Captain's Quarters -

Gee, I wonder who AQ is talking about when they say we ourselves have testified to our defeat? Can he be parroting Dmeocrats? Why yes, he can!!

I think this statement should once and for all end the charade of whether or not Dems are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The thing that probably is really sticking in the craw of AQ is that the Republicans have not allowed us to surrender ala Viet Nam. 2008 will be the defining moment in this war. Hopefully our generation will be up to the task. Not the Gen X'ers, they passed already. Us baby boomers who will vote for victory or surrender.

thank you, kingronjo

well said.

I'm copy and pasting your "end the charade..." sentence in an email to some 40 somethings who are so thoroughly invested in defeat and ignorant they tried to put forth that the MoveOn ad raised some good points...

One tried to equate what has been said about Murtha and Kerry with this attack on Petraeus.

I tore that to shreds.

I guess kerry's attempt at playing the Winter Soldier again by visiting Iran, nor pelosi's and kuccinichs' attempts to appease terrorists in Syria, aren't going to cut it this time.

I'm waiting for our resident lefties to show up and comment that Zawahiri is right: we ARE losing in Iraq and A-stan. "See! See! AQ says we're losing! We gotta surrender now while we have the chance! And It's All Bush's Fault(TM)!"

Funny, isn't it: when AQ speaks, the dems take it as gospel. When Petraeus speaks - nay, even BEFORE he speaks - dems call him a liar. When Zawahiri boasts of the "victories" being won by AQ, dems point to his statements as conclusive evidence that we're losing. When American officials talk about progress we're making, they're lying.

Note to the dems: you are known by the company you keep.

Great post kingronjo. Steve, shove Michael Totten's latest down the throat of the "40 somethings".

The liberation and pacification of Iraq would be much closer to fruition if the communications challenged Bush administration didn't have to fight an insurgency over there and a propaganda war here.

The MSM and the Democrats accuse Bush of trying to "run out the war until he leaves office". The refusal of these two entities to acknowledge the pace of security progress in Iraq shows this allegation to be a case of projection. It is the Democrats and the MSM who need al Qaeda and the Shia insurgents not to give up. It appears that the Sunnis have, for the most part, accepted the new reality in Iraq.

Americans who believe in progress should not apologize for liberating Iraq. Giving blood and treasure to prevent Saddam from developing nuclear weapons (which he would have returned to in earnest the moment sanctions ended) and to enable Iraqis to choose to live as free people in the 21st century is a noble endeavour, with the added and immeasurable benefit that al Qaeda
is taking a shit kicking in Iraq and the world.

al Qaeda chose to make the liberation of Iraq the next front in their war against the United States. They tried to win that war by killing innocent Iraqis in a vain attempt to start a civil war. They did so in order to convince the MSM and the Democrats that America was doing more harm than good in Iraq and should therefore withdraw (and to hell with Iraqis fighting for freedom).

Al Qaeda almost succeeded but their high risk strategy has backfired as their tactics have turned Iraqis of all stripes against them. Al Qaeda's reputation is now in the toilet among Iraqis (and thinking Mislims everywhere).

Further, al Qaeda's fighting forces have been decimated and they are running out of volunteers. It seems the supply of those who want to volunteer for the mission of killing innocent Muslims isn't unlimited after all.

May General Petraeus and his forces Surge On and may all those who want security and progress support him. And may the high risk strategy of the Democrats in America - fighting for their own country's defeat in Iraq - prove as successful as al Qaeda's strategy has proved among their constituency.

And may those who claim America should withdraw from Iraq (where it is decimating al Qaeda) in order to fight al Qaeda elsewhere receive the ridicule they richly deserve.

Zawahiri is nothing but a "Tokyo Rose" by any other name. Baghdad Bob attempted to paint a similar picture as Saddam's tenure was eliminated. Bin Laden is said to be preparing to declare war on Pakistan, which leads some to think his "welcome mat" may have worn out.

At home, the Democratic Party’s latest effort to damage/sabotage surge success in Iraq fails in Senate. Webb’s attempt to use his military prowess formulating a troop deployment strategy that he had to know would wreck havoc on command and control in the theater got "shot down" for the second time.

What the "defeatocrats" don't seem to come to grips with is that following the meter-maids in the mainstream media that promote defeat and surrender for the advancement of a political agenda is not what this nation will stand for. When our brave soldiers are pounding our enemies on all fronts and propaganda machine of Al-Qaeda shows it's desperation by finding "new" countries to declare war against, many will wonder how far we could have advanced in the war on terrorism if this nation was united in victory.

It is possible that Al Zawahiri is only misinformed. If he happened to be hidden so deep that his only sources of intelligence is coming from the news media, I can see where he might actually believe these things. Just imagine yourself hiding in a cave somewhere in a remote part of the world, with limited access to information sources. Imagine that your runners could bring you major word newspapers only a few days old, and those were picked up at the regional airports from concession vendors. Those would almost certainly be newspapers like the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. And if that were your only source of information on America’s position in the war, you’d probably think AQ was winning too.

Zawahiri as Tokyo Rose? That's a disturbing image. I guess there side is out of luck on that approach; even if they used some outstanding Arabic babe, they'd have nothing but her eyes showing. Bagdhad Bob is a closer analogy.

I actually look at the video as AQ 'declaring victory' as they shut down the Iraq effort and move anything left elsewhere. The vote yesterday in the Senate was the last nail in their coffin and I believe they know it. Their allies in our Congress are impotent and cannot hand them a victory. This won't fix Iraq, since Iran is still heavy in the mix, but it's a start.

Great comments, all.

Rovin brings up Baghdad Bob, which reminded me of my favorite Baghdad Bob moment; remember when Baghdad Bob was on CNN telling the world that American soldiers were getting their collective asses kicked all over Iraq, and reports that American soldiers were closing in on Baghdad were pure lies... In the meanwhile, Fox News was showing footage of American tanks rolling into Baghdad by the dozens; Baghdad Bob was not heard from again, and a few hours later the statue of Saddam was dragged down by American forces.

Another 56-44 vote, and nary a whiff of the "nuclear (or is it nucular?) option." I'll say this for Harry Reid: Eating his own words must be as distasteful as hearing them is to some of the rest of us:

"The need to muster 60 votes in order to terminate Senate debate naturally frustrates the majority. I’m sure it will frustrate me when I assume the office of the Majority Leader next year. But I recognize this requirement as a tool that serves the long-term interests of the Senate and of the American people."

"To be sure, there are times when I will need to use the rules to advance the Democratic agenda. But I will not resort to the nuclear option or any other illegitimate manipulation of the rules. When it is time to limit debate we will do so within the rules, under the terms of Rule XXII."

I love the smell of irony in the morning.

This isn't over till the fat lady sings. The Democrats and George Soros will fight to the end to defeat the United States, and surrender to the Jihadists.

Apparantly Osama has called for AQ to target Pakistan/Musharaf. If he has, this may be the break we need to feret this sub-human rodent out of Pakistan.

Oh boy, AQ is just about to reach the point of no return...as are their followers in the Democrat Party.
AQ should be shamed by our derision and laughter at their pronouncements, keep up the suond tracks and we will laugh as the last of them are buried in Iraq.

Seems to me ironic that while this nutjob is trying, "to wrest victory from defeat" per the Captain, the tinfoil hatted leftist loons in this country and our government are trying to wrest defeat from the jaws of victory.

It is possible that Al Zawahiri is only misinformed. If he happened to be hidden so deep that his only sources of intelligence is coming from the news media, I can see where he might actually believe these things.

It's not just Zawahiri hidden in the bowels of a cave somewhere, it's Arabs all over the Middle East infected by some kind of wishful-thinking hallucinatory disease. There's an editorial in today's GulfNews out of Dubai titled "Americans are forsaking Bush" written by some dude who says he's actually living in DC. He assures his Arabic readers that everyone in America hates Dubya now, and that even Republicans are bailing out. He beebles on for several paragraphs, repeating all the moonbat meme's, and never once listing any actual facts or statistics such as recent approval polls.

No wonder everyone in the rest of the world are so confused when all they ever get to see or read is the leftist propaganda that our mainstream media (newspapers and network news) feeds them. If I was Zawahiri crouched in my cave, I'd be rooting for Bush's impeachment next week and an ensuing retreat from Iraq the following week, too, because that's all the news I get out of America.

Zawahiri is just saying what Harry Reid and the Democrats are saying. Im actually surprised he didnt put a clip of Harry Reid in the video for proof.

History is not going to look kindly on the treasonous behavior of the Democratic Party. They are actually trying to lose a war, to Al Qeada and Iran no less, so they can benefit politically. May god have mercy on their souls.

Irak still has its mysteries.

Petraeus is trying, now, to give the Iraqi sunnis a leg to stand on. Now, that their well of terrorists, funded by the saudi's, went and ran dry.

This has Maliki upset.

I think the State Department, on purposed, hired the Blackwater contractors; because IF something happened to Ambassador Crocker's convoy, as he was being driven back from the airport to his Baghdad base; the job of "doing something."

Ralph Peters, today, said, the Blackwater contractors "heard a car backfire," and so the responded with "random shootings." I disagree.

But in the world of headlines, we now have Maliki showing his anger. And, at the American bases? Nobody's leaving. Nobody's moving into any Shi'a area; to "halp" with the infrastructure.

Why?

Because Bush has no intention of extending to the Shia, what's been extended to the sunnis. Now that sunnis in Irak have a disregard for their relatives in Saudi Arabia. And, they saw what they could lose.

The headlines?

Free of carnage.

Just this little "story." Where Maliki wants the contractors "out." The enemy-media will gladly supply the ink to cover this. But, alas, the Dinner Jacket is on the front page. Toodling about New York City.

ANd, how much coverage can you get from the fish wraps?

I think Bush is "holding back." Because the "deal" which we call the "surge" ... is somewhat different.

It's about SAFELY dividing the Iraqis up. So that you know the Kurds are safe. (They invested in America right at the beginning. They don't let arabs into their "safe haven." And, there's lots of building going on. Streets are safe enough, even for tourists. WHich you'd know if you read Michael Totten's blog.)

The sunnis were a real problem; because when the violence broke out, the sunnis were paying the heaviest price. And, Maliki has been TOTALLY UNCO-OPERATIVE with DC.

What we need to do is have the patience to wait and see what happens, next. Assad is desperate enough to kill another Lebanese "candidate" who was declared anti-syrian. As if Assad has legs to stand on. As if there aren't consequences, ahead.

Let alone all that bluster from the Dinner Jacket, (prior to going to the cleaners); about nuking Israel "off the map."

Seems Israel just played "cat" to the "mice." Taking their time so that the money transfers took place. And, then? BANG.

How much military? A small ground force, perhaps, of a Special Ops team. Could be 4 people? And, 8 planes. Two days later.

Now, Bibi Netanyahu, NOT in Olmert's government, just went and bragged that he "approved" the mission(s). What a putz.

So what are ya gonna do?

We keep hearing stuff; but they're in lots of pieces.

For Irak? I'm trying 3. Three pieces of territory; where the sunnis are gonna lock in and protect themselves, finally. Because the Americans are accepted. And, the sheiks are sending in their sons for training. Making life tough, ahead, for Maliki? No. Not exactly.

Only IF Maliki thought he was on the warpath.

And Bush's administration still has more than a year to run. That's enough gas in the car.

While the Bonkeys seem to have been hoping for headlines that don't come. So, instead, they get the Dinner Jacket. BUT. NOT. AT. GROUND. ZERO.

Let him use the toilets at Columbia. See if I care? Wacky academics. Same hot water as the Bonkeys. Stupid as frogs. Real ones. Not meaning the french; since they've elected Sarkozy.

Tim W.

According to your fair and balanced point of viw, History is not going to look kind on the Democrats because they want to lose the war to al Quaida and Iran.

Two things; First, I doubt you will find a historian on planet earth that will not balme Bush, and his followers for the mess in Iraq. The Democrats if anithing, will be the poor SOB 's destined to clean your mess after you are kicked out of power by the Angry American population. Second. Stop play-acting the usual Right Wing line of "we will defend you, and the democrats will defeat you"--- You guys are looking like comic cartoons by now.

OH, and may God have mercy of your brain.

Judging by the way Right Wingers see themselves one can conclude that they don't lose wars, they just keep them going forever.

Nahancee.

The latest job approval on Bush are out. The average is 30%. The number reflects what we all know by now. Only his base supports him. Only the fear of the base keeps Republican politicians behind Bush. But the most obvious conclusion comes when you pare Bush's numbers (30%) with Congress (11%).The conclusion is that the American people is not only angry, they are down right furios at being ignored by politicians when it comes to Iraq. The "Surge" charade did not work politicaly. Come 2008 Republicans, your Party will be no more. That's what you get for following a "base" of nut cases.

OK Gil lets quote polls

Confidence in Petreaus = 61%

Confidence in Congress = 11%

Petreaus said we are making real progress. The congressional majority said we are not. Sounds to me like the public must beleive we are making progress.

We should run a poll on whether people think Bin Ladin would prefer a Democratic or Republican victory in 2008. My prediction is that the poll would show Bin Ladin prefers the Democrats way of fighting the "bumper sticker" war on terror.

KW64.

Funny I did not know Petreaus was running for office, or that he was now our President.

Please stop your mental gymnastics and accept polls for what they are. If you want to present polls about politicians, you have to be consistent and present polls about politicians, not Military Vs. Lawyers, or War Heroes Vs. Used Car Salesman, or like in your case Military heroes Vs. Politicians.

I can give you the following poll:

Poll . Job approval by the Military in Iraq 83%
Poll. Job approval by Bush in Iraq 28%.
Poll job approval by Congress 11%

Conclusion. The American people trust a hell of a lot more a man in Uniform, than a politician, specially one like Bush with no credibility left.

As for Petreaus saying we are making real progress, what did you expect him to say? Is his job on the line. Last time any General disagreed with Bush (Casey for example) he was forced to retire. Do you actually believe that Bush would have gone to all the trouble he went, to portray Gen. Petreaus as the new Napoleon re-encarnate only to have him flop in Congress by saying to the Senators; "sorry, but we lost Iraq, and I can't do the job", "OH, and by the way Bush is an Idiot".

Are you that inocent?

Should I give you the long list of Generals that would tell you in no uncertain terms that "making progress" does not equal winning. Do you have enough common sence to understand the difference between "progress" and the real possibility of a victory? Do you understand that you can "progress" yourself all the way to defeat? Whenever our military is involved there's allways progress, but that's not the point.

Let me refresh your memory. Bush has been making "progress" since 2003. And I am going to tell you that on December 31st, 2008 he will still be making "progress".

The Democrats should take your word for it Right Wing Republicans, and tell you in 2009, when after winning in a landslide, they implemet their plan for Iraq, that "we will be making progress" for the next 4 years --- Apparently that's allways good enough for you guys. Gen. Jhon Smith new Commander in Iraq appointed by Hillary said so, so there we are "making progress". If you don't like the Democratic plan, tough because the Generals that Hillary appointed directly, and whose jobs depend on say "we are making progress" and that's good enough for you guys.

I am so glad you guys on the Right are going to be on board come 2009. All that we need is for a General to tell you "we are making progress" and you are in. We can do that guys, count on it.

Like the idea?

Like I said pal, Republicans never lose wars, they just keep them going forever.

docjim505.

"I am waiting for our resident lefties to show up and comment that Zawahiri is right and we are losing in Iraq"

OH no pal, we are not losing in Iraq, have you not heard? We have been making "progress" for the last 5 years!!!

So take that Zawhiri or wherever you name is, we Right Wingers will never be defeated because we have the word "progress" to trow at you.

The Democrats want the defeat of America and you brave souls on the Right of course are the only "force" stopping Osama from taking over the world!!

Tell me doc, are you like getting now a costume with a big "H" (Hero) in spandex?? Hey you can call yourself "The Progressor".

gil,

If General George W. Casey was forced to retire, then why is he in the Pentagon today as the Army Chief of Staff? He assumed that position in April 2007 after Congressional confirmation in February 2007. Most assuredly a promotion. The top General in the Army is a pretty good step up from merely being the Commander of Multi-National Forces Iraq.

Doesn't sound like a retirement to me.

So, from that point in your presentation, I simply have to disregard the rest as inaccurate as well.

Coldwarrior415.

Is a good thing that you equate mistakes with losing credibility. So why then do you still believe in Bush?

I don't "believe in" Bush no more than I "believe in" the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny.

What I put my trust in, not belief, is in the Conservative agenda, that which places national security foremost, along with other Conservative principles. Bush certainly has his faults, many of them, and is not a true Conservative by any objective standard. But considering the two alternatives to Bush in the 2000 and 2004 elections, I could not in good faith not vote, nor could I stand by and let either Gore or Kerry become President and Commander in Chief. Yes, I voted for Bush, but I do not "believe in him."

The thing you are missing, is that few Republicans, even those who are very close to Bush, "believe in him." He is occupying the Office of the Presdient. I will not slander him. I will and have criticized him. I'm a grown up, I do not have to "believe in" and elected official. I have to trust them, but "believe in them?" That sort of thing is for small children.

"equate mistakes?"

You stated: "Last time any General disagreed with Bush (Casey for example) he was forced to retire."

Now, from a forensics point of view...where is the mistake? Seems that this was an intentional statement of fact. [Erroneous. False. Uninformed. But a mistake?]