Reply With Quote
The covers the Democrat party line about as well as Yoni covers the Republican.
"sectarian violence didn't erupt for some time after Baghdad fell."
Invasion in March, dubya's fake-crotch/fake-flyboy/Mission Accomplished in May.
The violence started in about May or June, associated with the Repug asshole Bremer disbanding the Iraqi army and police and dumping several 100K men into the unemployed rolls. Just ing brilliant.
No matter when the violence started, dubya was NOT prepared to handle it, didn't even foresee it, and 4 years later still doesn't have it under control.
Iraq is not central to the war on terror, now or ever, except in dubya's talking points and in the echo from Yoni.
The war on terror is/was in Aghanistan which was abandoned by the US (no oil in Afghanistan) and now in the Paki FATAs.
AQI, which didn't exist until dubya broke Iraq, is fighting a guerilla/unconventional war against the US and Shiites.
The covers the Democrat party line about as well as Yoni covers the Republican.
It's a cardinal rule in Washington, for reporters and politicians: never let yourself fall behind a scandal, story or trend.
That's why we're starting to see a "recalibration" on Iraq by members of the mainstream media, and even some Democrats in Congress. A shift appears to be underway inside the Beltway, with reporters and pols saying things about Iraq that were unimaginable just a few weeks ago. Look for more to join their ranks in the coming weeks, ahead of the September report by our top ground commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus.
Obviously, this doesn't mean that Congressional Democrats and the chattering class are going to suddenly endorse the war effort, or proclaim that George W. Bush was right all along. Instead, this recalibration is designed to preserve credibility for the MSM (or more correctly, what little credibility they have left), and provide some maneuvering room for Democratic politicians.
In other words, they've seen the hand-writing on the wall. After proclaiming the troop surge a failure, they're now confronted by a new reality: the strategy is actually working, creating a strong case for continuing the effort into 2008, and (possibly) beyond. Making matters worse, evidence of the strategy's effectiveness was detailed in both The New York Times and the Washington Post--in less than a week.
The Times op-ed, written by two analysts from the liberal Brookings Ins ution, proclaimed that "we are finally getting somewhere in Iraq," while the Post highlighted the growing numbers of Iraqis who are joining security forces and fighting terrorists. General Petraeus describes this as "the most significant trend" in Iraq over the last four months or so.
Gains described by the Times and Post are likely to find their way into Petraeus's upcoming report, so that puts the MSM (and their Democratic friends) in a difficult position. Unable to refute the evidence that General Petraeus will offer, they're staking out a "modified" position, moving away from their early proclamations about the "failure" of the surge. Little wonder that panelists on Chris Matthews' weekend show -- all card-carrying members of the establishment media -- were discussing why the U.S. shouldn't leave Iraq too soon.
Then, there's this little item from today's edition of the Post, suggesting a similar shift among some Congressional Democrats. Interviewed during one of the paper's webcasts, House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina said that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by General David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war. And, in a rare display of full political disclosure, Clyburn said that a generally positive report would be "a real big problem for us." He also urged House Democrats to "wait for the Petraeus report" before charting their next move in the battle over Iraq strategy.
Congressman Clyburn's comments are a thinly-veiled warning to other members of the Democratic Caucus and party activists who've been pushing for a rapid U.S. retreat from Iraq. He indicates that a positive report from Petraeus might cause members of the "Blue Dog" caucus to jump ship, making it virtually impossible to pass legislation aimed at reducing troop levels, or defunding the war effort. In the mean time, he's urging his party's anti-war wing (in other words, the majority of Democrats) to keep quiet, and avoid bucking possible evolutions in their "official" policy.
It's hard to imagine that most voters would accept -- let alone, endorse -- a sudden "change of heart" on Iraq by the Democrats and their cohorts in the MSM. But that will happen (and only reluctantly), if the present, positive trends continue. In the interim, a few reporters and Democratic politicians are trying to have it both ways, getting out in front of an potentially positive report by General Petraeus, while reserving the right to jump back on the anti-war bandwagon if conditions again erode. It's a particularly odious form of recalibration, but it's how media types (and some politicians) try to keep themselves ahead of the curve.
So far, none of the Democratic presidential candidates have followed Clyburn's lead, but it will be interesting to watch their Iraq rhetoric in the run-up to the Petraeus report. As has been postulated, a more "modulated" Democratic position would benefit Hillary, giving her some separation from rivals who've proclaimed their perpetual opposition to the war. That may be true, but Mrs. Clinton still has to reconcile her original vote for the war, and more recent calls to abandon the successful troop surge.
Bush right all along? about what?
wmds?
no post war plan?
About Iraq being central to the war on terror.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/....ap/index.html
He must not want to win Iraq...Mullen acknowledged that slow progress in Iraq is hurting U.S. credibility and encouraging Iran's regional ambitions.
He said it's important to see results more than four years into the war. Some 160,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq, and more than 3,640 Americans have been killed.
"A protracted deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq, with no change in the security situation, risks further emboldening Iranian hegemonic ambitions and encourages their continued support to Shia insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan," Mullen wrote.
Mullen, the chief of naval operations, was chosen to replace Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace as the nation's top military officer.
Why do you say that? What he said is true.
Okay, no problem now for the dimm-o-crap liberals. Murtha
has made the pronouncement that it is all BS. The surge isn't
working, no way, Jose.......end of story. You all can go back
to the offense and kicking Bush.
Really? Did Murtha actually say that?
Yep Rush had his statement on the air today.
He must not have gotten the memo...
what else did hush tell you today?
He didn't tell me anything. Just quoted some
what else did hush tell you today?
dimm-o-craptic idiots like Murtha......listen sometimes,
you may get an education. Oh, and he is what he says
he is. An entertainer, making big bucks.
And I am sure that he played Murtha's entire comment from beginning to end. or did you just hear a sentence or two? Come on ray think man!
I'd like to see the quote, in it's context, as well.
You look it up. Non-believer........he is your man.
I've tried to find it by googling, no luck yet.
I didn't think you heard the whole comment. Wouldn't that be more honest Ray? To listen to the whole statement in context?
Well, to be fair, some statements stand on their own. Listening to the entire statement may not change the characterization that Murtha believes the surge is a failure but, I'd like to see the quote for myself.
I don't listen to Rush and I'm not a subscriber to his website so, I'm limited in what I can discover. Googling "Murtha Surge" is only producing dated material.
Here is the damn link you folks are so worried about. Took about
30 seconds to find it. It also has a video with it. Enjoy.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/31/murtha-ohanlon/
I'll watch it later, I'm standing in a crowded, noisy, line and forgot my earphones.
Murtha says success is an "illusion"
Calm down. It's good to post sources.
thanks for the new sig
Have fun with it. I don't have sigs or avatars turned on anyway.
Maybe we need to get brown in contact with Yoni because Iraq is the central fron to the war on terror..In his opening remarks, Brown said: "I strongly support President Bush's initiative, a bold initiative to make early progress in the Middle East peace process. Afghanistan is the front line against terrorism, and as we have done twice in the last year, where there are more forces needed to back up the coalition and NATO effort, they have been provided by the United Kingdom."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
