October 14, 2007

WaPo: Petraeus Was Right

The Washington Post's editorial board noticed something over the last few weeks that many of us have pointed out all along. They discover that General David Petraeus told the truth about the improving situation in Iraq. They have also found out that hardly any news agency seems interested in reporting it:

NEWS COVERAGE and debate about Iraq during the past couple of weeks have centered on the alleged abuses of private security firms like Blackwater USA. Getting such firms into a legal regime is vital, as we've said. But meanwhile, some seemingly important facts about the main subject of discussion last month -- whether there has been a decrease in violence in Iraq -- have gotten relatively little attention. A congressional study and several news stories in September questioned reports by the U.S. military that casualties were down. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), challenging the testimony of Gen. David H. Petraeus, asserted that "civilian deaths have risen" during this year's surge of American forces.

A month later, there isn't much room for such debate, at least about the latest figures. In September, Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52 percent from August and 77 percent from September 2006, according to the Web site icasualties.org. The Iraqi Health Ministry and the Associated Press reported similar results. U.S. soldiers killed in action numbered 43 -- down 43 percent from August and 64 percent from May, which had the highest monthly figure so far this year. The American combat death total was the lowest since July 2006 and was one of the five lowest monthly counts since the insurgency in Iraq took off in April 2004. ...

This doesn't necessarily mean the war is being won. U.S. military commanders have said that no reduction in violence will be sustainable unless Iraqis reach political solutions -- and there has been little progress on that front. Nevertheless, it's looking more and more as though those in and outside of Congress who last month were assailing Gen. Petraeus's credibility and insisting that there was no letup in Iraq's bloodshed were -- to put it simply -- wrong.

Let's put it a little more simply: they lied. Being "wrong" would have meant them saying, "General Petraeus, your numbers appear to be incorrect," or alternately, "We don't believe these trends will last." That's not what Petraeus heard. He heard a Senator -- someone vying to become Petraeus' Commander in Chief -- tell him that his testimony required a "willing suspension of disbelief". MoveOn greeted Petraeus' testimony with a full-page ad declaring him a potential traitor to his country.

All of that was very wrong on many levels, but his critics were much more than just incorrect. They lied about Petraeus, and the Washington Post lets them off far too easily.

They appear to do the same with their colleagues in the media. The Post notes the lack of "attention" given to the improving numbers, but never asks why this story hasn't gotten more press. The same agencies that reserve room on the front page for endless Blackwater stories somehow can't find room to report on military progress in Iraq -- and political progress as well. Somehow the story becomes much less interesting to editors when the American military reverses violent trends, starts saving lives, and starts beating terrorists.

That's not just a lack of attention, as in someone simply neglecting a wire service output. Those are deliberate editorial decisions to ignore or deprioritize news that shows the progress of Petraeus and the surge. Referring to these deliberate decisions as a "lack of attention" is equivalent to calling Petraeus' critics "wrong" rather than "exposed for what they are".

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhair.cgi/14797

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference WaPo: Petraeus Was Right:

» Casualties Continue to Drop in Iraq from Stop The ACLU
Its getting more difficult for the left to dispute. Do we have a pattern yet? Sure to go under-reported: In September, Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52 percent from August and 77 percent from September 2006, according to the Web site icasualties.org... [Read More]

» Violence Down -- No Matter What War Opponents Say from Rhymes With Right
That isn't my assessment -- that is the assessment of the Washington Post. And while they insert a few weasel words to make it clear that they don't support the war or the policy, they do concede that those who... [Read More]

» NYT’s Frank Rich compares Bush, supporters to Hitler and the “good [ignorant] Germans” (PM UPDATE) from Sister Toldjah
Like the majority of glass-house dwelling New York Times columnists, Rich has simply lost it: “BUSH lies” doesn’t cut it anymore. It’s time to confront the darker reality that we are lying to ourselves. Ten days ago The Times unearthed yet anot... [Read More]

» Better Numbers in Iraq from American Power
See also my previous post on the debate of the Pentagon's $190 billion supplemental appropriations budget for Iraq and Afganistant in 2008... [Read More]

» WaPo: It's Getting Harder to Lie about Iraq from Alamo Nation
But look at that last part more carefully - "This doesn't necessarily mean the war is being won." I'll posit that, for the leftist Washington Post, this isn't a sign the war is being won (and that it has been being won) because the leftist Washington... [Read More]

» Was General Petraeus Right About the Surge? from RealClearPolitics - Blog Coverage
Petraeudamus: [Read More]

» Numbers support Petraeus, Democrats feign(?) illiteracy from Neocon News
The Washington Post has a story out this morning that details how we’ve been able to deal some fairly serious blows to Al Qaeda in Iraq. There are rumblings that the terrorist group has been hit beyond repair, but many in the Administration are w... [Read More]

Comments (56)

Posted by Plank Tonne | October 14, 2007 10:29 AM

Actually, if you look at the recent numbers, you'll find that throughout the summer, civilian casualties were up (sometimes dramatically) over the same time last year.

So whether or not the September drop is due to the surge, Petraeus was indeed lying when he said that civilian casualties were down: at the time, they were in fact up, and he had to know this.

Of course since civilian casualties were going up at the height of the surge it raises the question of whether the much-hyped September drop has anything at all to do with the surge -- but in any case, by hyping the September drop, conservatives are admitting that all the previous claims of declining civilian casualties were false.

Posted by Jose | October 14, 2007 10:33 AM

Violence seems to have dropped in the South after the Brits pulled out. The South is effectively under militia control at this point but the bloodbath that conventional wisdom dictates will follow if we're not running their affairs has failed to materialize.

Left to their own devices people resolve their civil conflicts eventually. Doubtless this will happen in Iraq and doubtless someone on the other side of the planet will say it's thanks to them.

Posted by Bennett | October 14, 2007 10:34 AM

I suppose a benign reason for these editorial decisions (not reporting positive news) is that they may be afraid of getting too far out in front of the actual events. Are the trends indicative of sustained and permanent forward movement towards a successful resolution in Iraq or simply momentary blips on the radar that don't tell the real story?

I think it's also indicative of an inability to abandon any part of the narrative. The integrated narrative has been that (1) we went into Iraq under false pretenses, (2) that it's been an unmitigated disaster and (3) that the only solution is to leave immediately.

If you revise the second and third parts of that narrative, what do you do with the first part? Because if the second and third parts of the story no longer follow logically from the first part, it wouldn't really matter if Bush lied or was simply mistaken.

It's the first part of the narrative that's really made the story hang together. Bush is a terrible President, who either deliberately lied or was foolishly manipulated into a horrendous decision to invade another country, senselessly sacrificed the lives of thousands in doing so and then recklessly refused to withdraw and avoid further bloodshed.

If the war turns out okay, if there is real peace and a better Iraq than when we went in, the story becomes one that is far more favorable to the President than any version the media has peddled for the last 4+ years.

Posted by Colonel_Prop | October 14, 2007 10:42 AM

Now I'll breath a mighty sigh of relief! The mainstream media can be believed once again, oh my gosh, they were wrong!!!!


What a load of garbage - Ed, you are right on. My toilet paper is cheaper than the paper and of more utility.


While the deaths in Iraq are scary low for civilians and military (buried clear in the back of my sunday Paper") no mention at all of the democrats treasonous backdoor attempt to cut off our troops supplies by alienating Turkey, also read in the attempts to discredit Blackwater USA and cancel their contract, hence forcing more US fighting troops to be security - not on the leading edge of change in Iraq. This congress makes me sick.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | October 14, 2007 10:42 AM

Bennett said:

"If the war turns out okay, if there is real peace and a better Iraq than when we went in, the story becomes one that is far more favorable to the President than any version the media has peddled for the last 4+ years."

The MSM will NEVER give Bush any credit-to do so would be to admit that he was right all along, and they cannot have that.


16 Tonnes said:

"Petraeus was indeed lying"

Well, if you're so sure of this, get some looney leftist lawyer to haul him into court. For Petraeus to have acted as a political advocate for Bush, which is what you're alleging he did, he would have to knowingly violate 3 US Criminal Codes and many more military regulations.

The burden of proof isn't on Petraeus. It's on your side. Prove he was lying.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | October 14, 2007 11:03 AM

WaPo's revelations along with its partners in crime remind me of The Simpsons "Lisa vs. Malibu Stacy":

Kent Brockman's [intrepid reporter of "Smartline"] daughter has bought a Lisa Lionheart doll [Barbie parody] already and she shows it happily to her father.

Daughter: Dad?
Kent: Uh huh?
Daughter: My new doll is much better than Malibu Stacy. Do a newscast about her.
Kent: Ho ho, please, honey, Daddy's job is to bring people important news. Right now I'm busy preparing a report about the fortieth anniversary of Beetle Bailey.
Daughter: Oh, Daddy, that is boring. Talk about the dolly!
Kent: [considers] Well, you were right about the Berlin Wall...

[Kent Brockman is true to his word. On "Smartline"]

Though it was unusual to spend 28 minutes reporting on a doll, this reporter found it impossible to stop talking. It's just really fascinating news, folks. Good night!

[Music starts playing and credits roll]

Oh, and the President was arrested for murder. More on that tomorrow night, or you can turn to another channel.

[Looks off to the side]

Oh. Do not turn to another channel.

Posted by Papa Ray | October 14, 2007 11:07 AM

"It's equivalent to calling Petraeus' critics "wrong" rather than "exposed for what they are"."

Wrong from what point of view? It is never wrong to say bad things about Bush or the republicans, or in fact conservatives.

At least fifty percent of this Nation and most of the rest of the world has this point of view.

No matter what the context or argument is.

It's time we stopped making escuses for the liberal progressives in America and started fighting them as hard as they are fighting us.

No matter who is at fault, or what mistakes were made, nor who said what in the past, Americans need to step up to the challenge of the future and not only protect what we have but put down those that are determined to do this Republic wrong.

No matter where they are, in our public, in our goverment or those out side of our Nation.

And it better start happening fast because the time we have versus the enemies we have worldwide is fast becoming critical.

We don't want to have to kill millions, nor imprison them. But if that what it takes, we must be up to the task.

We also have to be willing to deport millions, as they will never leave on their own.

Because no one else is going to save us. Nor should they have to.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

Posted by TomB | October 14, 2007 11:09 AM

This is one more proof, that wars should be fought by the military, and not by politicians (and definitely not by journalists).
As per MSM they still have to realize that there is no business as usual in the Internet era, people have alternatives and found their own voices outside of the selected "Letters to the editor" sections. Bright editors and Publishers start to see the light, stupid majority doesn't seem to notice the freight train abut to run them over. Good job, fellas, keep it up!

Posted by MarkJ | October 14, 2007 11:12 AM

Dear Plank Tonne,

Actually, if you look at the recent numbers, you'll find that throughout the summer, civilian casualties were up (sometimes dramatically) over the same time last year.***

Nice try, Plank Tonne, but no Arturo Fuente for you. Even if we take your (empirically-challenged) assertions at face value, you conveniently fail to ask why civilian casualties might have risen.

Could it be, perhaps, maybe, just possibly, that Al Qaeda was trying to boost the civilian body count in order to negatively affect U.S. political opinion? Given this, what does it say about the sheer ruthlessness, brutality, and disrespect for human life exhibited by AQI? Hmmmmmmm?

You must have had a tough time in algebra class, because you're clearly incapable of working both sides of an equation.

Posted by docjim505 | October 14, 2007 11:14 AM

Cap'n Ed: The Post notes the lack of "attention" given to the improving numbers, but never asks why this story hasn't gotten more press. The same agencies that reserve room on the front page for endless Blackwater stories somehow can't find room to report on military progress in Iraq -- and political progress as well. Somehow the story becomes much less interesting to editors when the American military reverses violent trends, starts saving lives, and starts beating terrorists.

Say... Didn't LTG Sanchez say something right along these lines recently? I know he said that Bush is an idiot, Iraq is a quagmire, and that we're all gonna die from global warming, but I seem to recall hearing that he also criticize the media for their (cough) coverage of Iraq.

Am I wrong about that?

/sarcasm

Posted by dougf | October 14, 2007 11:23 AM

The problem has never been with the Editorial Page of the WAPO. This area has always been 'balanced'.

It's the REST of the accursed thing that is a constant agit-prop operation.

In this it is unlike the NYT which is the same on EVERY page.

The observation on level of violence should have been on page 1 NOT in an editorial. That it was not speaks volumes.

And ps --- no-one who wants a change in the 'media' should ever on any account PAY for any product it produces. Read the on-line editions for free and never buy anything from the advertisers. In fact if you are really serious about the issue, let the advertisers know that you are not buying their offerings because they are supporting the 'media'. Complaining about the MSM is an exercise in futility. They only respond to their own Orthodoxy or to MONEY. Since you can't appeal to them on the basis of Orthodoxy, the only lever is MONEY.

If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. See, this oldie but goldie, works for non-progressives too.

Posted by danforth | October 14, 2007 11:35 AM

the dirty little secret is the terrorists deliberately targeted civilians leading up to the petraeus report knowing our biased media would use it to prove the surge isn't working. knowing about this msm bias actually causes the civilian deaths. for our entertainment so to speak.

Posted by Teresa | October 14, 2007 11:54 AM

Fred Hiatt and the WaPo editorial page has been pimping this war since day one. This is not exactly a "shocking" change from their position all along.

Posted by essucht | October 14, 2007 11:59 AM

the dirty little secret is the terrorists deliberately targeted civilians leading up to the petraeus report knowing our biased media would use it to prove the surge isn't working. knowing about this msm bias actually causes the civilian deaths. for our entertainment so to speak.

The open secret of this war is that the Islamists can't win (chase the US out of the ME) without the MSM, and the MSM can't win (defeat Bush) without the help of the Islamists.

This certainly isn't a conspiracy - though there have been incidents of the two working together - but a convergence of goals.

Posted by Soldier's Dad | October 14, 2007 12:04 PM

16 Tonnes said:

"Petraeus was indeed lying"

There are at least 3 wars going on in Iraq.
Iraqi Nationalists vs US
Sunni vs Shia
AlQueda and affiliates vs Humanity

Each has a weapon of choice...

The Sunni vs Shia war is characterized by Gun Violence. Reported Gun Related Iraqi Deaths in Iraq are currently running at 11 per day.(Includes Bodies Found) The Mexican Murder Rate population adjusted for Iraq would be 9.7 per day.

Discerning a trendline in explosives related deaths is difficult at best...one dump truck full of diesel fuel and fertilizer exploded in an undefended village market out in the middle of nowhere can eclipse all other casualty categories combined. Car Bombs and Suice bombs against civilian targets are not the weapons of choice of either Iraqi Nationalist or Sunni-Shiite partisans. They are the weapon of choice of AlQueda...who are in a war against humanity...Sunni...Shiite...Kurd..Turkmen..American...they don't care who they kill.

Posted by chaos | October 14, 2007 12:07 PM

No honest man can say that casualties have not dropped since the new strategy was implemented and especially since June. There's literally no credible way to massage the numbers to make it look otherwise.

Posted by Dave in Pa. | October 14, 2007 12:12 PM

The REAL story of what Gen. Sanchez said, from Strategy Page at http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20071014.aspx

Of course, what he REALLY said is a very sharp critique of the biased MSM. In the MSM's arrogance,they surely won't publish this:

"Information Warfare-What the General Really Said"

"On October 12th, former Iraq commander, Lieutenant General (retired) Ricardo S. Sanchez gave a talk at a Military Reporters and Editors luncheon in Washington D.C. The media promptly reported general Sanchez as being critical of government strategy in running the war. No mention was made of the first 40 percent of the 3,400 word address. This is found below. It’s an interesting omission. But considering what Sanchez said, rather predictable. It’s another example of the media reporting only what they want to see happening, not what is actually happening. The troops constantly complain of that, but the mass media, especially, doesn’t seem to care or, in many cases, even to be aware of what they are doing. General Sanchez does, and was ignored for his efforts.

The Unreported Portion of the Talk:

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.

Some of you may not believe this but I am glad to be here. When Sig asked me if I would consider addressing you there was no doubt that I should come into the lion's den. This was important because I have firmly believed since desert shield that it is necessary for the strength of our democracy that the military and the press corps maintain a strong, mutually respectful and enabling relationship. This continues to be problematic for our country, especially during times of war. One of the greatest military correspondents of our time, Joe Galloway, made me a believer when he joined the 24th infantry division during desert storm.

Today, I will attempt to do two things - first I will give you my assessment of the military and press relationship and then I will provide you some thoughts on the current state of our war effort. As all of you know I have a wide range of relationships and experiences with our nations military writers and editors. There are some in your ranks who I consider to be the epitome of journalistic professionalism - Joe Galloway, Thom Shanker, Sig Christensen, and john burns immediately come to mind. They exemplify what America should demand of our journalists - tough reporting that relies upon integrity, objectivity and fairness to give accurate and thorough accounts that strengthen our freedom of the press and in turn our democracy.

On the other hand, unfortunately, I have issued ultimatums to some of you for unscrupulous reporting that was solely focused on supporting your agenda and preconceived notions of what our military had done. I also refused to talk to the European Stars and Stripes for the last two years of my command in Germany for their extreme bias and single minded focus on Abu Gharaib.

Let me review some of the descriptive phrases that have been used by some of you that have made my personal interfaces with the press corps difficult:

"Dictatorial and somewhat dense",
"Not a strategic thought",
"Liar",
"Does not get it" and
"The most inexperienced Lieutenant General."

In some cases I have never even met you, yet you feel qualified to make character judgments that are communicated to the world. My experience is not unique and we can find other examples such as the treatment of secretary brown during Katrina. This is the worst display of journalism imaginable by those of us that are bound by a strict value system of selfless service, honor and integrity. Almost invariably, my perception is that the sensationalistic value of these assessments is what provided the edge that you seek for self aggrandizement or to advance your individual quest for getting on the front page with your stories!

As I understand it, your measure of worth is how many front page stories you have written and unfortunately some of you will compromise your integrity and display questionable ethics as you seek to keep America informed. This is much like the intelligence analysts whose effectiveness was measured by the number of intelligence reports he produced. For some, it seems that as long as you get a front page story there is little or no regard for the "collateral damage" you will cause. Personal reputations have no value and you report with total impunity and are rarely held accountable for unethical conduct.

Given the near instantaneous ability to report actions on the ground, the responsibility to accurately and truthfully report takes on an unprecedented importance. The speculative and often uninformed initial reporting that characterizes our media appears to be rapidly becoming the standard of the industry. An Arab proverb states - "four things come not back: the spoken word, the spent arrow, the past, the neglected opportunity." once reported, your assessments become conventional wisdom and nearly impossible to change.

Other major challenges are your willingness to be manipulated by "high level officials" who leak stories and by lawyers who use hyperbole to strengthen their arguments. Your unwillingness to accurately and prominently correct your mistakes and your agenda driven biases contribute to this corrosive environment.

All of these challenges combined create a media environment that does a tremendous disservice to America. Over the course of this war tactically insignificant events have become strategic defeats for America because of the tremendous power and impact of the media and by extension you the journalist.

In many cases the media has unjustly destroyed the individual reputations and careers of those involved. We realize that because of the near real time reporting environment that you face it is difficult to report accurately.

In my business one of our fundamental truths is that "the first report is always wrong." unfortunately, in your business "the first report" gives Americans who rely on the snippets of CNN, if you will, their "truths" and perspectives on an issue. As a corollary to this deadline driven need to publish "initial impressions or observations" versus objective facts there is an additional challenge for us who are the subject of your reporting.

When you assume that you are correct and on the moral high ground on a story because we have not respond to questions you provided is the ultimate arrogance and distortion of ethics. One of your highly respected fellow journalists once told me that there are some amongst you who "feed from a pig's trough." if that is who I am dealing with then I will never respond otherwise we will both get dirty and the pig will love it. This does not mean that your story is accurate.

I do not believe that this is what our forefathers intended. The code of ethics for the society of professional journalists states:

...public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility

The basic ethics of a journalist that calls for:
1. Seeking truth,
2. Providing fair and comprehensive account of events and issues
3. Thoroughness and honesty

All are victims of the massive agenda driven competition for economic or political supremacy. The death knell of your ethics has been enabled by your parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our service members who are at war.

My assessment is that your profession, to some extent, has strayed from these ethical standards and allowed external agendas to manipulate what the American public sees on TV, what they read in our newspapers and what they see on the web. For some of you, just like some of our politicians, the truth is of little to no value if it does not fit your own preconceived notions, biases and agendas.

It is astounding to me when I hear the vehement disagreement with the military's forays into information operations that seek to disseminate the truth and inform the Iraqi people in order to counter our enemy's blatant propaganda. As I assess various media entities, some are unquestionably engaged in political propaganda that is uncontrolled.

There is no question in my mind that the strength our democracy and our freedoms remain linked to your ability to exercise freedom of the press - I adamantly support this basic foundation of our democracy and completely supported the embedding of media into our formations up until my last day in uniform. The issue is one of maintaining professional ethics and standards from within your institution. Military leaders must accept that these injustices will happen and whether they like what you print or not they must deal with you and enable you, if you are an ethical journalist.

Finally, I will leave this subject with a question that we must ask ourselves--who is responsible for maintaining the ethical standards of the profession in order to ensure that our democracy does not continue to be threatened by this dangerous shift away from your sacred duty of public enlightenment?"

Now reporting that ignored section would change the thrust of the MSM's reportage just a tad, eh???

Posted by Scrapiron | October 14, 2007 12:27 PM

Bennett, you are a poor student of the history of the 90's or a brain dead democrat (aka Communist) student of the failed socialist/communist/democrat education system. Read on: Every major leftie in the 90's stated that Saddam had WMD and was working to get more, including Nuclear weapons. That includes your hero's the Klington, Kerry's and Kennedy's. It's all preserved for history on tape and film. Do a little research so you don't come out and prove you are stupid so often. Shrillary was outspoken on it even up past the election of GWB. I still believe thousands will die from the 'non-existant' WMD developed by Saddam. He had it, he used it and there's no way he destroyed it. Try looking at the latest happening's in Syria.

Posted by Bennett | October 14, 2007 12:39 PM

"Bennett, you are a poor student of the history of the 90's or a brain dead democrat (aka Communist) student of the failed socialist/communist/democrat education system..."

What on earth are you talking about? My comment was about the media narrative of the Iraq War. The media has pursued the story of this war as follows:

1. Bush lied or was manipulated by evil forces into starting the war.
2. The war has been an unalloyed disaster.
3. The US should withdraw its troops immediately.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. Or something. Maybe adjust the meds, eh?

Posted by richard mcenroe | October 14, 2007 12:41 PM

If you look at the comments on that editorial, you would assume we opened a second front in Egypt, cuz some folks is fighting waist deep in de Nile...

Posted by Baxter Greene | October 14, 2007 1:04 PM

I could post probably hundreds of examples showing the blatant activism of liberals and the MSM pushing their anti-war/anti-liberation agenda that has helped turn this country against completing the mission in Iraq.(that their liberal
heroes in government pushed for and voted to send
our men and women to fight.)

We see it everyday and liberals have become so proud of themselves for it that journalist like
kurtz actually brag about "shaping" the news to fit their agenda like he did with Cuomo the other day on CNN.

Kurtz stated:
"I believe that these newscasts in 2005 and 2006 played the biggest single role in helping turn public opinion against the war."

"You take a look at it in terms of the role of the nightly newscasts in shaping the ideas about the news."

"The top three news anchors kept framing the story in such a way that the bad news finally had
an impact."

Yahoo's top story right now is about 9 people dying in a car bomb.

I believe the AP reported that yesterday there
were about four people killed in Iraq due to terrorist activities.

Four people,and not a word in the networks or
front pages.

Over 5 million Iraqi children going to school this year that did not have that opportunity before.

Iraqis standing up in their own neighborhoods
with coalition forces to oust Al-Qaeda and put down the militias.

Basara locals putting down the local militias and working with the Iraqi army,police and coalition forces.

Civilian and military deaths down in the 50 and 75 percent ranges.

(can't report this,it is not a trend)
(Was the stock market dropping a few hundred
points a trend,it was front page after hitting
another all time high of 14,000 which was not
on the front page)

Maliki announcing that "Civil war had been diverted because of the surge".
(put that in the back of the paper if you
report on it at all).

Speaking truth to power,honest reporting,being concerned with getting the people the "FACTS" is
about telling the whole story,the good and the bad,not pushing an agenda.
We don't need to be "directed and shown the way"
by the press.
Give us the facts and we are smart enough to discuss them with each other,Republican or Democrat, and come to our own conclusions.
I yelled just as loud and was just as upset
hearing Cheney say "the insurgency is in it's last
throws" as I was hearing Reid declare the war
"lost" while we still had men on the battlefield.

They both were wrong and we were able to come to
these and other conclusions without "guidance"
from our green zone reporters.
The facts on the ground told us what we needed to
know when we were able to get them.(Thank you Yon,Blackfive,Mudville gazette,Forth rail,Captian Q etc...)

Liberals and their friends in the press have made it clear that they don't care about Freedom,preventing genocide,taking out the murderous dictators and terrorist that are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths every
year.They don't care about the truth and getting the facts,or helping other people less fortunate
than us to realize free government and prosperity.
They prop up the Hollywood idiots that do nothing but spout cut and paste propaganda and flash their peace signs like they are the brave souls saving the world.
Then ignore or smear our men and women in uniform and the leaders in this country who have
actually cut down the terrorist regimes to offer
people hope,freedom and a positive future.
All liberals and their friends in the MSM care about is pushing their political agenda,and doing
everything they can to destroy President Bush on
the way to it.

Liberals are so proud of their new Bush bashing
round they have been given this weekend with the
General Sanchez speech.
But cherry picking his words is not going to work.You want to quote Sanchez than you have to
stand behind the words of the General that was in
charge of such a failed and flawed plan in Iraq.
Stand behind the whole speech and not the cherry
picked version.
Stand behind this:

"The death knell of your ethics has been enabled
by your parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas.
What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our service members who are at war."

The General states plain as day that the agenda driven media and their blatant activism has led to
the deaths of our Soldiers.

Keep up the good work liberals,our enemies are
counting on you.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel | October 14, 2007 1:08 PM

RE: Bennett (October 14, 2007 10:34 AM)

"I suppose a benign reason for these editorial decisions (not reporting positive news) is that they may be afraid of getting too far out in front of the actual events. Are the trends indicative of sustained and permanent forward movement towards a successful resolution in Iraq or simply momentary blips on the radar that don't tell the real story?"

The problem with such a hypothetical defense is that the media is just fine getting too far out in front of actual events when it suits their narrative. Remember "quagmire" just days in to the initial invasion of Iraq in Desert Storm - an invasion that was the fastest in history and which ended in overwhelming defeat of the Iraqi armies? Not a quagmire.

It could even be said that in today's meta narrative of the "quagmire" that it still isn't. The trending is that a momentum of success is building, that coalition forces will continue drawing down, and that the U.S. will maintain a relative skeleton force in the not too distant future (barring, of course, a conflict with Syria or Iran). As in most large conflicts, logistics and the trailing indicator of stability that is peaceful governance mandate extended presence of the nation-building entity. That is still not a quagmire though some would apply the term to cast aspersions on the mission.

No, the liberal media will gravitate to whichever trend it wants for however long it desires to suit the narrative it needs. And it will do it dishonestly. It's so apparent as to be undeniable. We've limited in our discussion here, but pick any topic and there's evidence of it. Think economy. Think anthropogenic global warming. You name it, you'll probably see it.

Posted by Bithead | October 14, 2007 1:10 PM

Of course they let the Democrats off too easily. First of all, they support the Democrats, (That much has been obvious to anyone to the right of FideCastro, for some years, now...) and secondly, they are guilty of the same crime. If one has watched over the last six months, one comes to that conclusion that what's really going on here is that the Democrat party and the press ( a redundancy) came to the conclusion that the General did, quite some time ago. The problem is it isn't politically expedient to admit that, just now.

They've been slowly letting out at admission after admission, that the president was right going into Iraq, and that there is genuine progress being had there, in dribs and drabs. They'd never dare make all the admissions at once by saying, "we were wrong". To make such an admission would be a kiss of death on two counts; they would totally lose the support of the whack job left, who will under no conditions admit such a thing... and they would also lose the support of the center, who has been misled by these people, for some years now. It would take decades to rebuild any kind of trust whatsoever in both the press and the Democrats.

My problem with the Captain's commentary, is he treats the Washington Post and the far left, as two separate entities. The problem is they are not. They're both part of the same cheering section, both guilty of the same crimes, the same wise, the same distortions. it should therefore be no surprise that they defend one another when these matters are brought up. That should have been evident, to anyone who was seriously watching this, near on a decade ago.

And it's not like we haven't been getting reminders all along. Consider the article that we posted just yesterday about Lieutenant General Sanchez and his speech. What the general actually said, and what made it into the Washington post, and the other paper of their parent company, the New York Times, can only lead one to believe that those papers are running a blocker for the Democrat party.

What's it finally going to take to get the Democrats to admit fully how wrong they were? How far out of line they were with their charges? I frankly doubt that anything is capable of that. Anything, that is, short of a landslide against them in '08 and beyond... And as for the press, that message is already being delivered, in lower subscription rates across the board. In both cases the clear message being transmitted that their lies are the reason why will seal the deal.

Posted by danforth | October 14, 2007 1:10 PM

the increase of iraqi civilians killed leading up to the petraeus report and the subsequent decline after indicate it was being done to discredit the surge (with the assistance from the biased media). if the terrorists could kill more of our soldiers they would but civilians are much easier and the biased media will eagerly report it to the same effect.

Posted by Hugh Beaumont | October 14, 2007 1:16 PM

Wow.

Right on cue, the Soros/MoveOn paid operatives are out spinning the narrative on the blogs.

I'd be curious to know how many of these MoveOn posters are from college campi.

Posted by Hugh Beaumont | October 14, 2007 1:19 PM

Outside of the IED, the Western media is the jihadists most effective offensive weapon.

They play them like a finely tuned violin.

Posted by Carol Herman | October 14, 2007 1:25 PM

Lately, there have been some really weird tricks done with "silence."

It's obvious that Petraeus did well when he went to Congress. Even better! People tuned in. And, formed their own opinions. Leaving the "arbiters" of taste out in the cold.

This is due to the strength of the Internet. It's ability to capture a myriad of voices; which sounds so much more American than anything else. Just because of its variety. (After you shop in a supermarket, you're not about to go back to the dirty and dingy stores of old.)

President Bush, however; and Olmert, in Israel, are both quiet. (Yeah. It could be a sales technique? When you're taught about CLOSING, you're taught to SHUT UP. Because if you speak, after you close, you lose the sale.)

Yes. It means you're dealing with pregnant pauses.

So what?

The goals for Irak was to get rid of Saddam, so something better could come along. THIS! In a neighborhood where the thugs know all about the money locked underground! They thought they's scare the Americans away. And, didn't.

So, now, years later, Iraqis have got to come to terms with the inherent violence within Islam.

I think Bush will get credit for putting the brake on military actions; while Maliki went out and played with iran. (Today? Iran's losing. And, syria "lost.") But it's very quiet. Just the same, things remain quiet.

Some reputations, on the Internet have grown exponentially. Michael Totten's one. Michael Yon's one. And, I'm sure you know others. (Let alone how you get to see the pieces, when Glenn Reynolds at InstaPundit, provides links.)

As a matter of fact, we're probably coming to the end of the days that newspapers even keep their doors open. (Some do, because they've invested in other media. And, where not, Rupert Murdoch goes out, to gobble up the rest.)

The world's changing.

We certainly can communicate better than ever before.

And, even hollywood feels the pressure. As everyone becomes a photographer, with a cell phone. And, everyone can photo-chop. It's a talent that's been spread out. Not one contained within a single union. And, that's gonna change how people earn salaries, and make their mortgage payments.

Heck, even Google's selling at $600 a share; estimated to go higher. (Google built a "spine" so if any government were to "shut down" the Internet, Google's got the market all to herself.) This means a successful "shut down" is very unlikely.

Can tastes change?

They always do.

WHile Irak is still a work in progress.

However, the body bag counting turned into a failure all of its own. Can't translate crap like that into a movie. And, those movies have, as yet, to be written.

Stupid to assume the old way talents got traded will be working the same way, ahead.

Good to remember that vaudeville died, even when it had a manager with a hook.

Yeah. Tastes change.

That's why I'm grateful for Oscar & Hammerstein OWNING Broadway back in the 1950's. Some things have real staying powers. Just like Mozart. And, Beethoven.

It's where the good stuff lasts that you know the future generations can go back and retreive these things. Layered, as bullshit is, on top.

Posted by bayam | October 14, 2007 1:59 PM

This thread is inane. The war in Iraq has turned into a disaster because the White House's chief strategist believed that US soldiers would be treated as "liberators", while anyone who questioned the capacity of Iraq to turn into a democracy before the invasion was chastised for "underestimating" the rich tradition of an Iraqi civilazation that has existed for over 2 thousand years. As a consequence of these completely unrealistic assumptions, there was no plan to establish a peaceful Iraq in the reality of the bitter sectarian strife that followed the invasion, and the occupation was executed by too few troops, with inadequate planning and equipment to complete their mission. The wreckage that is today's Iraq is not the fault of the US military or the US media or politicians who have voiced opposition to the war or its strategy (including Warner or Hagel or Lugar). It's completely the fault of the White House and our civilian leaders who failed to execute and manage the war.

Most likely, there will be a real fall in civilian deaths as the partitioning of Iraq moves forward:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21278569/

And what appears to be a very enligtened prediction by conservative Charles Krauthammer that this outcome is inevitable:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090602270.html

Posted by chaos | October 14, 2007 2:24 PM

Your post was rather inane bayam.

Posted by sashal | October 14, 2007 3:00 PM

With more US troops temporarily on patrol one would expect deaths to decrease. The key word here is "temporarily". It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with logistics - current troop levels simply can't be maintained. So what happens when the US starts drawing down it's troops?

More important may be that the ethnic cleansing in Baghdad is nearly complete. Most of the Sunnis have either been driven out of Baghdad or killed already. That has nothing to do with the Petraeus surge.

Posted by sashal | October 14, 2007 3:12 PM

here what real conservative position on the war is :

Iraq was not worth one American life. Not one. There is no real American interest that required or even hinted at the need for an invasion of Iraq, and I am convinced that the United States should never risk the lives of American soldiers except where some real American interest requires that risk. There can be arguments over what constitutes a “real” American interest, but I would like to think that there ought to be a general consensus, at least among conservatives, that if there is no such interest our government has no business getting involved.

I know what the foreign policy and political establishment types have said and what they continue to say about ”threats” to this country from countries in the Near East, and they are almost always wrong. They were spectacularly wrong about Iraq.
Almost every assumption they made about how Iraq supposedly threatened the United States was wrong. In no conceivable way did it threaten the mainland U.S., nor was there any real threat to Europe, nor was there an uncontainable threat to Israel or the Gulf states. A weak, fractured despotism that had been economically half-starved into compliance not only didn’t pose a serious threat to anyone, but couldn’t even begin to do so. We might as well regard Zimbabwe as a major threat to the world by the standards used to judge Iraq to be a threat. Whether these establishment folks are very bad at what they do, or whether they are dishonest, I cannot tell for most of them, but wrong they certainly are.


There are three elements to my position: strategic, legal and moral.

For there to have been anything in the national interest that actually might compel the government to invade Iraq, at least one of the following three things had to be true: 1) Iraq was an uncontainable threat to vital resources or allies; 2) Iraq was an uncontainable threat to the United States itself; 3) Iraq was working hand-in-glove with Al Qaeda. Some opponents of the war (rightly) never believed government claims about WMDs, and many correctly dismissed claims about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda as being essentially inherently absurd.

Success in its most optimistic, pre-invasion terms of a genuinely liberal democratic Iraq that would make peace with Israel and serve as a model for the region was not actually ever possible for many of the reasons antiwar conservatives gave before the war, but suppose for a moment that it was possible. Wouldn’t that great dream have been worth it? No, not at all. Two reasons: 1) America should never, barring an attack or uncontainable threat from that country’s government, attempt to dictate through the use of force the political future of any other country; 2) even the most optimistic scenario of liberal democratic Eden serves no compelling U.S. interests.

Does it actually matter to American security whether people in the Near East vote in their bad governments or not? Well, no, it doesn’t. Latin American countries are going hog-wild with democratic mass movements, most of which seem antithetical to U.S. interests and liberal values, just as would be the inevitable outcome of any kind of democracy in the Near East.

Let’s ask a different, related question: is it the proper business of the United States government to use its military so that people in other nations can be liberated from repressive governments? Quite simply, no, it isn’t. That isn’t what our government exists to do. It should use its military to defend our country, any allies with which we may have defense treaties and vital resources. It cannot be worthwhile to liberate other peoples because it is a kind of war that not only goes far beyond what our government is supposed to be doing and engages in conflicts that it has no right to involve our people in, but also because it quite clearly harms the United States in the process.


To choose war, as our government indeed did, is to choose to unleash all the horrors of war on people who have done no lasting, grave or permanent harm to us. They may or may not be wretched, awful people. They may or may not be tyrants. Whether they are or not is actually irrelevant to the question of whether our government has the right to commit aggression against another state. The bottom line is that the attacked state has done nothing to deserve our attack on it. How much less, then, do the civilians killed in the process deserve it? How can a war of aggression ever be “worth” the moral stain and illegality that it entails? How can unleashing hell on earth without cause ever be worthwhile? It cannot be.

Posted by Drew | October 14, 2007 3:16 PM

Hey, these people (MSM) are on a roll:
Nothing good happens in Iraq;
We stink in our relations with our traditional friends;
The economy is in the sewer; and,
It's all the fault of BushHitlerBurton!

Posted by Carol Herman | October 14, 2007 3:17 PM

Sorry, Sashal, but what Petraeus proved is that American forces can be thin. Just as they are thin in Afghanistan.

Plans to keep the locals in control seems to work best.

For Maliki? I'd bet he's the one with the bigest proglem! He countered the sunni terror (that had been funded by the saud's), with terror purchased from iran.

We're actually at a loss on what's going on in iran. Other than Ahmin-nothin-but-a-dinner-jacket; could be up on the ropes? Hard to tell. While his "investments" in syria seems to have skidded to a halt.

Why, if you know how much arsenal is in the hands of the gazoo-arabs; how come war is still averted? How come all there is ... are the flying garbage cans. And, very little said about clandestine operations. Which seem to be keeping law and order, "more or less" in order.

In other words? The Israeli's get cooperation from arabs, on the sly. While keeping the thugs constantly moving.

No. I don't know how they do it.

I only know that it's safe to walk in Tel Aviv.

Just as it is safe to walk the streets where the Kurds live, in Irak.

By the way, I also know the democrats in congress are trying to embarrass the Turks, with the genocide against Armenians, that was done before Ataturk took over. (Between 1915 and 1922.)

Most people don't even know what this stuff is all about. Except that it is there to change the roadway Petraeus gets from the Turks; in shipping American troops and convoys in and over Turkish "space."

As to the sunnis, in Irak? They INVITED the terror they felt! They were the first to use it. The first to MISCALCULATE.

As to Ramadi, before the tribal leaders decided to sit down with Petraeus, the AMerican military turned Ramadi into a huge wasteland. Where there were no hiding places for the snipers.

We have the best technologies. The terrorists, as a matter of fact, were strangers. And, there are more dead of them, now; than has been counted.

So, first America leveled portions of Ramadi. (Michael Totten was there! With his camera! He shows the wide swaths cut by ordnance. And, he said, Beirut, in comparison, was a small affair.)

Meanwhile, part of the surge was to pay the Iraqis TO CLEAN THINGS UP. The damage has been shoveled away. All that's left are the wide open spaces.

The other thing? ELECTRICITY HAS NEVER BEEN DELIVERED BETTER!

Believe what you want. It's a free country.

However, selling the label "betray-us" began to fit the democrat's feet, better than it did the general's. And, it produced Weasley Clark, as well.

The pen that invented the slur, became a boomerang.

Posted by Carol Herman | October 14, 2007 3:20 PM

A lesson from history:

After the Civil War was over, it was the Brit's, who analyzed the battles fought, and came away praising Ulysses S. Grant.

As to "what the world thinks," there's no great thermometer out there that takes everyone's temperature.

Missing that thermometer, too, is why Algore is full of lies. Without knowing temperatures at every point on earth, you can't make the lying claims he's made.

But, yes you can fool "some" of the people all of the time. Lincoln said so. that's why there's a Bell Curve. Propaganda, meanwhile, is a lousy tool to use when trying to convince people of just about anything.

Posted by dougf | October 14, 2007 3:23 PM

"With more US troops temporarily on patrol one would expect deaths to decrease. The key word here is "temporarily"---sashal

Another clownish comment from the cheap seats. While it might indeed be reasonable to suggest that more US troops on patrol (ie cops on the beat) might lead to a decrease in 'civilian' casualties, one would therefore expect that in the same 'atmosphere' there would be a corresponding increase in the casualty rate suffered by those very same US troops. In fact that is the very assumption made by the 'surge' planners who warned beforehand that more US troops would probably die as the surge progressed.

In truth however far FEWER US troops are now dying in Iraq than before the 'surge' began. So in fact the casualty rate is down across the board.

Now you can pretend all you want that this is due to the insurgents lying low(despite their promise of a Ramadan offensive), or a clever campaign to allow the US to take control of more and more areas for some diabolic to be revealed purpose, or just to MAGIC.

But you would be wrong. Again. Or perhaps more accurately, Still.

The most obvious conclusion to be drawn is that the US is WINNING and that the 'insurgents' are LOSING. And you mention the 'fatigue factor'. A force that is WINNING is much more able to be 'stretched' than one that is indeed bogged down. If trends such as this continue into next year, I would not be surprised to see that the surge will suddenly be much more sustainable than now believed. I also believe that it will not then be required to sustain it.

As to the Sunnis being driven out of Baghdad and therefore 'peace' breaking out. Too bad, so sad. They made their own bed by 'supporting' the monsters who killed hundreds of Shia in a campaign of indiscriminate terror. Now they must perforce lie in it. Don't expect anyone to shed many tears on their behalf.

Posted by essucht | October 14, 2007 3:26 PM

By the way, I also know the democrats in congress are trying to embarrass the Turks, with the genocide against Armenians, that was done before Ataturk took over. (Between 1915 and 1922.)

Actually, I wonder has the US Congress ever officially condemned the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, or Cambodia for their own democide?

I would presume that especially China would be more topical. Perhaps Turkey should put in a bid for Hillary to...

Posted by Baxter Greene | October 14, 2007 4:10 PM

Bayam,sashal

leave it to the liberals to blame everything that has gone wrong in Iraq on Bush,but when things are turned around,it got nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with genocide being complete and partitioning.

It is cut and paste crap like this coming out of
liberals mouths that give total credibility to the
theme of the Captain's post.

I know liberals get most of their foreign and domestic advice from hollywood but this is not a movie.Mistakes have been made in this war just like every war.No plan is perfect and we have to adjust to the enemy.

I would love for Bayam and Sashal to enlighten us on any war that has been fought that went according to plan.God knows in WW11 the nazis would have done back flips watching you liberals
harp and whine about every misstep without offering any real plan yourself.

The missteps made were made in trying to take out a terrorist dictator that your liberal heroes like Gore,Clinton,Kerry, and many more told us for
years how dangerous Saddam was,his ties to Al-Qaeda,and his WMD/nuclear programs that threatened peace in the region and according to Edwards and Rockefeller,were an immanent threat.

The idea that the violence is down because genocide is complete in Iraq is beyond stupid.
There is still more than enough sunni in Iraq that could continue to support Al-Qaeda and the
mass slaughter that was going on before the Surge.

The reality is they have had enough of the slaughter and want peace,freedom and a future.

Sunni and Shia are coming together to bring down
the militias and drive out Al-Qaeda with the help
of coalition forces,Iraqi Army,Iraqi police,and
local neighborhood groups.

Iraq had four deaths in the country attributed
to terrorism Saturday according to the AP,and
you want to say this is because of the success of
genocide.Just about what I would expect from a group running for President on an anti-war platform and the leading candidate has voted for
two wars over the last 6 years.

The Iraqis have already rejected partitioning and
are rallying other Arab states and people to reject what congress is proposing.Another great
move by this democratic congress to go along with poking Turkey in the eye this week with the ill timed genocide resolution.
Sunni,shia and kurds are grouping together in some places and others have more of a mix.

Just like what happens in every country bayam.
we have large population groups seperated by their ethnicity all over the place.

Iraq is a war zone,it does not seem that unusual
that they would gravitate toward each other for safety.These people have been enemies for decades held together by fear and murder bayam,it might take a little time to heal and learn to exist together.Once again, this is not a movie,it is real life and Germany,Japan,China,Russia,Europe
all needed time and universal commitment to stand
united as one nation.

The missteps that Bayam,Sashal and their liberal
friends have made with their cut and paste propaganda like Moore's 9/11 movie,their bias and
activist driven bogus reporting on the war and
their petty little war on Bush have been deliberate in their attempts to have America fail in Iraq and bring down the Bush administration.

There is a big difference in making mistakes trying to do the right thing that Democrats and Republicans and the majority of this nation supported in going into Iraq,
verses the deliberate attempts to undermine our
government and push for America's defeat in the war in Iraq.

In the end liberal,your legacy will be how hard
your pulled for America's defeat in a war that your elected officials voted for.A war that could not have happened without your liberal heroes telling this country for years how dangerous Saddam was and that he had to be dealt with.
A war that could not have happened without your
votes in congress and the senate.
A war that you helped send our brave men and women to fight for and have spent the last three years telling them that they are fighting for nothing,the war is lost,it's all about the oil.
A war that has turned a corner and shown incredible progress just to have you make up more
stupid talking points like,

"genocide is complete,now there is peace".

"The surge has nothing to do with the reductions in attacks and the Iraqis standing together with America for their freedom"

Your legacy liberal will be that nothing is more
important than your political agenda and your pathetic little war on Bush.

Iraq has exposed the ugly,corrupt,sickness that is the left more than Vietnam ever could.

Posted by bayam | October 14, 2007 4:52 PM

I would love for Bayam and Sashal to enlighten us on any war that has been fought that went according to plan.God knows in WW11 the nazis would have done back flips watching you liberals
harp and whine about every misstep without offering any real plan yourself.

First, I'm not a liberal, and second, from what I recall the Democrats won WWII.
Second, stop comparing the invasion of a little country whose relatively small military had been left in disrepair to the conflict with the Third Reich and Japenese Empire. You are doing a diservice to the generation of Americans who fought in WWII. Furthermore, your words will come back to haunt you- the next time we need to invade a small country, people will say- hold on, stop, invading Kurdistan will be like fighting Germany in WWII! Let's return to reality and stop underestimating the power of the US miliary. If the US had invaded with adequate troops following the Powell Doctrine of applying overwhelming force to a clearly defined mission, the outcome in Iraq could have been much different. If you still don't see the light, try reading a book such as State of Denial, educate yourself on how insiders view Bush's wartime decisoin-making, and learn why Iraq is the greatest blunder in US military history.

Sorry, Sashal, but what Petraeus proved is that American forces can be thin. Just as they are thin in Afghanistan

Hold on, thin has been a good thing? Parts of Afghanistan have seen a level of Taliban infiltration to the point where Karzai has recently offered to start negotiations with the Taliban's murderous thugs. Meanwhile, drug produciton in that country now exceeds Colombia and Equador combined. This isn't a model that anyone should view as a success or call for it being applied in the future.

Posted by bayam | October 14, 2007 5:14 PM

A war that you helped send our brave men and women to fight for and have spent the last three years telling them that they are fighting for nothing,the war is lost,it's all about the oil.

I never said that the war is about oil, Alan Greenspan said that (and he's a Republican). Did we fight this war to remove WMD or plant a seed of democracy in the Middle East that promises to transform the region? No. No one is looking at Iraq and saying let's bring that system to our country.

What I would question is the type of outcome that's achievable.

Before the invasion, the US was the preeminent power in the Middle East. The containment of Iraq made that fact abundantly clear. As Iraq continues to devolve from a strong federal system to a loosely coupled set of regional and ehtnic states, Iran's power will only grow. Even if al Qaeda is eliminted from Iraq, Iran still comes out on top. The one country that the US could count on to counter Iran, Iraq, is now fractured. Iran is the big winner and you'd be hard pressed to find a Middle East expert who would say otherwise. It's just not an exciting turn of events and a large majority of Americans know this.

Then again, if paying the price of $80 oil puts a big smile on your face and brings Bush love to your heart every time you fill a gas tank, then you're living the special life of the W faithful. You can overlook the fact that most of that money is going straight to the sheiks who fund al Qaeda. Most Americans know better and aren't so lucky.

Posted by sashal | October 14, 2007 5:18 PM

Baxter Green, read my post from 3:12.
here lies your answer.
I was not talking about mistakes in the war.
I was talking about the war and from the real conservative view of point.
You ,the mindless supporters of Bush/neocons are the real embarrassment to conservatives..

Posted by burt | October 14, 2007 5:19 PM

The Post's mealy mouthed, half-a***d, self serving sort of retraction is the best one can hope for from them.

Posted by Shaprshooter | October 14, 2007 6:01 PM

Bayam yanked out of his rectum: "This thread is inane. The war in Iraq has turned into a disaster because the White House's chief strategist believed that US soldiers would be treated as "liberators""

They were, just as their fathers were greeted as liberators 60 years earlier in Europe. Thing is, under the cheer leading of the MSM, a small percentage of thugs engaged in subversion, just as the Werewolves did in Germany in 1945.

As an analogy, criminals that comprise 10% of a population do not even remotely infer that the whole nation is a bunch of criminals.

Here's a dollar; buy a clue instead of parroting leftist barfing points.

Posted by jl | October 14, 2007 6:14 PM

bayam,

You have provided a fascinating regurgitation of the same talking points we've heard many times before, but your narrative suggests a question. Comparing your two posts, you have told us that "The one country that the US could count on to counter Iran, Iraq", was "a little country whose relatively small military had been left in disrepair"?

So how were they going to counter Iran? Pointed sticks?

Posted by GordonaReid | October 14, 2007 7:20 PM

Jennifer Love Hewitt Scene

I would love to switch places with this lucky dude!

[url=http://www.x-pornvideoz.com/mr/rftp02/s1g4/movie1.php?id=991]Full movies![/url]



----------------------------------------
[url=http://freevideoplus.info]see more[/url]
[size=1]Jennifer Love, xxx,movies, celebrity, girls, videos, vids[/size]

Posted by Bennett | October 14, 2007 7:39 PM

'So how were they going to counter Iran? Pointed sticks?" Funny!

But you've got it all wrong jl. I think Bayam's larger point is probably that Iraq could have countered Iran except after we supported him against Iran in the 80s we turned against him when he invaded Kuwait and destroyed his army and then instituted punishing sanctions that prevented him from arming himself properly to do what we needed him to do against Iran.

See, it's all our fault! Saddam was a good guy and more than willing to help us out against Iran and we destroyed this valuable friendship by not letting him take Kuwait (because of oil, of course) and then punishing him even further all through the 90s.

But surely we can find ourselves another Saddam if we look hard enough. And then all will be right in the Middle East again.

Posted by courtneyme109 | October 14, 2007 8:22 PM

The real reason Saddam was knocked out was because he fed, trained and gave ricin to terrorists who were busted in the Manchester raid in Great Britain in January 2003.

Posted by Jose Hernandez | October 14, 2007 8:35 PM

It is really too bad that the wounded soldiers and their families -- and the friends and families of dead soldiers -- get duped into trying to make sense of their loss by legitimizing the "mission" in Iraq (whatever it is), rather than by blaming the people who sent them there for no justifiable, legitimate or legal reason.

Just because someone dies or suffers a loss doesn't mean it occurred for a good reason or make those people heroes. All the dead and injured soldiers in Iraq have been for no reason whatsoever -- they're not "defending freedom" or "defending the country" or even "serving the country" over there (at least not this country).

Posted by Baxter Greene | October 14, 2007 8:38 PM

Bayam,
"The Democrats won WW11."
"Stop comparing WW11 to the war on terror."

America won WW11.Democrats and Republicans supported that war and fought bravely in it.

Iraq is far from being the "catastrophe"you and your left wing friends say it is.
The events and facts on the ground support this.

The fact that we have had to overcome an insurgency and many other obstacles means you have to regroup,and find a way to counter and defeat an
enemy,not yell "surrender" and bug out.
The comparison is that you whine on about mistakes made in the Iraq war and use it as political ammo to undermine our efforts to win this war.
No one in the numbers of the liberal base that is out there today actively tried to undermine our president and our Soldiers by pushing bogus conspiracy theories,tearing down our Soldiers with
your overblown exaggerated coverage of Abu-Ghraib,
Haditha,and support of left wing groups that refer
to our Soldiers as "murders",and the terrorist as
"freedom fighters".
Your Democratic president held Japanese concentration camps,wiretapped,and made many mistakes in WW11 war planning that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Soldiers.
But this nation knew we were at war and didn't trade in the political gotcha games that you and
your democratic friends do on a daily basis to undermine this effort.
If you read,knew the history of what it has taken through the years to make this one of the greatest nations on earth and bring freedom to millions,then you would have understood this comparison.
You don't need to tell me what I can and cannot
compare and contrast,try answering the damn question without your left wing "the war is lost"theme.
"I never said the war is about oil"is the number
one liberal talking point about the Iraq war,from
you and your democratic friends.Second only to
"Bush lied".
If you are so worried about Iran coming out on top in Iraq,than why have you and your democratic friends pushed so hard for total withdrawal?
Did you think that leaving Iraq to Al-Qaeda and
Iran through the surrender policies of the democrats was somehow going to strengthen Iraq?
The best chance for keeping Iran from overtaking
Iraq is to help them stabilize their government and train their army and police so they can have a strong self-sufficient country.
will it mirror America,no,but nobody said that it would.A free muslim Iraqi nation is a thousand times better than a terrorist state run by Saddam
Hussein.
Rest assured though,no matter what progress is
made,liberals like Bayam and Sashal will continue
to move the goal posts and declare it a monstrous
failure.
25 million people free to vote for a representative government,free to educate,practice
their religion and work toward their dreams.
Free to work towards a life they never could have
dreamed of under Saddam and his Sons.
It will take a lot of hard work and commitment
from the Iraqi people and their allies,but it is
achievable.
We know we can't count on the Bayams and Sashals
and their "progressive" friends in this challenge,so it is going on in spite of you.
The four deaths in Iraq Saturday is still a sign
of failure for our super intelligent democrats.
Next week it will be the fact Maliki does not
drive a prius.
You call me "the mindless supporter of Bush"
but it is you who continue to ignore the facts and
progress on the ground in Iraq.

We have more deaths in our liberal run inner cities than we do in the war zone in Iraq and yet you and your liberal pundits continue to call it the"the greatest blunder in military history".
Ignorant statements such as these and the people
that live by them only show who the real sheep are
in this fight against radical Islam.
Our Soldiers and this administration will continue to fight the war on terror while people like Bayam and Sashal will continue their left wing circle jerk that at the end of the day,will
have stopped no terrorist and done nothing to spread freedom around the world and keep our homeland safe.

Posted by Baxter Greene | October 14, 2007 8:57 PM

Jose,

According to Harry Reid,Hillary Clinton and 39 other democrats in the senate,our Soldiers are fighting and dying to bring to others the freedoms that many take for granted.

Right there in their signed letter to Clear Channel crying about Rush.

"no legal reason"

The house and senate voted overwhelming to take
Saddam out with force.

10 years and 17 resolutions could not force Saddam to abide by his original surrender agreement from the first gulf war.
The UN had failed and it was time to take
action against Saddam.
Democrats/Republicans and over 70% of this nation agreed that Saddam had to go.
The Clinton administration also agreed Saddam
had to go,that is why regime change was made US
policy in the late 90's.

Your use of the deaths of our men and women
in uniform to push your left wing propaganda is
shameful.
I am sure the over 70% of our Soldiers that have
re-enlisted to continue this fight would think so
to.

Posted by George Berryman | October 14, 2007 9:32 PM

Bayam:
"First, I'm not a liberal, and second, from what I recall the Democrats won WWII."

Really? It was only Democrats? Only Democrats fought in WWII? You're sure on that? I'd love to hear what Jimmy Stewart would've said to that. Or for that matter Dwight D. Eisenhower. But then what did he contribute, right? He was only the Supreme Allied Commander.

FDR and Truman, when it came to foreign policy, could not be elected as Democrats today. MoveOn.org would not have approved of FDR and Truman today specifically because of their handling of WWII.

Same goes with JFK, who took a hard stance on Communism. In today's world JFK would not be tolerated by MoveOn.org. Or Code Pink. Or any other leftist group.

The pre-Carter Democrats, at least where foreign policy is concerned, have precious little in common with today's communist American left.

Posted by Hugh Beaumont | October 14, 2007 10:57 PM

Good god, by today's standards JFK is a fricken neo-con scumbag.

Posted by Oldcrow | October 15, 2007 7:46 AM

Posted by Plank Tonne | October 14, 2007 10:29 AM
Actually, if you look at the recent numbers, you'll find that throughout the summer, civilian casualties were up (sometimes dramatically) over the same time last year.
So whether or not the September drop is due to the surge, Petraeus was indeed lying when he said that civilian casualties were down: at the time, they were in fact up, and he had to know this.

So lets see you claim civilian casualties were up during the summer, yet Gen Petraeus testified in SEP and in the same sentence you state SEP saw lower casualties you then state the GEN was lying, I don't think so the only lie I see is yours. You state "Of course since civilian casualties were going up at the height of the surge" another lie on your part the "height of the surge" was not until late Aug early Sept, I know this because I was part of it, so you have two lies in your post. Nice try though. You should really brush up on your sophistry and misdirection skills since you basically destroyed your own statement.

Posted by Jose | October 15, 2007 11:10 AM

"So what happens when the US starts drawing down it's troops?"

Like in Southern Iraq?

Posted by A Newt One | October 15, 2007 1:14 PM

That the libs have been lying about Iraq, and the that media has carried the water for them, is well known. Frankly, it is expected. What kills me is why the Administration and the Republican leadership is so sheepish about fighting back.

Posted by paul | October 15, 2007 1:56 PM

"1. Bush lied or was manipulated by evil forces into starting the war."

Actually, he was 'aided and abetted' by 20+ democratic senators. The democrats also held the majority in the Senate at the time of the vote.

I still can't believe that the focus of senate dem ire is raging for Bush, but to date there has been no other attempt to find out who lied to the democratic party, majority.

If a Bush was manipulated by evil forces, the dems who voted for the war have made no move other to find the 'source', other than to blame bush for reading and citing the same intel that they recieved.

If Bush lied, how stupid do the democrats have to be to have believe him?

Posted by paul | October 15, 2007 2:01 PM

Q: "So what happens when the US starts drawing down it's troops?"

Like in Southern Iraq?

A: The murder rate will go up, rivalling Philadelphia, Detroit, Baltimore...

Post a comment