'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

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

[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.

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.

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.

[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 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...