decided that "his top commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, would perhaps do a better job selling progress to the American people than he could." As Bush put it, ""I've been here too long. Every time I start painting a rosy picture, it gets criticized and then it doesn't make it on the news." Indeed.

So launching "Brand Petraeus" and providing him with some upbeat Iraqi news (Sunnis in al-Anbar Province ally with U.S.) and numbers (violence down in August) were the two necessities of the summer. In July, the celebrity surge general, who had already shown a decided knack on earlier tours of Iraq for wowing the media, was loosed. Petraeus, in turn, loosed all his top commanders to enter vociferously into what previously would have been a civilian debate over U.S. policy and the issue of "withdrawal." This campaign, by the way, represents a significant chiseling away at traditional prohibitions on U.S. military figures entering the American political arena while in uniform.

Like any top-notch PR outfit, the administration also put various toes in the water in August and wiggled them vigorously -- including offering rousing presidential speeches and radio addresses, especially a "Vietnam speech" to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. At the same time, an allied $15 million, five-week ad campaign was launched by a new conservative activist group, Freedom's Watch, led by former White House press spokesman Ari Fleischer. The ads, "featuring military veterans," were aimed directly at congressional opposition to the President's surge strategy. In the meantime, key pundits and experts like Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution (who helps produce that organization's anodyne, New York Times-published tabulation of numbers from Iraq) and former invasion enthusiast Kenneth Pollack (both of whom re-billed themselves as "critics"), not to speak of New York Times columnist Tom Friedman and others, arrived in Iraq. There, they were given well-organized, well-scripted, Green Zone-style Pentagon-led tours and sent back home to write Petraeus-style news releases about modest, but upbeat, "progress."

Next, of course, came the full-scale September launching of the campaign. This involved a "dramatic" presidential secret exit from the White House and secret Air Force One flight to al-Asad Airbase in Iraq's isolated western desert, one of our giant "enduring" bases (whose imposing nature U.S. reporters tend to be oblivious to, even when reporting from them). With Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and hand-picked reporters along, Bush performed what was, as PressThink's Jay Rosen has written, not just a photo-op, but "a propaganda mission that required the press to complete the mission for him." And so they did, as he met Brand Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, along with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and various Sunni tribal Sheikhs from al-Anbar province -- with smiles and handshakes all around.

Even CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric flew into Iraq to deal with her dreadful ratings by -- guess what? -- interviewing Brand Petraeus et al. and reporting on the reports of "progress." Finally, the military completed its early September groundwork by releasing a spate of new numbers from Iraq -- doubted by pundits and experts of many stripes. Military officials claimed (could anyone be surprised?) that, by their count, a miraculous August turnaround had occurred; and here's another shock, credulous reporters like Michael Gordon of the New York Times swallowed, and front-paged, this one, too (though the Times also had a far more sober report the following day).

Under the circumstances you couldn't do it much better. And this week, we have the full-scale media spectacle of testimony to Congress by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, along with the delivery of the so-called "Progress" or Petraeus Report which, thanks to the Los Angeles Times, we now know -- though the mainstream media has made nothing of it -- was actually written not in Baghdad by the general and ambassador, but in the White House. (There's yet another shock for us all!)

Why anyone in the media or Congress takes this situation seriously as "news," or even something to argue about, is hard to tell. Think of it this way: The most political general in recent memory has been asked to assess his own work (as has our ambassador in Iraq), and then present "recommendations" to the White House in a "report" that is actually being written in the White House. You couldn't call it a political version of "the honor system"; but perhaps the dishonor system would do.

Numbers in Iraq are a slippery matter at best, though again, why anyone pays serious attention to U.S. military numbers from that country is a mystery. On countless occasions in the past, these have been ridiculous undercounts of disaster.

In the midst of such chaos, mayhem, and pure tragedy, of course, who exactly is counting? Nonetheless, wherever you look, numbers, however approximate, are indeed pouring out -- and, when you consider them, there is no way on Earth to imagine that the situation is anything but grim and deteriorating: first for the Iraqi people; second for the overstretched U.S. military; and finally, for the rest of the region and us.

So here, on the eve of the orbiting of Brand Petraeus, is my best attempt at "progress" by the numbers:


Number of U.S. troops in Iraq before the President's "surge plan" or "new way forward" was launched in February 2007: 130,000

Number of U.S. troops in Iraq by September 2008, if General Petraeus' reported "drawdown" plan is followed: Approximately 130,000, according to a "senior official" quoted by the Washington Post.

Number of American troops in Iraq when President Bush declared "major combat operations" to have "ended" on May 1, 2003: Approximately 130,000.

Number of American troops Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and other Pentagon civilian strategists predicted would be stationed in Iraq in August 2003, four months after Baghdad fell: 30,000-40,000, according to Washington Post reporter Tom Ricks in his bestselling book Fiasco.

Number of U.S. troops in Iraq in July 2007: 162,000; in September 2007, 168,000; later in the fall of 2007, an expected 172,000 -- each an all-time high in its moment.

Number of British troops in southern Iraq, May 1, 2003: 45,000 in four provinces.

Number of British troops in southern Iraq, August 2007: 5,000, all gathered in a heavily fortified, regularly mortared base at Basra airport; number of British troops expected to be in Iraq by spring 2008, 3,000.

Number of nations that have withdrawn their troops from the Bush administration's "coalition of the willing" in Iraq: At least 17, according to Globalsecurity.org. Poland is expected to withdraw its drawn-down forces by year's end and other countries have been drawing down their minimal forces as well. Among the remaining powers in the "coalition": Albania, Azerbaijian, Bulgaria, El Salvador, Estonia, Mongolia, and Ukraine.

Number of months before the Iraqi army can "independently fulfill [its] security role": At least 24, according to a report recently issued by a congressionally-appointed commission of retired senior U.S. military officers. (Donald Rumsfeld, October 2003: "In less than six months we have gone from zero Iraqis providing security to their country to close to a hundred thousand Iraqis.... Indeed, the progress has been so swift that.... it will not be long before [Iraqi security forces] will be the largest and outnumber the U.S. forces, and it shouldn't be too long thereafter that they will outnumber all coalition forces combined." George Bush, November 2005: "Our coalition has handed over roughly 90 square miles of Baghdad province to Iraqi security forces. Iraqi battalions have taken over responsibility for areas in South-Central Iraq, sectors of Southeast Iraq, sectors of Western Iraq, and sectors of North-Central Iraq.... The Iraqis, General Dempsey says, are ‘increasingly in control of their future and their own security -- the Iraqi security forces are regaining control of the country.'" Commander of Multinational Forces Iraq, Gen. George Casey, in October 2006: "And the third step is you make [the Iraqi army] independent, and that's what you'll see going on here over the better part of the next 12 months.")

Amount President Bush is to request from Congress in September to pay for his "surge" plan: Up to $50 billion -- in addition to a pending $147 billion "supplemental" bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this fiscal year. ("The decision to seek about $50 billion more appears to reflect the view in the administration that the counteroffensive will last into the spring of 2008 and will not be shortened by Congress.")

Cost of the war in Iraq per week, if this $197 billion joint request is granted by Congress: More than $3 billion.

Cost to Pentagon of shipping two 19-cent metal washers to a key military installation abroad, probably in Iraq or Afghanistan: $998,798.00 in "transportation costs," according to the Washington Post. This was part of a defense contractor's plan to bilk the Pentagon, based on its weak system of financial oversight.

Amount paid by the U.S. military to two British private security firms, Aegis Defence Services and Erinys Iraq, to protect U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reconstruction teams in Iraq: $548 million, more than $200 million over budget, according to the Washington Post based on "previously undisclosed data." The contracts to the two companies have a combined "burn rate" of $18 million a month and support a private army of approximately 2,000 hired guns, the equivalent of three military battalions.

Cost of Aegis' armored vehicles and the guards manning them: Approximately $150,000 per vehicle and $15,000 a month per guard.

Percentage of team members in the $2 billion U.S. civilian-military Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) program with "the cultural knowledge and Arabic-language skills needed to work with Iraqis": 5% or just 29 out of 610 PRT members, according to Ginger Cruz, the deputy special inspector for Iraq reconstruction

Number of U.S. criminal investigations underway for contract fraud in Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan: 73, according to an Army spokesman.

Percentage of U.S. military deaths by roadside bomb (IED), 2004: Approximately 33%.

Percentage of U.S. military deaths by roadside bomb (IED), 2007: Approximately 80%.

Amount Pentagon invested in counter-IED jamming technology in the last year: $1.6 billion; $6 billion since the war began.

Amount needed to make a typical IED (which can be built from instructions on the Internet): "About the cost of a pizza," according to Newsweek magazine.

Cost for hiring Iraqis to plant a successful IED in 2005: $100.

Cost for hiring Iraqis to plant a successful IED in central Iraq in 2007: As low as $40.

Percentage of the West Point class of 2001 who chose to leave the U.S. Army last year: Nearly 46%, according to statistics compiled by West Point. More than 54% of the class of 2000 had chosen not to re-up by January 2007. Over the previous three decades, the percentages for those departing the service at the five-year mark after graduation ranged from 10%-30%. The major reason given now: wear and tear from multiple deployments to Iraq.

Number of U.S. Army suicides, 2006: 99 (more than one quarter while serving in Iraq or Afghanistan), according to the Army, or 17.3 per thousand, the highest rate in 26 years (during which the average rate was 12.3 per thousand). 118 U.S. military personnel have committed suicide in Iraq itself since 2003, according to Greg Mitchell, editor of the Editor & Publisher website; and Army suicide numbers do not, Mitchell notes, include "many unconfirmed reports [of suicides], or those who served in the war and then killed themselves at home."

Percentage of 1,320 soldiers interviewed in Iraq who ranked their unit's morale as "low or very low": 45%, according to the Los Angeles Times. Seven percent ranked it "high or very high."

Percentage increase in U.S. Army desertions in 2006: 27% or 3,196 active duty soldiers, according to figures corrected by the Army, which had inaccurately been reporting much lower numbers. The percentage rise for 2005 had been 8%. From 2002 through 2006, the average annual rate of Army prosecutions of deserters tripled (compared with the five-year period from 1997 to 2001) to roughly 6% of deserters, Army data shows.

Number of states authorized by the Army National Guard to accept "the lowest-ranking group of eligible recruits, those who scored between 16 and 30 on the armed services aptitude test": 34 (plus Guam), according to the New York Times. ("Federal law bars recruits who scored lower than 16 from enlisting.")

Percentage of Army recruits since late July who have accepted a $20,000 "quick ship" bonus to leave for basic combat training by the end of September: 90%, part of an Army campaign to meet year-end recruiting goals after a two-month slump. A soldier coming out of basic training is paid on average $17,400 a year.

Percentage of U.S. military equipment destroyed or worn out in Iraq (and Afghanistan): 40% or $212 billion worth.

Percentage of Iraqi national police force which is Shiite: 85%.

Number of Iraqis in American prisons in Iraq: 24,500 (and rising), up 50% since the President's surge plan began in February, according to Thom Shanker of the New York Times; nearly 85% of these prisoners are Sunnis. (U.S. holding facilities at Camp Bucca in southern Iraq and Camp Cropper near Baghdad are still being expanded.)

Number of foreign suspected jihadis held in those prisons: 280.

Number of juveniles, aged 11-17, held in those prisons: Approximately 800 (also 85% Sunni).

Number of U.S. reconstruction projects officially considered "completed" in al-Anbar Province by July 2007: 3,300 projects "with a total value of $363 million," according to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad; 250 more projects at a price tag of $353 million are supposedly under way.

Percentage of U.S. reconstruction money estimated to go to Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda-in-Iraq militants for "protection" for any convoy of building materials entering al-Anbar Province: 50% or more, according to reporter Hannah Allam of the McClatchy Newspapers. ("Every contractor in Anbar who works for the U.S. military and survives for more than a month is paying the insurgency," according to a "senior Iraqi politician.")

Estimated number of full-time al-Qaeda-in-Iraq fighters: 850 or 2-5% of the Sunni insurgency, according to Malcolm Nance, author of The Terrorists of Iraq, who "has worked with military and intelligence units tracking al-Qaeda inside Iraq."

Number of times President Bush mentioned al-Qaeda in a speech on the Iraqi situation on July 24, 2007: 95.

Percentage of unemployed in the now-"secure" city of Fallujah, three-quarters of whose buildings were destroyed or damaged by U.S. firepower in November 2005 in al-Anbar Province: More than 80%, according to local residents.

Percentage of U.S. military supplies carried on the vulnerable "Route Tampa," the 300 miles of highway from Kuwait to Baghdad: 90% of the food, water, ammunition, and equipment, according to John Pike of Globalsecurity.org.

Percentage increase of alcoholics in care in Iraq: Up 34% in May-June 2007, compared to previous year, according to the Iraqi Psychologists Association, based on a study of 2,600 patients and inhabitants of Baghdad's suburbs.

Amount spent by the average household in Baghdad for a few hours of electricity a day: $171 a month in a country where $400 is a reasonable monthly wage.

Number of Iraqi civilian deaths in August: 1,809, according to an Associated Press count, the highest figure of the surge year so far. Surge commander Gen. Petraeus is evidently going to claim a 75% drop in sectarian killings as well as a drop in civilian deaths (especially in Baghdad) in his upcoming report. To the extent that those questionable figures are accurate, they may, in part, result from the fact that, in the surge months, the ethnic cleansing of the capital actually increased significantly. Experts also believe the U.S. military's figures for "surge success" rely on carefully defined and cherry-picked numbers. The AP, in fact, claims that sectarian deaths have nearly doubled since a year ago. All such figures are, in any case, considered significant undercounts in a country where it is no longer possible to report anywhere near the total number of deaths from violence.

Average number of deaths per day from political violence in 2007: 62, according to the AP count.

Average number of deaths per day from political violence in 2006: 37, according to the AP count.

Number of daily attacks on civilians, February to July 2007: Unchanged, according to the non-partisan Government Accountability Office.

Number of Iraqis fleeing their homes on average during each surge month, February to July 2007: 100,000, according to the Iraqi Red Crescent Society. The United Nation's International Organization for Migration offers the lower, but still staggering figure of 50,000 Iraqis fleeing their homes each month.

Number of internally displaced Iraqis during the surge months: Over 600,000, more than doubling the number of internal refugees to 1.14 million, according to the Red Crescent Society. (The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has offered the higher estimate of 2.2 million internal refugees.)

Percentage of Iraqis who fled their neighborhoods in the surge months due to direct threats on their lives: 63%, according to the UN. ("More than 25 percent said they fled after being thrown out of their homes at gunpoint.") Iraqis leaving their homes in Baghdad in the same time period "grew by a factor of 20."

Number of Iraqi "bus people" now in exile in neighboring lands: 2.5 million, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. This is the fastest growing -- and already the third-largest -- refugee population in the world.

Number of Iraqi refugees admitted to the U.S. in August: nearly 530, more than all those admitted in the previous 11 months. Number of Iraqi refugees estimated to be in Syria alone: 1.5 million.

Total number of Iraqis killed, sent into exile, or turned into internal refugees: More than four million by a conservative estimate, or somewhere between one out of every five and one out of every six Iraqis. (There is no way even to estimate the numbers of Iraqis who have been wounded in these years.)

Total number of Americans who would have been killed or turned into refugees, if these numbers were extrapolated to the far more populous United States: 50 million, according to Gary Kamiya of Salon.com, a figure "roughly equal to the population of the northeastern United States, including New York, New Jersey, Maryland and all of New England."

Percentage of people across the globe who "think U.S. forces should leave Iraq within a year": 67%, according to a just-released BBC World Service poll of 23,000 people in 22 countries. Only 23% think foreign troops should remain "until security improves."

Percentage of people across the globe who think the United States plans to keep permanent military bases in Iraq: 49%.

Percentage of Americans who think U.S. forces should get out of Iraq within a year: 61%, according to the same BBC poll, including 24% who favor immediate withdrawal and 37% percent who prefer a one-year timetable; 32% of Americans say U.S. forces should stay "until security improves." In a recent Harris poll, 42% of Americans favored U.S. troops leaving Iraq "now"; 30% in a recent CBS poll (with another 31% favoring a "decrease").

Percentage of citizens of U.S.-led "coalition" members in Iraq, who want forces out within a year: 65% of Britons, 63% of South Koreans, and 63% of Australians, according to the BBC poll. Even a majority of Israelis want either an immediate American withdrawal (24%), or withdrawal within a year (28%); only 40% opt for "remain until security improves."

Percentage of Americans who believe, "in the long run," that "the U.S. mission in Iraq [will] be seen as a failure": 57%, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. Only 29 % disagree.

Tom Dispatch (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174834/launching_brand_petraeus)

[Wild Cobra]

Funny how stories like that only come from writers of extremely biased writers who get time in magazines like "The Nation."

Have any reputable journalists making such claims?

[BradLohaus]

no dan, military spending is a measly 20% of our budget. It's your communist social programs that will bankrupt this country. NOW THAT's A UNDENIABLE FACT!!

Both are bankrupting this country.


There are many democrats who believe as JFK did that we must defend against any foe.

JFK was also planning to withdraw from Vietnam after the 1964 election that he didn't live to see.


Have you ever read Dr. Williams columns. You know when
you go to the grocery store to buy something, they never
buy anything from you, and you have an imbalance of
payments since you spend more with them than they
do with you. But you got something of value in return for
you dollars. Food.

I like Walter E. Williams somewhat; he supports Ron Paul for president. But that analogy of his - comparing trade between the US and foreign countries to trade between a man and his grocery store - is too simple. It doesn't take into account the reserve status of the dollar. If the man in question could print money whenever he wanted some food then it would be more accurate.