Obviously Murtha is much more on top of the situation than Santorum, who believed he had found the WMDs a little while ago. Iraq will bet better once the troops leave? He could be wrong. But it’s not getting better with them staying there, and his predictions can’t be any more inaccurate than those put forth by the Bushites. As far as helping recruit terrorists, he’s only agreeing with the NIE and at least one other assessment of the situation.

I wonder what “serious” about the war means. “Mission Accomplished”? “Stay the course”?

Constantine on October 29, 2006 at 10:49 PM

What a nipple. That man is a power whore that will say and do anything to get it. He sickens me.

x95b10 on October 29, 2006 at 10:53 PM

Murtha is Grampa Simpson made real.

He fits that description perfectly. He misquoted the Iraqi Prime minister. The prime ministers voiced his frustration about the timetable. If that is his plan or his musings, he simply out of touch.

Ouabam on October 29, 2006 at 11:08 PM

Constantine,

Remember, after the Soviets fought in Afganistan in the 80’s, the U.S. “cut and ran” from Afganistan, leaving a blackhole for terrorists and the Taliban to thrive in.

So if you want to know what “could” happen if we “cut and run” as those like Murtha say, just take a look at what took place.

Sometimes things “look” simple without historical perspective.

HarryStar on October 29, 2006 at 11:10 PM

Yes, those WMDs:

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

“This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991,” the official said, adding the munitions “are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war.”

HarryStar, I would differ with you in that the Taliban were created by our mistake to get in league with the Afghan mujahideen (who we equipped and trained) in the first place. Whenever we insert ourselves into a conflict, there’s always blowback. In fact, we have a zero success rate when propping up/supporting dictators (Saddam, for example) or supporting mercenaries (Nicaragua), a series of failures for which both Democrats and Republicans are responsible. You lie down with dogs, you get fleas. We need to learn the lesson.

Constantine on October 29, 2006 at 11:30 PM

it’s not their hearts and minds that matter… it’s their balls.

BadBrad on October 29, 2006 at 11:41 PM

The nie also said that leaving iraq would be the worst thing we could do, and that staying in iraq and stabilizing the country would deal a huge blow to terrorism worldwide.

Scot on October 29, 2006 at 11:43 PM

“Bush’s justification for war.” Constantine, read this story. And then knock of the liberal pap about “Bush’s justification for war.” You’re either a liar or you believe history began in January 2001. Which is it?

Bryan on October 30, 2006 at 12:06 AM

Whether we have actually found WMDs is largely irrelevant, Constantine. We go to war with the intelligence we have, not with the intelligence we will later have as a direct result of going to war.

DaveS on October 30, 2006 at 12:20 AM

HarryStar, I would differ with you in that the Taliban were created by our mistake to get in league with the Afghan mujahideen (who we equipped and trained) in the first place. Whenever we insert ourselves into a conflict, there’s always blowback. In fact, we have a zero success rate when propping up/supporting dictators (Saddam, for example) or supporting mercenaries (Nicaragua), a series of failures for which both Democrats and Republicans are responsible.

Advocating the complete take over model of Germany/Japan circa 1945 as a better model then ?

More to your point, was it a mistake for the US to supply the USSR during WWII or does the concept involved completely escape you ?

ps: There are those that would argue that the US has done a smashing job at propping up Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, et alia…

elgeneralisimo on October 30, 2006 at 1:04 AM

Constantine, any story that leads with “But first [Cheney] had to take on George Tenet’s CIA for control over intelligence,” is not credible. Tenet was the one who said the Iraq WMD was a “slam dunk”, and there is no evidence that anyone at the CIA was pressured to reach any conclusions. They simply shared the same view that every other intelligence agency on the planet had, which is that Iraq possessed an ongoing WMD program.

An incredibly simple concept. Incredibly simple.

Does Clinton advocate invading and occupying Iraq?

No, and I consider that one of the most compelling pieces of evidence that Clinton was entirely unsuited to be Commander in Chief, and a “dereliction of duty”.

DaveS on October 30, 2006 at 1:11 AM

Jack “Redeploy to Okinawa” Murtha is a national disgrace, as corrupt as they come, and a perfect example of “Semper I”. I just wish he’d go back to his old gig as the captain on Pigs in Space. (Now there’s a Photoshop I’d like to see.)

ReubenJCogburn on October 30, 2006 at 1:46 AM

I think the way Cheney and his cronies undermined and influenced Tenet and his department is more than adequately explained in the program. I’ve been lectured repeatedly about how “it wasn’t just about WMDs”, but it’s pretty obvious that they used flimsy evidence to support the abandonment of the war against the perpetrators of 9/11 to a pursue a fool’s errand in Iraq.

No, and I consider that one of the most compelling pieces of evidence that Clinton was entirely unsuited to be Commander in Chief, and a “dereliction of duty”.

Because the Iraq war has gone so well? I’m not sure how much more evidence you need that his was the wiser policy.

Where’s that clown Clowntoon, now?? Couldn’t get anyone to come to his elite birthday party.
Clinton didn’t launch an attack on Iraq because he’s ball-less and lazy and loathes the military, almost as much as they loathe him!
No, the Iraq war wasn’t just about WMDs, but we know Saddam had them, so where did they go? Syria? Iran?
The Iraq war is the second front of the Global War on IslamoFascist Terror and in our mission to drain the swamp of jihadism, while liberating subjugated peoples who have tried to kill our President (Bush 41) and fired on our planes for 12 years.
Saddam was in defiance of 16 UN resolutions…or have you forgotten? (By Darryl Worley.)
What do Libs mean when you say that war “hasn’t gone well?”
What standard are you using or what other war are you using as a comparison that went “well.”
I call b*llshit on all this talk about the Iraq war and its “failures” and it “not going well.”
War never goes “well”: war is hell.
Anyone who believes that “Cheney and his cronies” wrested control of the gubment from Tenet to wreak global havoc has his tin foil hat on way too tight!
Either that or you’re smokin’ some primo weed–pass the bong, Constantine!

Jen the Neocon on October 30, 2006 at 2:21 AM

And I’d like to add that 99% of the time, liberals trying to sound knowledgeable talking about war is the equivalent of fish trying to sound knowledgeable talking about bicycles.

ReubenJCogburn on October 30, 2006 at 2:53 AM

Bryan wrote about Constantine: “You’re either a liar or you believe history began in January 2001. Which is it?”

The answer is liar.

Why is this troll still posting here?

georgej on October 30, 2006 at 3:02 AM

I’m not sure how any war can go well. That is not even the point. What I don’t understand is why the left focuses on the WMD issue so much.

Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq’s breaches related not only to WMDs, but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991. Not to mention the IraQi military was shooting at Americans doing the bidding of the international community?

iNeXuS on October 30, 2006 at 3:36 AM

Santorum was correct in that he found stockpiles Iraq shouldn’t have had.

And Murtha thinks we should redeploy our response forces to Okinawa, which is farther away from Iraq than Maine. And you think he’s more on top of things, Constantine?

It’s a shame that the Dem talking points are so pathetic. It must be embarrassing trying to plant them and then defend them. I feel your pain!

::bites lower lip::

Pablo on October 30, 2006 at 5:24 AM

Cigarman-tard? Cigar-tard?

Murtha is an embarassment to America, and I cannot believe the polls show ole cut-and-run is winning. In fact, that is another reason I don’t believe the polls.

In “04 we” had access to polling data from our Armed Forces. Anyone see that this year?

DannoJyd on October 30, 2006 at 6:16 AM

Bush Jr., who surrounded himself with PNAC chickenhawks*.

I’m a proud chickenhawk. The difference being that while I never served, I did spend time in both Iraq and Afghanistan as a contractor.

So go ahead, question my patriotism, call me a baby killer, or just say “screw them”. It won’t make you any more credible.

E L Frederick on October 30, 2006 at 7:07 AM

They respect the military service of being required to fight untenable air wars and of troops bending over and getting sodomized by international criminal tribunes for following orders. Oh, and for the U.S. Military getting a bad rap for a few bad apples, who were court-marshalled and punished for their behavior. But wait, who cares? Its all about the SHAME! They also love the idea of telling them how underequipped they are, without, of course, knowing that, for instance, against IED’s heavier armor does not necessarily work. Specially designed vehicles do. But they also love bringing in a bunch of retired generals to say how we’re doing it wrong, and then throw them out without doing anything that they have suggested. They also love to talk about how many people have died, but have no respect for the sacrifice they proudly and bravely made. They do not understand that it is honorable for a soldier to die REGARDLESS of the ‘validity’ or ‘effectiveness’ of the war. They do not recognize that you cannot start a war and not finish it. They love supporting a war, and then complaining about the cost– using it as leverage to undermine our bravest souls and complain that the money could be spent on ‘better things’ here in the U.S. By which they clearly mean their personal Yacht collections. They don’t understand military intelligence, and yet claim to have a clear understanding of it when it is convenient. They bemoan our misunderstanding of our enemy, but are unwilling to plant spies and operatives to gather intelligence, or to let those agents work with ‘unsavory’ characters. They say that Diplomacy works, but forget that Diplomacy’s strength is based on the implied threat of violence and the confidence that a nation can act with based on its strength. They say they want us to win, and then they can’t decide whether they do. In any event, they consider our enemies ‘freedom fighters’ and themselves ‘imperialist oppressors’.

In short, we could take all of ‘em without any guns. Just snap off some branches from local trees– that will be enough to cow ‘em.

/end polemic

RiverCocytus on October 30, 2006 at 7:37 AM

One Pentagon patriot with a computer and a TS clearance could shut this fathead up but good. We need a leak. A really LEAKY leak. Any takers?

seejanemom on October 30, 2006 at 9:12 AM

Everytime we kill one super Islamic bad guy, eleventy three pop up in his place.

…surprised? What’s the alternative? Non-violent attrition? We stop attacking, they stop recruiting, and we win when everyone goes back to Syria, Lebanon, Chechnya to play with their worry beads?

…not happenin’.

Puritan1648 on October 30, 2006 at 9:19 AM

Bush’s justification for war

…two questions:

1) What justification does the head of state for a sovereign nation require, especially as, in our sovereign nation the head of state is the Commander-In-Chief?

2) (the tricky one) To whom is he justifying his actions? To the UN? To the EU? To the Iraqi insurgents? To the opposition party in his own nation? To the editorial board of the New York Times? Constantine?

My answers:

1) He needs an explanation of the threat, backed up by an unclassified explanation of the intelligence we have of the threat.

2) He needs to justify it to the American electorate…every four years. You don’t run wars on polls. Dick Morris isn’t a general…dear man that he is, he’s a pimp….

…if you’ve begun issuing pointy bullets, polls are irrelevant….

Puritan1648 on October 30, 2006 at 9:39 AM

Because the Iraq war has gone so well? I’m not sure how much more evidence you need that his was the wiser policy.

Constantine, just to remind you… Clinton was President BEFORE Bush, so the Iraq war and its difficulties were not in evidence at the time. Iraq’s WMD programs were. Quit conflating the present with the past, please.

DaveS on October 30, 2006 at 9:47 AM

…hmm…brain cramp on closing the quote…oh well…won’t be the only mistake I make today.

Puritan1648 on October 30, 2006 at 9:50 AM

…helping recruit terrorists…

Excellent, EXCELLENT, excellent bit of opinion on the matter from Mark Steyn (a recent guest in Da Boss’s video arena). The whole piece (which I recommend with oakleaves, swords and diamonds!) can be found here.

(Mr. Bush) dismissed the idea that going into Iraq had only served to “recruit” more terrorists to the cause. (General Pace told me last week that, if anything, the evidence is that Iraq has tied up a big chunk of senior jihadists who’d otherwise be blowing up Afghanistan and elsewhere.) The president’s view is that before it was Iraq it was Israel; with these guys, it’s always something…Bush concluded with an exasperated: “If it’s not the Crusades, it’s the cartoons.” That’d make a great slogan: it encapsulates simultaneously the Islamists’ inability to move on millennium-in millennium-out, plus their propensity for instant new “root causes,” and their utter lack of proportion.

…and another interesting thing in that piece, relevant to this topic, often brought up here in my experience about the Left:

Asked about poll numbers, he said that 25 percent of the population are always against the war — any war.

…Bush the dumbest guy in the room? Not according to this. He agrees with me. Mighty savvy of him, quite frankly….

Puritan1648 on October 30, 2006 at 10:43 AM

As a PA resident, I’m ready to pack up my bags and head south. Not only are “Fast Eddie” Rendell and senile Murtha expected to win with ease, Curt Weldon is in a tight race and Rick Santorum is in big trouble too with virtually no prospect of winning. With a Weldon/Santorum loss that will leave the state of Pennsylvania with two Democrat Senators, Bob Casey and Arlen Specter [sarc], and without two strong supporters of the war on terror.

There’s something seriously wrong with this picture.

I find it rather ironic that Santorum has taken a beating for his anti-abortion stance, while his opponent is the son of ex-guv Robert Casey, who was not permitted to speak at the 1992 DNC Convention because of his pro-choice ideology.

It’s hard to tell where Casey the Younger stands on abortion or any other issue since his campaign is straight out of the Dem playbook - don’t take a stance, say you have a better plan and bash Bush. Just another empty suit.

fogw on October 30, 2006 at 11:13 AM

How dare the Iraqi Prime Minister pretend to NOT be a puppet of the U.S. government? Things must really be bad for him to pretend that “he’s his own person”.

DaveS on October 30, 2006 at 12:17 AM

The point is that the administration in yet display of sickening incompetence, holds a press briefing to announce the milestones 12-18 month thing, without having discussed with the Iraqis. It’s hard not to draw the conclusion that these clowns could fuck up a two car funeral.

honora on October 30, 2006 at 11:38 AM

Murtha big crime is speaking out against the admin’s calaminous Iraq policy. There is not another member of Congress as connected to the military as Murtha, this is what makes the Bushies crazy (as so elegantly illustrated on this very blog!!)

honora on October 30, 2006 at 11:42 AM

Don Quixote, I salute you!!

honora on October 30, 2006 at 11:40 AM

And for tilting so bravely against the evil Bush regime, honora, I salute you!
/sarc

You say ‘the admin’s calaminous Iraq policy.’ Please take a look at this and let us know what you think.

Wonder why we don’t get to see more news like this? Because it would show W’s administration in a positive light. And that is something that simply cannot be done by the LLL controlled MSM.

techno_barbarian on October 30, 2006 at 11:56 AM

Wonder why you see the local news showing automobile accidents instead of concentrating on all the folks who don’t get injured driving?

There is a distinct difference between the reporting of an automobile accident and the war in Iraq. Showing an automobile accident on the local news does not incite other drivers to go out and mow down a pedestrian.

fogw on October 30, 2006 at 12:27 PM

honora on October 30, 2006 at 12:12 PM

That’s it? This is your counter-argument? I don’t recall being told/sold that the reason we invaded Iraq was to build schools and vaccinate kids. That’s lovely, but how does this play out in the actual war part of the war??

That’s part of it. My point being that the constant drumbeat from the MSM is to convince the American People and the world at large that America is a failure. So much so that ANY good news is dismissed, just as you dismiss it here, as irrelevant.

You don’t think victory is possible in Iraq and choose to run away and hide instead. The jihadis are at war with you, honora; whether you want them to be or not.

In my opinion the very best idea is to defeat the jihadis in the very heart of their proposed and planned caliphate. War’s a vicious and very deadly thing. And this one is very different than any other we’ve fought.

It is critically important that we win this war. And to head off the inevitable, “But what’s’ ‘winning’ mean?” diversion; winning means an Iraq that can stand alone and defend itself and not serve as a huge base for terrorist factions bent on our destruction.

This isn’t going to be a microwave quick conflict. We will be engaged in this war for generations. Accept it and get behind victory, rather than nipping annoyingly at the very people working so damned hard at actually waging it.

techno_barbarian on October 30, 2006 at 12:42 PM

..and showing the war part of the war incites other nations to invade Iraq? Anytime soon?

honora on October 30, 2006 at 12:41 PM

Getting back to techno_barbarian’s original point, the networks don’t just show the war, as you say. They show only the bad aspects of the war and none of the good work our troops are doing, (the car crash but not the life-saving techniques of the EMTs on the scene). They chant we are losing the war while never mentioning the possibility that a win would be a positive outcome for us and the rest of the middle east.

Incite other nations to invade Iraq? I can’t believe you came to that conclusion. Wow.

The negative night-after-night news on the war, and how we are losing, enables our enemies. You know, the ones who are already in Iraq! It’s a simple cause and effect that liberals are incapable of understanding. This country and it’s MSM should avoid giving our enemies the impression that their victory is just around the corner.

Get it?

fogw on October 30, 2006 at 12:57 PM

We will be at war with the Islam terrorists for generations. We will not be in Iraq for generations. If by “the very people working so damned hard” you mean Bush et al–well I am more of a results oriented gal, don’t give a shit how hard you are working if you can’t deliver. Sorry, no points for trying.

honora on October 30, 2006 at 12:45 PM

And that is EXACTLY why I have absolutely no faith whatsoever in the democrats. If you actually believe what you just said, you must be utterly livid with the repeatedly flacid performance of the democratic leadership in the years before W took office, right?

As you say, no points for ‘trying’.

techno_barbarian on October 30, 2006 at 1:05 PM

We will be at war with the Islam terrorists for generations. We will not be in Iraq for generations.

Oh, and make no mistake, we will definitely be in Iraq for generations to come. Just like we’re still in Japan, Germany, etc. And you know what? The Iraqi People will want us there too.

techno_barbarian on October 30, 2006 at 1:11 PM

You know what enables our enemies?

Our enemies!!

honora on October 30, 2006 at 1:00 PM

Good, you understand. These enemies are hellbent on killing all of us, irrespective of anything this administration does, the previous administration didn’t do or any insurgent-friendly stories in the MSM.

So should we just sit back and watch it happen, or do something about it, like fighting them in their own back yard instead of on Main Street USA?

What do you suggest, we sit down and talk with them?

fogw on October 30, 2006 at 1:15 PM

Oh, and make no mistake, we will definitely be in Iraq for generations to come. Just like we’re still in Japan, Germany, etc. And you know what? The Iraqi People will want us there too.
techno_barbarian on October 30, 2006 at 1:11 PM

On the chance you might have an interest in this:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/27/iraqis-poll/

The first is a poll taken in 2004 by gasp!! the MSM and reported by gasp!! the MSM. Basically pretty optimistic. The second is a more recent poll. (The full report can be accessed at the bottom of the page). The trend is clear and grim. The Iraqis want us out.

honora on October 30, 2006 at 1:29 PM

Nice honora, citing a thinkprogress poll. I’ll call it what it is, bullcrap. I’m wondering who took these polls of the Iraqi people, since the MSM reporters in Iraq rarely leave the safety of their hotels.

You know who is out and about with the Iraqi people? Our troops. And my son happens to be one of those troops who has served in Iraq, not in a hotel, but out and amongst the Iraqi populace. Strange that he came home with a completely differect perspective than your friends at thinkprogress.

According to a soldier who’s talked with the Iraqis on a daily basis, they want us there, they appreciate what we have done, they are thankful for all the rebuilding we are doing, and they want us to leave when the country gets back on it’s feet and is capable of dealing with the bad guys on their own.

The only people who want us the hell out of there are the insurgents, because they don’t like us kicking their ass. I’m assuming that is who the people at thinkprogress were interviewing in their polls, given the results and the fact that the folks at thinkprogress are on the side of the terrorists, making them approachable for polling.

fogw on October 30, 2006 at 1:43 PM

Nice honora, citing a thinkprogress poll. I’ll call it what it is, bullcrap. I’m wondering who took these polls of the Iraqi people, since the MSM reporters in Iraq rarely leave the safety of their hotels

The poll was reported by thinkprogress, not implemented by them. But then again, all you need to know is it doesn’t support your POV, right?

Such nonsense.

honora on October 30, 2006 at 1:56 PM

honora, while I understand and share many of your frustrations with the current administration and it’s handling of this conflict, I must take issue with a couple of your remarks.
1. “Murtha’s big crime is speaking out against the admin’s calaminous Iraq policy”.- His crime is breaking faith with our troops. He did that when he denied them so much as due process or even benefit of the doubt, something he has no problem giving to the enemy. I am speaking specifically of the Haditha incident. Murtha had no problem rushing to judgement before any facts were in or any investigations completed, even suggesting that our marines are “cold blooded” killers. There is much about this incident that would call the whole affair into doubt- the witnesses themselves, their stories, a myriad of other questionable testimony. If Murtha gave a damn about the troops at all, he might have better spent his face time mentioning these things.
By the way, I am also a former marine who has seen combat, and has had contacts with marines in the field over the past several years of this conflict. Murtha , and his supporters, seem to feel that his service justifies his actions and comments.To myself and the afformentionesd marines, both active and former, it does not. In fact, it only makes them worse, indeed unforgivable, since he is someone who should have known better.
2.- “When every other day a retiring military officer comes out with grave concerns about this misadventure, does it ever occur to you that there might be something to it?”- It did, and so I heard them out. What I heard was much critism(much of it not enlightening) not much in the way of viable options, and a group of men with axes to grind or personal benefit at stake- book deals and speaking engagements, and as I recall off the top of my head , at least one running for office. What I did not see is any proof or documentation that they used proper channels while active to bring up such concerns, which was their job- indeed, duty- at the time.In short, it is a good thing that they no longer command troops in the field; there are too many politicians in cammoflauge as it is.

tomk59 on October 30, 2006 at 2:00 PM

Two words……….Pol Pot

Exactly!

Wade on October 30, 2006 at 2:17 PM

Honora wrote: “Murtha big crime is speaking out against the admin’s calaminous Iraq policy.”

Murtha’s first and most important “big crime” is to call his fellow Marines murderers without benefit of trial. That’s prohibited by the Constitution, BTW. Look up “Bill of Attainder.”

His second big crime is to SABOTAGE THE WAR FOR PARTISAN POLITICAL ADVANTAGE.

Honora also wrote: “What I get is the same old same old: this war is being won but the country doesn’t think so because of the evil MSM who by the way we are setting up to blame in case we don’t win the war.”

Why act surprised?

It’s not the first time it happened. The leftwing media reported the communist ‘68 Tet offensive to be a victory for the communists, when it was a major defeat for North Vietnam and resulted in over 50,000 NVA troops killed, over half of those committed, and the complete destruction of their insurgent arm, the Viet Cong.

No army in history has survived such battlefield losses, but Biap and Ho Chi Minh were trading the lives of their troops for critical coverage in the American media. What the Marines won on the hills around Khe Sanh, the New York Times and CBS took away in the homes of Americans.

Larry Schweikart, America’s Victories: Why the U.S. Wins wars and Will Win the War on Terror, Penguin Book, 2006, p. 35.

Embeded reporter Michael Fumento wrote about Vietnam and Iraq:

Vietnam was the first war to give us reporting in virtually real time. Iraq is the first to give us virtual reporting. http://www.fumento.com/military/brigade.html

And, in this war, the media is up to its old tricks. What he calls “virtual reportins” is simply the media telling lies.

Not only does the media deliberately and willfully broadcast enemy video propaganda (CNN, AP), but they OVERTLY LIE AND DISTORT the truth about Iraq. Fumento again:

Then there’s the dreaded “Highway of Death.” Here’s Ghosh again, picking up after his horrific corkscrew description. “But the relief is temporary; most of us still have to negotiate the Highway of Death,” he writes. “There have been hundreds of insurgent and terrorist attacks along its length since the U.S. military established its largest Iraqi base, Camp Victory, next to the airport three years ago….

…In fact, only reporters call it “The Highway of Death.” To everyone else it’s Route Irish, named after the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame (and not after an infantry regiment with strong Irish roots, as is widely believed).

Route Irish, in the words of US soldiers who patrol it, “…is definitely not the most dangerous road in Iraq any longer, and everyone who uses it knows it.”

And there is the “infamous” Green Zone (aka, the International Zone or IZ). Fumento again:

Nor have the grotesque exaggerations of the dangers of the IZ gone unnoticed by soldiers and their loved ones. “Dear Chain-smoking, Unwitting Stooges,” military blogger Jason Van Steenwyk began an open letter to the Baghdad press corps. “So how come we can get mortared several times a week out here and it never makes the news, but the pogues [rear-echelon soldiers] in the Green Zone can catch three measly mortar rounds and I get my dad emailing me asking why the Baghdad press corps is covering it like it’s the second Tet Offensive?”….

…In any case, no reporter has been killed or injured inside the IZ.

One of Michelle’s blog entries describes the SNIPING DEATH of a US Marine Captain killed by a sniper in Anbar province. I can’t help but wonder if America saw Robert M. Secher of the 3rd Battalion, 12th Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division, 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force, DIE ON CNN.

What a comfort for his family….

Michelle also reports AP’s KNOWING AND WILLING EMPLOYMENT of Al Qaeda terrorists as reporters and photographers, who feed enemy propaganda directly to America’s media via the AP.

The fact that Al Qaeda is using the media as their propaganda arm is no secret. Even Reuters openly acknowledges it.

And, America’s anti-war, anti-Bush media happily complies.

And when the media isn’t acting as Al Qaeda’s whores, they are OPENLY working to sabotage the war here at home. The New York Times deliberately exposed LEGAL and SECRET programs to track Al Qaeda terrorists, acts akin to treason. Ditto, the Washington Post.

And, to show their approval in weakening America, their media brethern award them Pulitizer’s.

Unless Americans go beyond the leftwing media for the news, all America knows of the war on terror are enemy propaganda masquerading as “news” and biased, slanted, LIES told by a self serving bunch of leftist reporters and editors whose bias even THEY don’t deny any longer.

And the fact is, Honora, the war is being won. Nothing that the traitor-left in and out of the media changes this fact.

georgej on October 30, 2006 at 2:21 PM

Honora, like Constantine, is serving Bullshit Sauce: “The trend is clear and grim. The Iraqis want us out.”

and “The poll was reported by thinkprogress, not implemented by them.”

Thinkprogress, in typical leftist fashion cherry picked what supported it’s position from PIPA’s poll and leaves out the whole story.

In the actual PIPA poll, the percentage of Iraqis who think Iraq is heading in the right direction has been essentially unchanged FOR THE LAST 2 1/2 YEARS! It goes up and it goes down over time but remains hovering at around 50% and has been since April 2004.

Do the Iraqis approve of the US led invasion? From the Iraq Index from the Brookings Institution:

“QUESTION TO IRAQIS: THINKING ABOUT ANY HARDSHIPS YOU MIGHT HAVE SUFFERED SINCE THE US-BRITAIN INVASION, DO YOU PERSONALLY THINK THAT OUSTING SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS WORTH
IT OR NOT? (chart shows those who responded “worth it”).”

Overall 77% of Iraqis agree that the invason was worth it, broken down as 91% Kurds, 98% Shia, and (not surprisingly) 13% Sunni [http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf p. 51]]

Do the Iraqis want America out? OF COURSE THEY DO. But only after the security environment is stable and their military and police can maintain the peace (75% of all Iraqis agree the security situation is poor).

georgej on October 30, 2006 at 2:53 PM

blockquote>We will be at war with the Islam terrorists for generations. We will not be in Iraq for generations. If by “the very people working so damned hard” you mean Bush et al–well I am more of a results oriented gal, don’t give a shit how hard you are working if you can’t deliver. Sorry, no points for trying.

But schools and vaccines don’t count as progress. At least not in Iraq, even though that is all you proggs crow about over here. And ousting the Taliban and having elections in Afghanistan? Not progress. Getting rid of Saddam and having elections in Iraq? Not progress.

So what would you consider progress honora? Because frankly I think you are primarily a bullshit oriented gal, who doesn’t give a damn about any progress that doesn’t directly benefit you.

B Moe on October 30, 2006 at 4:38 PM

WOW! Between this and a couple of other threads … man, I haven’t seen an ass whuppin’ like that since the last time Tyson fought a *white* guy!

Tony737 on October 30, 2006 at 6:00 PM

Who can explain Murtha when we can’t even explain Senator Kennedy? If you can fog a mirror you can be a Democrat politician - and these guys have plenty of fog.

thedecider on October 30, 2006 at 8:28 PM

The is no secret in how to win the war but we have to get the advisors and generals to fight the war. GWB needs to order his warriors to do what they do best, win wars.

As Ralph Peters, said in an article at frontpage.com”

Iraq deserves one last chance. But to make that chance even remotely viable, we’ll have to take desperate measures. We need to fight. And accept the consequences.

The first thing we need to do is to kill Muqtada al-Sadr, who’s now a greater threat to our strategic goals than Osama bin Laden.

We should’ve killed him in 2003, when he first embarked upon his murder campaign. But our leaders were afraid of provoking riots.

We must kill - not capture - Muqtada, then kill every gunman who comes out in the streets to avenge him.

For those of you that fought in Vietnam or lived through that period of time know what Raplh Peters is talking about I agree with him 100%.

ScottyDog on October 30, 2006 at 9:08 PM

Look I just lurk normally… But I feel a need to answer one of Honora’s questions without snark. She asked:

“don’t get this–anytime the discussion gets around to the horrible handling of the war, people start with Clinton’s sins. What is the point of that, seriously?”

The point in my mind for that is simply that the problem started getting worse then. 43 made his share of mistakes, but they mostly started getting worse under 42, so you start analyzing there.

Dawnsblood on October 30, 2006 at 6:37 PM

Thank you for the lack of snark. For analysis, I take your point. But we are now looking at what to do now; I contend the 90’s are pretty irrelevant to Baghdad 06.

honora on October 31, 2006 at 9:52 AM

WOW! Between this and a couple of other threads … man, I haven’t seen an ass whuppin’ like that since the last time Tyson fought a *white* guy!

Tony737 on October 30, 2006 at 6:00 PM

Comedy is hard, isn’t it?

honora on October 31, 2006 at 9:58 AM