Ambien….

This has been the pattern. Enemy stirs up trouble. Media claims doom. Our military finds a solution. Overtime, our long slow grind towards a more normal Iraq continues. Just listen to our soldiers, they have no incentive to give a rosy scenario if things are turning to s*** with no hope.

Bill C on January 3, 2007 at 5:21 PM

Check out the latest poll from the Military Times. Support of the war and of Bush, and more troubling, belief in the war, has sunk like a stone this past year.

Civil war? What do libs care about a civil war? Wasn’t a ‘civil war’ the very reason we got involved IN Bosnia? Now a civil war means we gotta get OUT?

Do not put words in my mouth. I think there is so much to be concerned about in Iraq that it is hard to prioritize them all.

honora on January 3, 2007 at 3:31 PM

Try some of your own advice, where did I put words in your mouth?
What I mentioned, and I will type real slow, is that basically there is one story(one this thread)–the internatioanl and msm is ignoring the Iran intervention, you brought up a change in grammar, then I said I thing your priorities are skewed. Speaking only of this blog, I have no idea what your priorities as a philosophy is (nor do I care) just that between the two chosen stories you picked one that I thought was a lower priority. You apparently think the words “civil war” is more important than Iran’s attempt to undermine a democracy. I would never put words in your mouth, I don’t think they would fit with that foot there.

Whereas the enemy looks at the situation and correlation of forces with the intention of determining a way to take advantage of the situation — to win — the so-called leadership here is first and foremost interested in how anything they say and do will affect their chances of reelection and their parties standing. A sure recipe for disaster.

Iran is supporting both Sunni and Shiite terrorists in the Iraqi civil war, according to secret Iranian documents captured by Americans in Iraq.

Time for the Gomer Pyle quote again, viz.
“Surprise, surprise, surprise.”

Assuming the answer is “yes”, whom do you envision doing this wedge driving? (This gets, you’ll pardon the expression, more Byzantine by the day)

Any number of parties could use it. Knowing that your sponsor (and ideological brother) is also arming your enemy is pretty valuable information.

Well I am giving up the obscene ones for the new year. So far, so good. ;^) How about this one: obtuse. My comment points out the hypocrisy of the RW who had fits about the NBC usage, but the Sun, no worries.

HOnestly, how many people read the SUn? NBC broke the “civil war” cheery so it doesn’t have the same shock/propaganda value.

Gosh, you’re right. Let’s hope those Dems don’t make a big mess in Iraq.

LOL.

honora on January 3, 2007 at 4:36 PM

You probably won’t believe this but there is no big mess in Iraq. There is a case of the MSM jumping on any bad news and occasionally over-hyping it. That is what newsies do. They create controversy in order to get eyeballs on there adverts.

This has been the pattern. Enemy stirs up trouble. Media claims doom. Our military finds a solution. Overtime, our long slow grind towards a more normal Iraq continues. Just listen to our soldiers, they have no incentive to give a rosy scenario if things are turning to s*** with no hope.

When I saw that the last of the guys had been kicked loose because of “diplomatic immunity”, I thought I was going to have a freakin’ aneurysm.

We are pretty screwed with the pansies coming into office..

Viper1 on January 3, 2007 at 4:25 PM

Gosh, you’re right. Let’s hope those Dems don’t make a big mess in Iraq.

LOL.

Exit question: can this new information be used to drive a wedge between Muqtada al-Sadr and his Iranian sponsors?

Verbal Abuse on January 3, 2007 at 4:05 PM

Assuming the answer is “yes”, whom do you envision doing this wedge driving? (This gets, you’ll pardon the expression, more Byzantine by the day)

Did they put it in quotes? Maybe they were being snarky. You know snark? Right.

Bill C on January 3, 2007 at 3:37 PM

No quotes. Use the link.

Interesting that the New York Sun is now using the nomenclature “Iraqi civil war”. Of course when NBC did this, there was hell to pay. Like I said, interesting.

Not with a bang but a whimper….

honora on January 3, 2007 at 1:52 PM

Did they put it in quotes? Maybe they were being snarky. You know snark? Right.

I can’t imagine why you guys lost the election with that kind of profound insight.

honora on January 3, 2007 at 2:35 PM

I’m guessing they teach you that sort of sensitivity in liberal humility training.

Loverly.

At least some of us on this side claim no such sensitivities. We’re honest about ourselves.

;-)

Except that liberals never read anything through to the end that they know contradicts what they WANT to believe.

Liberals will read the headline, shrug their shoulders, and yell “right-wing propaganda” as they toss it in the trash.

Gregor on January 3, 2007 at 1:41 PM

Liberals never let the facts get in the way of their point of view. Don’t you know that by now? WMDs? There are no WMDs. Those war heads … they don’t COUNT! >>brushes mustard and Sarin gas war heads under a rug>buries headlines about mass grave after mass grave being found

Thanks for not slinging your obscene names at me.
You think the words “civil war” is of greater concern than Iran interferring with Iraq with the international community and MSM turning their back on the evidence?
Tish Tosh. Such priorities.

right2bright on January 3, 2007 at 3:15 PM

Well I am giving up the obscene ones for the new year. So far, so good. ;^) How about this one: obtuse. My comment points out the hypocrisy of the RW who had fits about the NBC usage, but the Sun, no worries.

Do not put words in my mouth. I think there is so much to be concerned about in Iraq that it is hard to prioritize them all.

honora on January 3, 2007 at 2:35 PM

Thanks for not slinging your obscene names at me.
You think the words “civil war” is of greater concern than Iran interferring with Iraq with the international community and MSM turning their back on the evidence?
Tish Tosh. Such priorities.

As long as they seem willing to incite a civil war, why not incite one in Iran for them as well? Don’t they have a restive Kurdish population as well a other disaffected non Persian groups? The Iranians have too much time on their hands that allows them to develop nuclear weapons. They nedd to be distracted.

As usual some focus on little grammatical details,

Iraq in a civil war. A matter of grammar. Tish tosh.

I can’t imagine why you guys lost the election with that kind of profound insight.

See previous: OK, so now can we bomb their asses?, ‘OK, so now can we bomb their asses? — UpdateIran’s secret plans for IraqBryan Preston Eeeenteresting:WASHINGTON — Iran is supporting both Sunni and Shiite terrorists in the Iraqi civil war,…

Not with a bang but a whimper….

I have an idea…lets engage them more since they seem to be so interested in stability.