Democrats Believe Iraq Defeat Bills Will Ensure They Get Re-Elected

so the NTY doesnt even have the respect to call him “President Bush” what a disgrace

power>patriotism

Of course it doesn’t “count” that the troop withdrawals are because the so-called “surge” is ended. We do not have the troops to send to continue the “surge”, that was known before it was started. These are not withdrawals, they were planned before the troops were sent. The levels next summer will be higher than they were before the “surge” began. Come back to us when levels drop below the pre-surge numbers.

All of the name calling and labeling cannot change the fact that “defeat” in Iraq was happened the day Donald Rumsfeld (the Greatest Secretary of Defense in US history, according to Dick Cheney) failed to secure Iraqi weapons depots, disbanded the military, and generally “went in light” despite the advice of his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

From that point on, all we have been doing is presiding over a civil war: One where we are now paying, training and equipping all three sides.

And President Bush’s “surge” has failed, after ten months, to come close to achieving its stated objective of a stabel central government that exists outside of the Green Zone. (Other than photo-ops for FoxNews).

Those are facts, even if those inside the Bush Bubble pretend otherwise. And stating those facts does not mean that Democrats hate America and out troops. In fact I beleive it is actually Republicans and Conservatives who hate our country and its soldiers since they are completely willing to continue the war, and our soldiers getting killed and maimed, just so that George W. Bush can Run Out the Clock to January 2009 without having to publicly admit his incompetence.

The surge is working? Really? After 3 whole months of lower violence you’re ready to declare victory?

Then can you please point to your posts where, after YEARS of increased violence in Iraq, you declared it a failure?

Because, you know, if you’re ready to declare victory after 3 months, then you should have declared failure after multiple years of the opposite, right? Well, unless you’re a hypocritical Conservative who’s just trying to get elected.

Steve,

Just to add real facts to your bile.

The National Socialist Pan Arab Ba’ath Iraqi Army was NOT disbanded by the 30 Country Coalition, it fell apart after its commissars and officers fled the field. The mostly Shia soldiers simply went home. The surge is working. Anbar, declared ‘lost’ by the left last year is fully functional as are all the cities in it. New Iraqi Army units are standing up and fighting the remnants of AQI (and its attached terror groups), Iranian/Syian/Jordainian/Chechen “insurgents”, and continuing to improve. The Iraqi Parliament is passing more bills than the US Congress. Tribes and clans are reconciling and working together to kill islamofascists. US and Iraqi casualties are far lower than they were last year and are still dropping.

It is simply amazing the amount of leftist talking point you spew as “facts”. And no, real debate does not mean one “hates America”. Sedition through groups such as ANSWER/ACT/ACORN/Move-on/WWP/Sparticus League and other such groups means one hates America. And that is who the Dems are tied to. That is where they have made their bed. When the Dems come to a real debate, they will lose. Considering the farce of the CNN “debate”, I doubt they will ever belly up.

Also, every major leftist candidate has stated they will keep US troops in Iraq in combat for the foreseeable future, how is President Bush running the clock out?

And Conservatives hate America “hate our country and its soldiers since they are completely willing to continue the war, and our soldiers getting killed and maimed”??? What a bunch of completely ignorant and asinine crap!! Considering most US Military members (around 90-95%) are conservatives, this alone blows your fantasy away. Also, considering that the death and injury rate for this war is the lowest in US history, you lose even more ground.

Lastly, before you shout “chicken hawk” and “if you support this so much, you join and go to Iraq”, today marks my 14th year of service in the US Army.

You, sir, are the reason Lenin called leftists “useful idiots”.

All the rhetoric opposing the war is mostly just BS. Those same people who rant and rave about continuing it, or who claim it was wrong, are the same people who will vote for Hillary Clinton despite the fact that she:
promoted the invasion
“lied about the intel”
authorized the war
supported the war
continues to fund the war
and has pledged to keep combat units in Iraq until 2013.

If the voices against invasion and continuing in Iraq really cared about the war and not partisanship, then they’d be ranting away at Hillary, and she wouldn’t stand a chance at the nomination or the general. Instead, when the voices of dissent pull the lever and support Hillary (ie GWB Iraq policies) they prove that they’re really just voices of partisan propaganda.

the parties in iraq are starting to work together?
do you have any substance for this, or is it wishful thinking? from all that i see ethnic cleansing, which was predicted, has happened. when democrats, particularly biden, wanted to manage the soft partition of the country instead of allowing chaos, the civilian leadership said it was a non-starter. now that it has happened, and the chaos that bush stood-by and allowed to happen, is sorting itself out, they want to take credit. the great unspoken truth here is that you now have an iraq under tremendous iranian influence. indeed it was due to irans that al-sadr’s militia stood-down. that more than anything has helped the situation and us military officials have said so. so be honest…is an iranian controlled iraq really what we lost 4000 soldiers, and borrowed over two trillion dollars, to accomplish?

“you say tomato I say tomatoe….disbanded or willfully allowed to disintegrate…” That’s a hoot! “willfully allowed to disintegrate” That’s like saying that all the King’s horses and all the King’s men “willfully allowed” Humpty Dumpty to “disintegrate.” There was no army anymore, just a bunch of individuals heading for the hills or their homes. What were we supposed to do, drive around with loudspeakers shouting, “We’re putting the army back together, please report to your units?” Yeah, that would have done it. This has always been the stupidest argument I have ever heard since the war and headen just doubled down on it. LOL

Re: “Lastly, before you shout “chicken hawk” and “if you support this so much, you join and go to Iraq”, today marks my 14th year of service in the US Army.”

Tell that to Disk “I had better things to do” Cheney.

There was no army anymore, just a bunch of individuals heading for the hills or their homes. What were we supposed to do, drive around with loudspeakers shouting, “We’re putting the army back together, please report to your units?” Yeah, that would have done it. This has always been the stupidest argument I have ever heard since the war and headen just doubled down on it. LOL

sure ’bout that?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/interviews/garner.html

ibfamous: put down the latest issue of Mother Jones Magazine and pick up a copy of the New York Times. Even they have been forced BY REALITY to report the good news coming from Iraq (they buried it on page A19).

Here’s a story from the BBC in case you think the NYTimes has suddently been taken hostage by Dick Cheney:

Sunday, 11 November 2007, 00:35 GMT

E-mail this to a friend Printable version

Is Iraq getting better?
By Jim Muir
BBC News, Baghdad

Is Iraq getting better? The statistics say so, across the board.

Over the past three months, there has been a sharp and sustained drop in all forms of violence. The figures for dead and wounded, military and civilian, have also greatly improved.

All across Baghdad, which has seen the worst of the violence, streets are springing back to life. Shops and restaurants which closed down are back in business.

People walk in crowded streets in the evening, when just a few months ago they would have been huddled behind locked doors in their homes.

Everybody agrees that things are much better.

But is the improvement only skin deep? And will it last once the American troops, whose “surge” has clearly made a difference, begin to scale down?

In the past few days, two events have underlined big changes that have happened in recent months on both the Sunni and Shia sides of the Iraqi equation.

Reign of terror

The Mehdi Army’s influence is now much weaker

On Thursday, in a crowded public hall in the mainly Shia city of Karbala, south of Baghdad, the local police chief, Brig-Gen Ra’id Shaker Jawdat, bitterly denounced the Mehdi Army militia, accusing it of presiding over a four-year reign of terror there.

It was an extraordinary occasion. One by one, men and women stood up and screamed abuse at the militia, blaming it for killing and torturing their loved ones.

It could not have happened a few months ago, when the Mehdi Army - the military wing of the movement headed by the militant young Shia cleric, Moqtada Sadr - was the real power in the streets of Karbala.

A few days later, Moqtada Sadr ordered his followers to halt all forms of military action nationwide, even in self-defence.

That was a turning-point in Baghdad too. The number of bodies being found daily, dumped randomly in the city after being abducted, tortured and killed in sectarian reprisals, dropped from dozens a day to less than a handful.

Scenes of rejoicing

On Friday, near Samarra to the north of Baghdad, fighters from a Sunni faction called the Islamic Army in Iraq (IAI) launched a surprise attack on positions held by al-Qaeda in the area.

Police said the IAI killed 18 al-Qaeda militants and captured 16 others.

Shortly afterwards, another Sunni group known as the 1920 Revolution Brigades launched a similar operation against al-Qaeda at al-Buhriz in Diyala province, also north of Baghdad.

They captured 60 al-Qaeda suspects and handed them over to the Iraqi army, amidst scenes of rejoicing in the town’s streets.

These also were events that simply could not have happened until recently.

Both the IAI and the 1920 Revolution Brigades used to be insurgent groups themselves, fighting alongside al-Qaeda against the multinational forces and Iraqi government troops.

Blow to militants

Groups such as al-Sahwa are influential in Baghdad

Now, starting with the western al-Anbar province and spreading east to Baghdad and mainly Sunni areas to the north, there has been a gathering trend whereby Sunni tribes and nationalist groups have turned against al-Qaeda as their primary enemy.

The Americans have seized on the tactic, encouraging tribal and other Sunnis to form regional associations, such as al-Sahwa (The Awakening), as a vehicle for getting government and coalition support.

In the provinces, tribesmen joining up are paid $600 a month to protect their own areas against al-Qaeda.

The trend has spread deep into mainly Sunni districts of Baghdad, where al-Sahwa has filled the gap left by al-Qaeda.

American forces have recruited thousands of young men, who are given uniforms and $300 a month to act as neighbourhood guards (known in US military jargon as Concerned Local Citizens, or CLCs).

They apply in droves, as there are no other jobs in town.

US forces have moved into virtually every area and set up fixed positions. They have local mobile phone numbers emblazoned on their vehicles for the CLCs to call if they run into trouble.

This, combined with the way in which the US troop surge has proactively tackled any al-Qaeda presence it can detect, has dealt a massive blow to the Sunni militants.

Islamic State elements have disappeared - shops have reopened - my daughter can walk to school without wearing a headscarf

Baghdad resident

The Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri Maliki, is now openly claiming victory against al-Qaeda and its affiliates.

US military leaders are more cautious.

“There is no part of Baghdad in which al-Qaeda has a stronghold any more,” said Brig-Gen Joseph Fil, commander of the Multinational Forces in Baghdad.

“But Baghdad is a dangerous place. Al-Qaeda, although on the ropes, is not finished by any means. They could come back swinging if they’re allowed to, in fact, we’ve seen it,” he added.

Bomb attacks rarer

Markets in Baghdad are said to be booming now security is better

But there is no doubt that it has lost out massively in Baghdad.

One resident of the mainly-Sunni area of Dora, in the south of the capital, summed it up.

“The Islamic State in Iraq (the umbrella name adopted by al-Qaeda groups) used to control most of the area like a phantom presence. I know Shia shopkeepers who were shot dead in their shops.”

“They put up notices warning people to wear strict Islamic dress. Everybody was frightened. When we called the police to report bodies on the street, they said it was a no-go area and they couldn’t come.”

“Now, the Islamic State elements have disappeared. Shops have reopened. My daughter can walk to school without wearing a headscarf. Some Shias who fled have come back. And most important of all, we haven’t heard of anybody being killed since July.”

The setback dealt to al-Qaeda and affiliates has had a knock-on effect in the Shia communities too.

The often massive, indiscriminate bomb attacks for which they were blamed, and which used to hit Shia areas on a daily basis, have now become a rarity.

The huge drop in bomb attacks has removed one of the main raisons d’etre for the Mehdi Army, the most active Shia militia in Baghdad.

Since neither the state nor the coalition forces had been able to stop the bomb attacks before, the Mehdi Army could pose as the only saviour of the Shias from slaughter at the hands of fanatical Sunni extremists.

Militia power

“They were on the streets every day, with guns, controlling and checking people,” said a Shia resident.

“When there were attacks on Shia shrines, such as Samarra last year, they killed many Sunnis in the area in revenge.”

“Now, they are much weaker. Many of the leaders have been arrested or killed by the Americans. Others have fled. Some are still around, but they are keeping a low profile.”

The US military admit that around 13% of Baghdad - mainly parts of the huge eastern Shia suburbs, Sadr City, where the Mehdi Army used to hold undisputed sway - remain to be brought fully under control.

But the decision by Moqtada Sadr to order a freeze on militia action has removed political cover from Shia militants who resist, and who are now regarded as “rogue elements”.

“When we go to the [Shia-dominated] Iraqi government with lists of militia leaders we want to get, they’re very supportive,” said Baghdad coalition forces commander Gen Fil.

This whole thing is so US-dependent - it’s temporary security - the Mehdi Army are just biding their time

Baghdad Sunni resident

One problem is that the Americans and the Iraqi government cannot use the al-Sahwa ploy of recruiting local youths in Shia areas to mount guard against the Mehdi Army. It simply would not work.

Unlike al-Qaeda’s situation in the Sunni areas, Shia leaders such as Moqtada al-Sadr enjoy considerable popular support among the Shia, even if elements of the militia have got well out of hand.

Some residents of Shia neighbourhoods are optimistic that another six months of sustained effort might see the militias off for good. Others are not so sure.

Massive challenges

The US troop surge led to a sharp drop in US and Iraqi casualties

The huge problem in both Sunni and Shia areas is that continued success is desperately dependent on a continuing American presence, while the US is planning to start drawing down its forces next year.

“In my Sunni area, people are happy to see their sons defending the neighbourhood in an official way, because it’s under an American umbrella,” said one Sunni.

“That means they’re not afraid that the Mehdi Army or another Shia militia will come through the lines and kill us.”

The Iraqi Army and police have frequently been accused of either colluding with or turning a blind eye to the Shia militias, some of which have operated openly under the guise of official security formations.

We need federalism, but we also need a dictator, a strong powerful government - if we don’t get the militia out, there will be no solution

Baghdad Shia resident

Especially among the Sunnis, there is little popular confidence in the Iraqi army, and much less, if any at all, in the police.

“Forget about the Iraqi police, they’re either Mehdi Army in uniform or professional thieves, or both,” said a Sunni living in a largely-Shia area.

“It bothers me that this whole thing is so US-dependent. It’s temporary security. The Mehdi Army are just biding their time, and waiting to come back out and get back to business, extorting money from people, forcing them out of their homes and then renting them out. It’s big business.”

“I’m not optimistic about the surge, because of the sympathies of the Iraqi police and army towards the Mehdi Army,” said a Shia from south-east Baghdad.

“It’s an ironic situation, where we need federalism, but we also need a dictator, a strong powerful government. If we don’t get the militia out, there will be no solution.”

Purging the security forces of militia influence and sympathies is a huge task that needs a strong, neutral political will and a sustained effort.

There are many other massive challenges that will affect the outcome of the current struggle.

Need for reconstruction

Everybody agrees that military and security measures on their own can only go so far if not buttressed by economic, social and political progress.

The Americans and Iraqi government are well aware of the need to follow up with services - electricity and water supplies are still sporadic - and job-creation schemes if they are to hold the ground they are clearing.

Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has said that next year will be the year of services and reconstruction. At this stage, Iraqis are looking for performance and delivery, not promises and fine words.

One of the main stated objectives of the US troop surge was to clear a space for the Iraqi politicians to enact nation-building legislation and pursue national reconciliation as the cornerstone of the New Iraq.

But virtually none of the key pieces of required legislation has yet been passed by a fractious Iraqi parliament which has been wracked by factional disputes.

There is still no shared and agreed vision of Iraq’s future. Kurds and some Shias want a loose, federal arrangement, while Sunnis and some others want a stronger, more centralised state.

It matters. To which Iraq are people signing up with the security forces swearing allegiance?

In the absence of progress at the top, the Americans are counting on developments and reconciliations at grass-roots levels, a “bottom-to-top” approach. How far that process can go at that level alone is an unanswered question.

Despite the progress in the security arena, the story is far from over. The casualty figures are down, but people are still being killed every day.

While things have improved greatly in Baghdad, inter-Shia power struggles in the south of the country remain intense, and insurgent activity continues strong around Mosul and Kirkuk in the north.

Nobody can underestimate the magnitude of the task ahead. And with the clock for US troop withdrawals ticking ever more loudly in Washington, it is a race against time.

But there can be no denying that many Iraqis, especially in Baghdad, are more optimistic now than they would have dared believe possible a year ago.

What’s clear is that violent Islamic extremism is being defeated across the board in Iraq. Both Sunni Al Queda and Shia Mahdi are being defeated. And more importantly, this defeat is being witnessed in Muslim nations throughout the world. Already, polls in those countries indicate a drop in those who support violent jihad.

Iraq is close to meeting the definition of Victory laid down repeatedly by President Bush: A nation that can govern itself and be an ally in the war on terror.

I realize you lefties soaked with defeat will never admit how very wrong you are. I imagine many of you still think that President Reagan had nothing to do with winning the Cold War. It’s likely that those of you who were old enough fought his efforts just as vigorously as you are fighting President Bush’s effort TO SAVE YOUR SORRY LIVES.

Naw Rovin, always happens when Salon links…get the worst of the braindead coming over to spew their rhetoric.

For those asking for evidence on the two sides in Iraq working together I suggest you click on the Iraq categories on my sidebar. Mike, Scott, Word and I have been writing about it for sometime.

But Iknow you won’t check the posts out, just as you will ignore Mike’s recent comment. Just makes it easier for you guys to claim defeat if you keep the lies going.

It’s the return of the Copperheads.

Re: “”Osama bin Laden will die of old age or Kidney disease before President Bush’s “Dead or alive” promise comes true. The Taliban will again control most, if not all, of Afghanistan. Iran will have a safe haven in southern Iraq. Turkey will be at war with Kurdistan. And the Sunni sector of Iraq will be the home of Fundamentalist Sunni schools recruiting the next generation of al Qaeda terrorists.”

It’s a free country, so Philadelphia Steve and the Democrats are entitled to make any predictions they want to make. I think at least 4 of the 5 predictions above will be proven false; in any case, time and events will eventually tell the tale.”

Which four?

The Taliban already controls most of Afghanistan outside of Kabul, so that one already happened.
Ditto for southern Iraq being a vassal state of Iran, so that is a fait acompli.
Turkey is now launching air attacks into Kurdistan, so that one is coming to pass.

That leaves Osama bin Laden leading out the rest of his live, safe and sound as he ever was and Sunni fundamentalist schools springing up in Iraq. Both of those are well on their way now. Iraq already has enshrined the Quoran as the supreme law of Iraq, just like Saudi Arabia.

So, which “four” of the “five” will be proven false?

The answer will be, like Bush’s empty promise about bin Laden, forgotten by 100% of Conservatives within one news cycle.

Trying to pretend that the debacle that has become of the occupation of Iraq is all “someone else’s fault” is part of the White House spin that every Conservative repeats, with no one holding the Bush Administration even slightly accountable for anything, ever.

So true.

Remember when American conservatives prided themselves on their ability to take a no-nonsense look at reality and act in accordance with the facts? And remember “the buck stops here?” Sure, it was a democrat who came up with that line, but I’m pretty sure the republicans also liked the idea back in the day. Ah, memories.

Paul and Philly Steve: The only people making wholly unsubstantiate “predictions” based on doubious or incredible sources are YOU TWO.

Right. Because our pre-invasion predictions about Iraq, where we claimed that Saddam was no threat to the US, had little to do with Al Qaeda, and Iraq would prove next to impossible to turn into a stable government, turned out to be just so, so wrong. Right? Right?

But you do NOT HAVE REALITY ON YOUR SIDE!

See above.

No Robert, Iraq is selling their own oil and US corporations buy it just like everyone else.

Paul,

Does Move-On give cut and paste garbage to post? Or are you that beholden to the Socialist party line? Read some other posts on this site going through mountains of evidence showing an Iraq-AQ connection, WMD developments, convoys of heavy trucks racing to Syria ahead of our forces, and so on.

Really, “useful idiots” is too generous a term for the left.

No Mike, not people who wanted us to succeed. People who wanted to steal our Treasury and hand it off to their friends and corporate masters. In other words: the Bush Administration.

Funny line about “the poor Iraqis”. You mean the people who’s country we bombed the crap out of because we wanted to fight our enemies in “the poor Iraqis” country rather than our own.
Love the fake concern. You’re a hoot, Mike.

BTW, the 9/11 hijackers went to school and lived in the US. There’s a bigger connection between them and the United States then with Iraq.

“Osama made Iraq the centerpiece of his effort for worldwide jihad.”
No, that was W made Iraq the centerpiece of his war on terrorism. Osama/ W, worldwide jihad/ war on terrorism: same differences.

Reagan? You have to be kidding.
He supplied arms to Iran in the 80’s. You do know current RNC Talking Points (TM) say Iran has been at war with America since the late 70’s, don’t you.

I’ll tell you what, Mike. Just to show no hard feelings, let’s get together dig up the Reagan’s grave and we can both spit on the traitor’s cold dead body.
It’s the least us REAL Americans can do.

Re: “Robert: Who created those “benchmarks” anyway? People who wanted us to succeed?”

I believe they came from the Bush Administration. Not that any Conservative is permitted to know this, of course.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/04/AR2007090402338.html

But don’t worry, the Bush Team will com eup with new slogans, excuses and alibis that Conservatives can beliee without questin: All so that George w. Bush can finish running out the clock to January 2009, and skip town with someone else to clean up his mess.

Who created those benchmarks again Paul? Philly Steve?

Steve: you might want to take a closer look at that article you linked. Where does it say the Bush Administration authored those benchmarks????

Take a closer look at paragraph three from the WAPO link you cite:

“Congress had set as part of a list of 18 benchmarks of progress”

P.S. Still waiting for you both to admit you opposed Reagan’s efforts to win the Cold War. Either that or admit you’re still living in your mother’s basement and don’t really know anything that some defeatist/socialist college professor hasn’t crammed into your limited cranial cavity.

Who created those benchmarks again Paul?

My mistake. I remember hearing Administration officials touting the benchmarks so loudly back in Jan and Feb 2007, I assumed they’d written them themselves. Either way, read below and tell me that these benchmarks were thrust on the Bush Administration.

Previewing the “surge” on Jan. 10, 2007, a senior administration official said that “the Iraqi government needs to meet the benchmarks it has set in order to do the things on which a broader reconciliation are required.” The benchmarks the senior administration official mentioned were all ones that remain unmet today: “They’re the oil law; they’re de-Baathification, narrowing the limitations of the de-Baathification law; they’re provincial elections to bring the Sunnis back into the political process at the local level. There is also continuing, and we would hope even accelerating, the transition of security responsibility to Iraqis elsewhere in the country and in Baghdad, because if this works it will actually enable Iraqis sooner to provide security in Baghdad. And we have — would like, and the Iraqis have made clear that one of their benchmarks is to take responsibility for security in the whole country by the end of the year.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-1.html

In his weekly radio address on Jan. 13, 2007, the president himself said: “America will hold the Iraqi government to benchmarks it has announced. These include taking responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November, passing legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis, and spending $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction projects that will create new jobs. These are strong commitments. And the Iraqi government knows that it must meet them, or lose the support of the Iraqi and the American people.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070113-2.html

On Feb. 2, 2007, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley reiterated that the benchmarks provided the standard against which the “surge” would have to be judged. “One of the advantages about the benchmarks that we have talked about and the president talked about is they are gauges for whether that strategy is succeeding, both narrowly, in terms of the Baghdad security plan, but also more broadly, because, as you know, some of those benchmarks involve the reconciliation effort,” Hadley said. “So we are going to try and monitor the progress and our response is going to be, if we don’t see progress, we’re going to be talking to the Iraqis and emphasize the importance that we, and they take the steps that they need to do.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/02/20070202-6.html

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, on March 28, 2007: “We believe in benchmarks, and we worked with the Iraqi government on benchmarks.” The president, on May 10, 2007: “One message I have heard from people from both parties is that the idea of benchmarks makes sense. And I agree. It makes sense to have benchmarks as a part of our discussion on how to go forward.” White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, on May 10, 2007: “Keep in mind, benchmarks also are not new. The president talked about them in [the] State of the Union. We talked about them in Amman in November. Secretary [Condi] Rice put a list of 17 together in a letter to Sen. [Carl] Levin. So you do need to have metrics.” The president again, on May 17, 2007: “We understand that benchmarks are important.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070328-5.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070510-6.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070510-8.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070517.html

So, the point someone was desperately trying to make, that these benchmarks were thrust on Bush and the Iraqis by the “Defeatocrats” is, like most of the other pro-war claims made on this page, false. Ouch.

But it’s important to note your error as it appears again in the remaks Paul made about the 9/11 Report, Duelfer and Curt’s links on Saddam-Al Queda connections.

While you did catch me in an error, assuming the Bush Admin wrote the benchmarks instead of having written them collaboratively with the Iraqis and Congress, it’s not a very material error, is it?

In the meantime, with no support whatsoever, you would dearly like to believe that because I made that one error, it means I’ve been wrong about everything else, including 9/11, Duelfer and poor Curt’s Bush apologizing. Funny how you were able to cite where I was wrong about the benchmarks, but not about these other things.

As for Reagan, while the Cold War is actually irrelevant to this subject, I’ll have you know that I fully supported Reagan back in the day. I was just a snot-nosed 18-year-old who absolutely loved the idea of American bombs dropping on some poor hapless brown people. I’m glad to say, I’ve grown up since then. But anyway, at the time, Reagan perfectly articulated my own homicidal desires.

No Mike, not people who wanted us to succeed. People who wanted to steal our Treasury and hand it off to their friends and corporate masters . In other words: the Bush Administration.

Mike, this is the alarm bell that rings in the pathetic argument of class warfare that the passionate liberal belives in their hearts that what they do is for the downtrodden and destitute. They would prefer that corporations did not exist forgetting, no, not recognizing that those mean corporations supply 60% of the tax base that allows these kids to drive down the road in their VW buses, smoke their “peace-pipes”, and wipe their asses.

Their world turned up-side down on Dec 12, 2000 and they have never recovered. Their professors told them that day they were f**cked because the “capitalist pigs” were in charge. Never mind that the economic growth in the past 4 years is on a pace never achieved. Never mind that unemployment is at an all time low. Never mind that two nations have a chance at the same liberties afford to this “selfish” nation. Never mind that over 4000 of our finest have sacrificed their lives to give these opportunities to those who have lived in tyranny. It’s all about Boooooooosh and the corporate “masters”.

You can’t reason with this morons Mike. Their selfish agenda does not allow them to reason. Just be glad you aren’t living in their miserable world, and hope their children get a better education than they did.

Oh, it’s Cuckoo Land Mondays at Flopping Aces!

Robert said: President Reagan “was one of the greatest traitors to the USA.”

O.K. Robert… No further need to regard your comments with anything but the contempt they deserve. You’re an idiot!

Paul finally discovered he was WRONG about the benchmarks being the brain child of Democrats and can’t understand why the error is significant. No surprise there. Paul can’t see that ALL the willful disinformation he readily laps up has warped his judgement.

And Paul doesn’t feel the Regan/Cold War analogy is relevant? Really? How old were you back then Paul?

Every single argument you nutters are pulling out about Bush and Iraq is just another variation of the defeatist whine I witnessed during our efforts to put Pershing2 missiles in Europe and initiate work on ballistic missile defense. The lefties fought it every step of the way and some still do.

I’m sorry you don’t see the parallel Paul, but something tells me it is because of your relative youth and inexperience.

P.S. Rovin said: “You can’t reason with this morons Mike. Their selfish agenda does not allow them to reason. Just be glad you aren’t living in their miserable world, and hope their children get a better education than they did.”

“Actually” Steve, you are WRONG AGAIN!

In the words of Osama bin Laden:

“The Whole World Is Watching This War And The Two Adversaries; The Islamic Nation, On The One Hand, And The United States And Its Allies On The Other. It Is Either Victory And Glory Or Misery And Humiliation.”

“. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world’s millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate.”

“It has been made clear during our defending and fighting against the American enemy that this enemy’s combat strategy is heavily dependent on the psychological aspect of war due to its large and efficient media apparatus.

“The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever.”

U.S. “defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars”

Finally, in September OBL put out a video tape where he said: “”People of America, the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq. After several years of tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose.”

You’ve got some nerve saying that “American Conservatives [are] furthering bin Laden’s objectives.”

Seems to me it is YOU and your defeatist friends who not only LIE about the nature of our enemy, you are more than willing to be a part of his propaganda campaign.

Do you really hate your fellow Americans that much?

P.S. I notice you dodged on the Reagan/Cold War analogy. If you were in the Army for 14 years you might just be old enough to remember the Cold War. You want to put that idiot Robert in his place for saying President Reagan was “one of the greatest traitors to the USA” or would you like to join him in moonbat land?

Robert: You’re an idiot! Nothing you have to say has the slightest interest for me and you deserve nothing but contempt.

Climb back under your rock.

P.S. You’re a fool too.

You’ve got some nerve saying that “American Conservatives [are] furthering bin Laden’s objectives.”

Let me spell this out for you in the most rudimentary terms. Do you know where bin Laden would be had the US not invaded Iraq?

Either dead, in jail, in complete disgrace, or a combination of those. Because America would not have pulled out of Tora Bora to begin the Iraq build-up. Because OBL would not have a glaring example to point out to the world, where America is invading an oil-rich nation under false premises. (Keep in mind, while 29% of this country of which you belong are obviously as dumb as a bag of hammers, the rest of the world can understand what is going on.) Because Zarqawi would have been taken out back in 2002 when the US military literally had him in their sites, rather than preserving him as justification for the Iraq invasion, allowing him to kill thousands while promoting the Al Qaeda brand. Because “brand America” which had captured the hearts and minds of the vast majority of the world, including young Muslims in predominantly Muslim countries, would not have been shown to be an utterly corrupt sham. Because the American Dream would have otherwise been far more attractive than a suicide vest.

Bin Laden owes all this to you Republicans. Seriously, the Islamists could never have dreamed of a more effective ally than the GOP.

Someday, this country will have its own Nuremberg trials.

headen wrote:

Oh ChrisG, you say tomato I say tomatoe….disbanded or willfully allowed to disintegrate rather than being organized and controlled by the occupying forces, thereby letting loose thousands of armed men with no paycheck and no direction….really thats poor planning.

As Chris G. stated, we did not “disband” the Iraqi military. It “dissolved”, of its own accord, even though General Franks had tried to get Iraqi soldiers to stay in uniform for the purposes of being put to work in reconstruction. There were even repeated warnings made in Arabic and millions of leaflets that told Iraqi soldiers to lay down their arms, but remain in place.

freedumb followed up:

sure ’bout that?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/interviews/garner.html

From Garner’s interview: The only thing in the works at that time [was] we were trying to locate the [Iraqi] army and bring it back. We had a call out to the police to bring them back. We were setting up to pay the civil servants and the police and the pensioners.

… [Franks] was always promised a large constabulary force from allies. He was promised by DoD or by the administration — I’m not sure [which]. He was relying on me to bring back the Iraqi army, and we’re talking about 250,000 soldiers.

I think in his mind, in his planning process, he probably had 250,000 to 300,000 troops that he had been told he was going to have; when he was issuing those orders, those were the back of his mind. I never talked to Tommy about this, but I know him well enough that I know he wouldn’t have said, “Pull immediately out of Iraq.” I think he was counting on that. I know [CENTCOM Commander Gen.] John Abizaid was counting on that, and I know Dave McKiernan was counting on it. And I was counting on it. So the constabulary forces never materialized, and the decision was made not to bring back the Iraqi army. So those two things evaporated.

In Garner’s recollection, nowhere does he state that it was our decision to “disband” the Iraqi military. According to Deputy Undersecretary of Defense William Luti, “the CIA told us that all we had to do was lop off the top layer of leadership, but when we did we found that the corruption went so deep that we had to start from scratch. Was that a mistake? You bet. But it was a mistake based on faulty intelligence.”

Philadelphia Steve wrote:

Considering that a McCain supporter referred to Senator Clinton with the “B****” word, and not one single Conservative has one word of complaint about it,

Addressing your apples and oranges comparison, you’re living in your own bubble, sunshine.

Paul wrote:

Pre-invasion, Bush sycophants all said the invasion would be a cakewalk,

The invasion was a cakewalk. Despite all the predictions of thousands of casualties, the invasion began on March 20th and we toppled the regime on April 9th.

Paul wrote:

This post is apparently caught up in being “approved by the moderator.” Perhaps these moderators will decide that my post is too much for the tender sensibilities of you 29%ers.

Probably had to do with the number of links you had in your post. It happens to me as well, and I have to go in and “publish” my own comments.

Robert said:

BTW, can you cite that 60% of the tax base figure that corporations are paying? I think you’ll be in for a big shock when you look that up. Maybe Mike will call you out as a liar. (FAT chance!)

When Exxon showed a record profit of 39 billion last year (2006) they also paid a record income tax of 27.9 billion.

The Joint Economic Committee has released Top Half of Taxpayers Pay Highest Tax Share in Decades — New IRS Data Released:

The share of income taxes paid by the top half of taxpayers reached its highest level in decades, according to new IRS data released today [blogged here]. According to the new data, the top half of taxpayers ranked by income paid 96.70 percent of the individual income taxes paid in 2004, compared to 86.05 percent in 1949, 89.35 percent in 1959, and 90.27 percent in 1969.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2006/09/jec_releases_to.html

The Income Tax Burden is defined simply as who pays U.S. income taxes in the form of individual and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, and federal excise taxes. Based on this information, the following conclusions clearly emerge:
An enormous percentage of taxes are payed by a minority of Americans:

The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.

Our tax system is not so much progressive as it is confiscatory — Frederic Bastiat called this phenomenon “legal plunder.” A progressive tax is based on the premise that those with more income can afford to pay more taxes, and conversely, those with little or no income should pay no tax. However, a quick look at Graph 1A below shows that the U.S. tax system has become far beyond progressive. Fully half the taxpayers contribute almost nothing in individual income taxes.

The Top 1% of income earners (comprising about 1 million families) earn about 15% of the total income earned by all wage earners in the United States, yet they pay almost 30% of all individual income taxes.

Furthermore, the Top 1% are shouldering a roughly 50% higher proportion of the overall income tax burden than they did in 1977.

The argument most oft used against tax breaks are that they benefit only the wealthy. It is clear from even a cursory look at the numbers below that the ‘wealthy’ will receive the majority of any income tax reduction because they pay a disproportionately huge percentage of the income taxes! To structure a tax break such that those in upper income brackets are excluded would constitute nothing more than transfer of wealth from those who have it to those who don’t (i.e. legal plunder.)

http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/

These figures include corporations moron.

Currently, the 1% of American households with the highest incomes — those earning an average of about $1 million a year — pay about 31% of their income in federal taxes, including payroll tax and income tax, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The 20% of households with the lowest incomes — those earning an average of about $15,000 a year — pay less than 5% of their incomes in taxes.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114505726515126546-7cazAvSnuLTS2SyIqH5VuprpZPk_20070415.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

Claiming that too many rich people and corporations aren’t paying their fair share of taxes seems to be a sure way get applause on the campaign trail. But this populist appeal is based on two economic fallacies:

that higher tax rates cause rich people to pay more in taxes; and

that corporations rather than individual workers and consumers pay corporate taxes.

Lower Rates Bring Higher Revenues

When President Ronald Reagan cut taxes in 1981 through 1983, his opponents said it was a “giveaway to the rich.” But Internal Revenue Service data show those tax cuts actually increased the amount of federal revenues paid by taxpayers in upper income brackets.

In 1981, before the Reagan tax cuts could take full effect, the top 1 percent of income earners paid 17.58 percent of all income taxes in the United States. By the time Reagan left office in 1989, that same group paid 25.24 percent of all incomes taxes in the U.S.–almost a 50 percent increase in the share paid by the rich.

Conversely, after the Clinton administration pushed for tax hikes in 1993, the top 1 percent saw their share of income tax revenues drop from 29.01 percent in 1993 to 28.86 percent in 1994.

And we can thank Clinton for the early recession in 2000.

“smoke their peace pipes” Awww, little baby. Still upset corporations aren’t making all the cash from the marijuana market? Get over it!

I’ve lived in Humboldt County, California for most of my adult life Robert. I don’t need your pathetic lectures on the pot market. Half the county walks around in a stuper. Real “productive” folks. 90% of them are Republic of Berkeley implants from the 60’s. You’d probably feel right at home.

Re: “Lower Rates Bring Higher Revenues”

That piece of Conservative dogma harkens to Democratic President John kennedy. In the case of Saints Ronald Reagan, federal revenuse did not increase until he signed tax increases, including one that was larger even then the one signed by President Bill Clinton (measured as a % of GDP).

The Republican Policy of “Borrow and Spend” has depended on that fallacy for years, allowing “Conservatives” to run up debt in order to buy votes, will lying to the American populace about their “dedication” to austerity.

As we all know, Conservative president George w. Bush, withe the help of a Republican Congress, outspent even Lyndon Johnson. But, of course, Conservatives are not permitted to acknowledge that fact, are they?

Wordsmith.
That you are unaware of the bremer order to disband the military is unfortunate. See Thomas Ricks’ Fiasco and then this link as well. Im not some radical Bush hater but history is clear on this decision and its repercussions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A63423-2003Nov19?language=printer

For those of you rushing to declare victory wake up. We are building the largest most expensive US embassy in the world in Iraq. We are NEVER LEAVING. This is about re ordering the Middle East and Iraq is the lynchpin state. We have taken Washington’s admonition on meddling in foreign wars and locked ourselves into an endless protracted conflict.

Mike.
Your partisanship ignores the reality that when governments or partitioned states are formed in Iraq they will be based on Sharia law, not Athenian democracy. The bureacrats elected will have been raised in the political culture of Saddam and the corruption will stagnate progress. Sadr is biding his time. His militia will have its day and he will not be sidelined.
Iran will see its influence spread into western Iraq even more thoroughly and the mullahs in Tehran see nothing short of hegemony that can push against Israel.
This war has always been understood in the most simplistic terms and analogies and it is perhaps the least simple war we have engaged ever.
And remember conservatives that this war is all on credit.

Re: “Philly Steve: I notice you didn’t answer the question. ”

I assume the question was, “do I accuse the Late Ronald Reagan of having committed treason when he authorized the sale of US weapons to Iran at a time when Conservatives declare that we were at war with Iran?”

No, I do not. However Conservatives, by declaring that such a war existed, are stating that Ronald Reagan must have committed treason when he authorized the sale of weapons to a country they declared was at war with the United States, correct?

Re: “This is about re ordering the Middle East and Iraq is the lynchpin state.”

And, thanks to the Bush Administratrion’s bungled occupation of Iraq, it has been entirely in the favor of Iran.

Although we should add that, resulting from George W. Bush’s ordering of the breakoff of the pursuit of Osama bin laden to chance after non-existant EMD’s in Iraq, al Qaeda is doing very nicely in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well, even if their branch office in Iraq is not doing so well (although, again, the rest of the insurgency is alive and welland being trained and equipped by American money as we speak).

Re: “As for Reagan, glad you don’t think he was a traitor. But I was really more interested in whether you thought his National Security policies were instrumental in winning the Cold War?”

Oh. Sorry about that. Fromyour other posts I just assumed that you had gone off the depp end at even the slightest hint that Saint Ronald was anything other than perfect.

Yes, I do give Ronald Reagan considerable credit for contributing to the end of the Cold War.

Steve said:”The New York Times has been the handmaiden of the Bush Administration”

YOU REALLY HAVE TO HAND IT TO STEVE—–BY FAR THE FUNNIEST (OBNOXIOUS) ONE-LINER IN THE WHOLE THREAD.

I apologize for that extended post but its pretty interesting reading.

The Bush Administratio hates our troops.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13660.html

Oh come on Steve! Have you really joined the moonbat brigade?

Was I wrong in trying to provide you with some balance and perpsective?

Were my efforts just a collosal waste of time?

One by one, myself and many others have swatted down the flies you, Paul, freedumb and others have put up as a distraction from the KEY ISSUE HERE.

What is the KEY ISSUE?

Iraq is the central front in the war on terror and WE ARE WINNING!

Perhaps we can examine the article you cite in closer detail. But it will take more than one source from a local tv news station to make me take this seriously.

But if you want to use words like “The Bush Administration hates our troops” You’re probably beyond any reasonable effort to reason with.

I really do pity the position you are in. Being WRONG on the most important issue of our time must really hurt!

Steve,

“But more recently, Fox received a different piece of correspondence from the Bush administration.” (from your link)

This author of the piece is full of shit—-the correspondence came from the Pentagon.

Oh, and Philadelphia Steve—–You really are a piece of work. The Pentagon has already this afternoon admitted that this is an oversight policy by the PENTAGON—NOT OUR PRESIDENT…..do your diapers need changing? ’cause it’s really gettin to stink with your bile.

Rovin: You’re right of course. It’s clear from his last comment here that Steve would rather revel in willful ignorance than face the painful reality that HE IS WRONG on the most important issue of our time.

And perhaps wasting too much time bothering to respond to people who are clearly beyond reach only validates their idiocy in their minds.

And when I find I am repeating myself, as I do now, I realize it may be time to close the conversation.

But I will say to STEVE:

I already shared with you the words of bin Laden as he regards the war in Iraq. For a refresher see my comment above:

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/11/18/democrats-believe-iraq-defeat/#comment-31449

If you don’t think Al Queda seriously that is your choice. But then perhaps you might want to stop obstructing the adults as they go about the difficult work of keeping you safe and free to indulge your anti-Bush prejudices.

“single public comment” from bin Laden?

What planet are you on?

The quotes I offered above come from OBL’s multiple letters, videos and audio tapes.

They match exactly the statements of Al Zawahiri, Zarqawi and every other jihad johnny to come down the pike.

And I see you are going around in circles again about Saddam and Al Queda. You swallowed that LIE hook line and sinker years ago and there’s no way you are going to permit any evidence to the contrary past the guardian of your flawed ideological foundation.

After that you launch into full tilt hatemongering moonbat mode and it’s clear that despite my efforts to engage you and find some RATIONAL common ground you are lost.

Sorry, Steve, but YOU ARE THE WEAKEST LINK! I’m done with you pal. You’re willful ignorance, delusion and hatemongering are beginning to bore me.

Re: “And I see you are going around in circles again about Saddam and Al Queda. You swallowed that LIE hook line and sinker years ago and there’s no way you are going to permit any evidence to the contrary past the guardian of your flawed ideological foundation.”

The facts are otherwise. But, of course, since Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh say so, Conservatives are required to ignore facts and believe exactly what they are told to believe.

http://www.nysun.com/article/51976

WASHINGTON — Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides “all confirmed” that Saddam’s regime was not directly cooperating with Al Qaeda before the American-led invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

The declassified version of the report by Acting Inspector General Thomas Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community’s prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February.

The report’s release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh’s radio program, repeated his allegation that Al Qaeda was operating inside Iraq “before we ever launched” the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Qaeda leader killed last June.

“This is Al Qaeda operating in Iraq,” Mr. Cheney told Mr. Limbaugh’s listeners about Zarqawi, who he said had “led the charge for Iraq.” Mr. Cheney cited the alleged history to illustrate his argument that withdrawing American forces from Iraq would “play right into the hands of Al Qaeda.”

I hope that everyone’s Thanksgiving Day was wonderful and joyous. Have a great holiday weekend.