[Mulderator]

I'm sure everyone around here have been reading all the negatives from the liberals here for the last 4 or 5 years on Iraq. Hell, people like Poochee and Linsky revel in bad news from Iraq--the more people killed the more excited those types get. But how much have you heard about all the recent successes in Iraq? That its turned the corner?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112201089.html

On Iraq, a State of Denial

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, November 23, 2007; Page A39

It does not have the drama of the Inchon landing or the sweep of the Union comeback in the summer of 1864. But the turnabout of American fortunes in Iraq over the past several months is of equal moment -- a war seemingly lost, now winnable. The violence in Iraq has been dramatically reduced. Political allegiances have been radically reversed. The revival of ordinary life in many cities is palpable. Something important is happening.

And what is the reaction of the war critics? Nancy Pelosi stoutly maintains her state of denial, saying this about the war just two weeks ago: "This is not working. . . . We must reverse it." A euphemism for "abandon the field," which is what every Democratic presidential candidate is promising, with variations only in how precipitous to make the retreat.

How do they avoid acknowledging the realities on the ground? By asserting that we have not achieved political benchmarks -- mostly legislative actions by the Baghdad government -- that were set months ago. And that these benchmarks are paramount. And that all the current progress is ultimately vitiated by the absence of centrally legislated national reconciliation.

I can understand Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the No. 2 commander in Iraq, saying that the central government needs to seize the window provided by the surge to achieve political reconciliation. We would all love to have the leaders of the various factions -- Kurd, Shiite and Sunni -- sign nice pieces of paper tying up all the knotty questions of federalism, de-Baathification and oil revenue.

What commander would not want such a silver bullet that would obviate the need for any further ground action? But it is not going to happen for the same reason it has not already happened: The Maliki government is too sectarian and paralyzed to be able to end the war in a stroke of reconciliation.

But does the absence of this deus ex machina invalidate our hard-won gains? Why does this mean that we cannot achieve success by other means?

Sure, there is no oil law. But the central government is nonetheless distributing oil revenue to the provinces, where the funds are being used for reconstruction.

Sure, the de-Baathification law has not been modified. But the whole purpose of modification was to entice Sunni insurgents to give up the insurgency and join the new order. This is already happening on a widening scale all over the country in the absence of a relaxed de-Baathification law.

As for federalism, the Kurds are running their own region, the Sunni sheiks in Anbar and elsewhere are exercising not just autonomy but control of their own security, and the southern Shiites are essentially governing themselves, the British having withdrawn in all but name.

Yes, a provincial powers law would be nice because it would allow for provincial elections. We should push hard for it. But we already have effective provincial and tribal autonomy in pivotal regions of the country.

Why is top-down national reconciliation as yet unattainable? Because decades of Saddam Hussein's totalitarianism followed by the brutality of the post-invasion insurgency destroyed much of Iraq's political infrastructure, causing Iraqis to revert to the most basic political attachment -- tribe and locality. Gen. David Petraeus's genius has been to adapt American strategy to capitalize on that development, encouraging the emergence of and allying ourselves with tribal and provincial leaders -- without waiting for cosmic national deliverance from the newly constructed and still dysfunctional constitutional apparatus in Baghdad.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq is in disarray, the Sunni insurgency in decline, the Shiite militias quiescent, the capital city reviving. Are we now to reverse course and abandon all this because parliament cannot ratify the reconciliation already occurring on the ground?

Do the critics forget their own arguments about the irrelevance of formal political benchmarks? The transfer of power in 2004. The two elections in 2005. The ratification of the constitution. Those were all supposed to be turning points to pacify the country and bring stability -- all blown to smithereens by the Samarra bombing in February 2006, which precipitated an orgy of sectarian violence and a descent into civil war.

So, just as we have learned this hard lesson of the disconnect between political benchmarks and real stability, the critics now claim the reverse -- that benchmarks are what really count.

This is to fundamentally mistake ends and means. The benchmarks would be a wonderful shortcut to success in Iraq. But it is folly to abandon the pursuit of that success when a different route, more arduous but still doable, is at hand and demonstrably working.

[Mulderator]

And this from John Murtha--Democratic loud mouth who earlier in the year said the war is unwinnable:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07334/837990-84.stm

Murtha: Surge is working

Friday, November 30, 2007

By Jerome L. Sherman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Rep. John Murtha, one of the most outspoken congressional critics of the Iraq war, yesterday said he saw signs of significant military progress during a brief trip to the Middle East last week. But he warned that Iraqis need to play a larger role in providing their own security and the Bush administration must develop an exit strategy.

"I think the 'surge' is working," Mr. Murtha, a Democrat, said in a video conference from his Johnstown office, describing the president's decision to commit nearly 30,000 additional troops at the beginning of the year. "But the thing that has to happen is the Iraqis have to do this themselves. We can't win it for them."

Mr. Murtha has been a strong critic of the White House war policy and has been calling for a troop withdrawal plan.

He said violence has dropped significantly in recent months, with a dramatic decline in civilian deaths. About 711 Iraqi civilians have been killed or found dead in November, according to statistics compiled by The Associated Press. That figure compares with 2,155 deaths in May.

U.S. forces also have seen a major decline in casualties. The military yesterday reported its 35th death in November, the lowest monthly number since March 2006. More than 120 troops died in May of this year, just as the troop surge was reaching its height.

Mr. Murtha, a Vietnam veteran who chairs the powerful House panel on defense spending, said the latest military successes aren't a surprise. During the war's early stages, he sent a letter to President Bush, warning that the United States needed a much larger ground force to pacify Iraq.

He described the most promising signs of progress as the turnaround in the once-volatile Anbar province, where Sunnis frustrated by the violent excesses of insurgent groups have started working closely with the United States.

Iraqis need to duplicate that success at the national level, but the central government in Baghdad is "dysfunctional," Mr. Murtha said. He spoke of the frustrations expressed by the top American military and civilian commanders in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who have been pushing Iraqi leaders to use the lull in violence to make political progress, especially in relations between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

Mr. Murtha also met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who told him that Iraqi forces likely would take a much a greater security role in 2008. The Pennsylvania lawmaker said he had heard similar promises from the prime minister before.

"The American people are impatient," Mr. Murtha said. "He's got to do something to move forward."

As a reminder of how contentious the war debate is in Washington, a White House spokeswoman yesterday chastised Congress for failing to provide billions of dollars in emergency spending for Iraq and Afghanistan in the coming year.

"They only have six legislative days left in the session. Their focus should be on funding the troops, making sure the intelligence gap remains firmly closed, and by passing a budget, which is something that our country, our democracy, should be able to do," Dana Perino said during a press briefing.

"They complain about Iraq; the Iraqis were able to pass a budget. It's almost completed. Ours is nowhere near completed."

Mr. Murtha said such language is "the kind of stuff that makes it very difficult to come to an agreement because it just alienates people in our party."

He noted that Congress has already approved a $459 billion defense appropriations bill for 2008, and, this month, the House approved $50 billion in temporary spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although Democrats attached a timeline that would pull U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of next year.

The bill has stalled in the Senate, and President Bush has said he would veto it.

Ms. Perino said yesterday that congressional failure to approve an acceptable war funding bill could jeopardize the Pentagon's budget, warning that as many as 100,000 civilian employees may be in danger of losing their jobs in the coming months.

Mr. Murtha said he may be willing to compromise on the timing of a withdrawal if the White House shows some flexibility. He acknowledged that the U.S. military would be unable to handle the logistics of pulling its heavy equipment from Iraq by the end of 2008.

On Tuesday morning, the lawmaker expressed his ideas with the Bush administration's "war czar," Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute.

Mr. Murtha's four day-trip took him to a Thanksgiving dinner with troops in Kuwait. He also made stops in Turkey and NATO headquarters in Belgium. He was joined by his wife, Joyce.

In Kuwait, he met with troops from Pennsylvania. Their morale is good, he said.

"They want to finish the job," he said. "But, on the other hand, they want to get home."

Where are all the articles on this? Why have you not heard about this in the news?

[Mulderator]

And why is success in Iraq a "problem" for Democrats? Seriously--this should infuriate all decent Americans that success in Iraq is a problem for Democrats. When are the "mouths" here at TSG (and you all know who I'm talking about with the stupid and the droning on about the "quagmire" in Iraq!) going to discuss the "good news!"

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecry...Democrats.html

November 29, 2007

Murtha's comments on 'surge' are a problem for House Democrats

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), one of the leading anti-war voices in the House Democratic Caucus, is back from a trip to Iraq and he now says the "surge is working." This could be a huge problem for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders, who are blocking approval of the full $200 billion being sought by President Bush for combat operations in Iraq in 2008.

Murtha's latest comments are also a stark reversal from what he said earlier in the year. The Pennsylvania Democrat, who chairs the powerful Defense Subcommittee on the House Appropriations Committee, has previously stated that the surge "is not working" and the United States faced a military disaster in Iraq.

Murtha told CNN on July 12, following a Bush speech, that the president's views on the success of surge in Iraq were "delusional."

"Well it's delusional to say the least," Murtha told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "As I said earlier, and you heard me say it, it's a failed policy wrapped in illusion. Nothing's gotten better. Incidents have increased. We have had more Americans killed in the last four months than any other period during the war."

Murtha added: "I don't acknowledge there has been any progress made. Maybe in Baghdad. But it just breaks out someplace else. We called for extra troops two years ago. We put money in for 30,000 troops. They haven't even been able to raise the 30,000 troops they have. So they have to break all their guidelines. But there's no progress being made."

Back on June 3, during an appearance on ABC's "This Week," Murtha bashed the White House for "making excuses" on Iraq.

"They [the White House] keep saying the news media is being negative," Murtha said. "They keep making excuses for the lack of progress. I've been hearing this month after month and I'm absolutely convinced right now the surge isn't working and I'm convinced that if they don't pay attention to what I'm saying and a lot of other members of Congress are saying they're going to have a disaster on their hands because the American public want the troops out of Iraq."

More Murtha comments from the same interview: "I'm absolutely convinced the first step to stability in Iraq is redeployment and what they're saying, when you look at the figure, the figures that you and I see, the figures that we use all the time, oil production below pre-war level, electricity below pre-war level, a couple of hours of electricity in Baghdad some days and 60 percent unemployment some parts of Iraq. I mean, there's no way you're going to have success."

And here's Murtha from an interview on CBS' "Face the Nation" on April 29: "The progress that they talk about is not there. Any of the economic things that I've seen doesn't show any progress. We've had 330 people killed since the surge began. More people killed in the last four months that were killed at any other time during the war. Fifty-three percent increase in American deaths. And this White House keeps saying we're making progress."

Murtha even yelled at a reporter during a recent press conference, telling the reporter that the news coming out of the Pentagon regarding Iraq is not believable.

[Mulderator]

And notice what you see from the hypocritical liberals--threads showing a death toll--distortion for political gain with absolutely no concern for what is good for America or good for anyone but themselves. Every time you see this in this forum, you should think "hypocrite" and post this:

[Mulderator]

And watch what happens--rather than discuss the progress and be postive--you will see liberals cutting and pasting every negative pessimistic article they can find without regard to any facts.

[Mulderator]

BTW--did ya all see Nancy Pelosi stand up and cheer when Bush announced plans to withdraw 20,000 troops now that the Iraqi government is finally gaining a foothold and can start defending its own citizens? What a ******* hypocrite--that Beetch lied in 2002 saying how her first priority was to bring troops home and she's done nothing. If we had listened to her we would have "cut and run!" And actually--that's a good way to describe the Democratic party--change with the political winds.

You can say what you want about Bush and think what you want, but the man never wavered--he had to not only battle Al Queda but he has to battle the Democrats on top of it. Seriously--when are we all as Americans going to say enough is enough. When are we going to tell people we are tired of your negative crap!!!

[TRS-80 vet]

What is the 'surge'?

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by TRS-80 vet

What is the 'surge'?

Google it--there is plenty on it, but its essentially a surge in troops, but thats a bit simplistic--read here (Wikipedia but generally fairly accurate):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Wa..._surge_of_2007

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by TRS-80 vet

What is the 'surge'?

The more imporant question is why have you not heard more about it? Isn't that significant news? One soldier dies in Iraq and the friggin liberals have it plastered all over the news. This really should clue people in about how slanted and biased the major media outlets are. Why
have you not heard more about the Surge and the success in Iraq? Why do you think you haven't?

[TRS-80 vet]

Market reports and weather. All I'm interested in. And not even so much the market reports, since they're now tradin' snowfall futures on the CME.

So it appears that since the 'surge' is working to accomplish whatever the objective [ain't] in Iraq, the solution to precipitate the objective, is to send in - oh, maybe 75k more troops.

Then, the mission should be accomplished in SHORT ORDER. Again.

Right?

[TRS-80 vet]

And what IS the objective in Iraq anyway? The WMD gig was questionable; civility in Iraq? There'll be civility in this forum before there is in Iraq.

[Littlefield]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

The more imporant question is why have you not heard more about it? Isn't that significant news? One soldier dies in Iraq and the friggin liberals have it plastered all over the news. This really should clue people in about how slanted and biased the major media outlets are. Why
have you not heard more about the Surge and the success in Iraq? Why do you think you haven't?

Mulder TRS has heard of the surge he is being scarcastic .I know you know that too so you must be in a good mood tonite

[TRS-80 vet]

Originally Posted by Littlefield

Mulder TRS has heard of the surge he is being scarcastic .I know you know that too so you must be in a good mood tonite

I've heard the word a half a dozen times in the last couple of weeks. I had no clue that it's a year-old buzzword.

[bassetman]

What was it? 93 lies?

[SlackAli]

The fact that previously al-Qa'ida controlled cities like Fallujah are now relatively quiet owes more to the US buying-off of Sunni militia to attack the insurgents than it does to the direct influence of the American troop surge. These militia are now demanding a more political role within the Iraqi state, such as it exists, which given that many of the militia members were former supporters of Saddam Hussein, the Shia-dominated administration are unwilling to concede.

We shall see what happens if the Sunnis change sides again