The Surge succeeds

[avatar4321]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/the_surge_succeeds.html

[Psychoblues]

Not up on comment? Not surprising coming from one so delusional as yourself.

[musicman]

Mr. Dunn says it far better than I, but I made similar points a year ago, on another board, in a conversation with - ironically - Psychoblues.

I believe I referred to Watergate/Vietnam as the Democrat template for the acquisition of power: war, scandal, war, scandal...

The reason the Democrats will not (we hope) succeed this time is because the '70s are over; things are fundamentally different:

1. There's no draft.

2. The baby boom generation - some of us, at least - have grown up, and realize that some things are WORTH fighting for, and

3. The left no longer enjoy the protection of a monopolistically complicit fourth estate.

I'll let J.R. Dunn take it from here. Great find, avatar!


From the article: And what do they want, exactly? What is the purpose of playing so fast and loose with the public safety, national security, and human lives both American and foreign?

Generally, when someone repeats a formula, it's because they want to repeat a result. And that's what the American left wants in this case. During the mid-70s, American liberals held political control to an extent they had not experienced since the heyday of FDR. The GOP was disgraced and demoralized. The Democrats held the Senate, the House, and the presidency. There was absolutely nothing standing in the way of their maintaining complete power for as long as anyone could foresee... until Jimmy Carter's incompetence proved itself, which caused the whole shabby and illusory structure to fell apart in a welter of ineptitude and childishness.

The American left wants a return to the 1970s -- without Jimmy Carter. (Okay, without disco, either.) They want a cowed GOP. They want control of the institutions and the branches. They want a miserable, defeated country they can manipulate. And they want it all under the gaze not of the Saint of Plains, but of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who can assure that left-wing predominance will continue for a generation or more.

Will they get it? That's a question worth some thought. Because as it stands, neither of the program's necessary elements is coming to fruition. The war is not being lost, and their great political scandal has fizzled.

The other half of the equation was Watergate. Vietnam would not have been anywhere near as much a disaster without it. Watergate paralyzed the Nixon administration. It turned Nixon himself from an odd, unlikable, but incredibly capable politician to a half-crazed ghost sobbing in the Oval office in the middle of the night. It transformed his last great triumph -- the Paris peace accords that ended the war on an acceptable standoff -- into ashes...

[avatar4321]

Not up on comment? Not surprising coming from one so delusional as yourself.

the article speaks for itself. the surge is working. deal with it.

[Psychoblues]

You are so funny.



Mr. Dunn says it far better than I, but I made similar points a year ago, on another board, in a conversation with - ironically - Psychoblues.

I believe I referred to Watergate/Vietnam as the Democrat template for the acquisition of power: war, scandal, war, scandal...

The reason the Democrats will not (we hope) succeed this time is because the '70s are over; things are fundamentally different:

1. There's no draft.

2. The baby boom generation - some of us, at least - have grown up, and realize that some things are WORTH fighting for, and

3. The left no longer enjoy the protection of a monopolistically complicit fourth estate.

I'll let J.R. Dunn take it from here. Great find, avatar!

Care to extrapolate any of that to me? You tried but you failed. Accept that.

[Psychoblues]

Maybe that's the problem, a'21. The article, as you say, speaks "with itself".



the article speaks with itself. the surge is working. deal with it.

The "surge" is a sham for more wartime profit at the expense of American lives. Deal with it.

[musicman]

You are so funny.




Care to extrapolate any of that to me? You tried but you failed. Accept that.

Point out my inaccuracies, then.

[Psychoblues]

Get over yourself, mm.



Point out my inaccuracies, then.

Your inaccuracies belong to your beliefs as expounded by someone other than yourself. Do you have anything original or instructive to say about your repetitions?

[musicman]

Get over yourself, mm.




Your inaccuracies belong to your beliefs as expounded by someone other than yourself. Do you have anything original or instructive to say about your repetitions?

You don't remember our conversation, then?

[Psychoblues]

I remember how hard headed you were then and you prove my inclination as correct by being so,,,,,,,,,



You don't remember our conversation, then?


Hard headed now. Do you have an excuse for your proposal that Dems are attempting to repeat the mistakes of Viet Nam? I would propose it is exactly the other way around.

[musicman]

I remember how hard headed you were then and you prove my inclination as correct by being so,,,,,,,,,





Hard headed now. Do you have an excuse for your proposal that Dems are attempting to repeat the mistakes of Viet Nam? I would propose it is exactly the other way around.

An excuse for my proposal? None is required here. What I DO have is observable fact; the American left is in the midst of a cynical power grab, using the 1970s as their template for success. Now, as then, they don't give a shit what happens to America or Americans in the process. Ask them what THEIR excuse is.

[Psychoblues]

Your cynicism notwithstanding, I accept your apology. "Ask them what their excuse is,,,,,,,,indeed."

[musicman]

Your cynicism notwithstanding, I accept your apology. "Ask them what their excuse is,,,,,,,,indeed."

Could you say all that again...COHERENTLY?

[Psychoblues]

Like before, you misunderstood.



Could you say all that again...COHERENTLY?

I can't improve your comprehension no matter how hard I try. Been there and done that.

[musicman]

Like before, you misunderstood.




I can't improve your comprehension no matter how hard I try. Been there and done that.

Yeah, crazy me - I need something which remotely pertains to the point at hand - in English. Thanks for trying, anyway...

[Psychoblues]

I tried, you failed. Next?

[musicman]

I tried, you failed. Next?

I'm content to let the reader make his own judgments. First, of course, I'd issue a Yogi Berra alert. You're just full of fun and games - especially when you have nothing of substance to say.

Well, you're full of SOMETHING, anyway...

[Psychoblues]

I don't recall Yogi Berra ever saying anything like that.




I'm content to let the reader make his own judgments. First, of course, I'd issue a Yogi Berra alert. You're just full of fun and games - especially when you have nothing of substance to say.

Well, you're full of SOMETHING, anyway...

Do you have a link?

[musicman]

I don't recall Yogi Berra ever saying anything like that.





Do you have a link?

Proving my point - thanks.

[Psychoblues]

Your delusions will not become my own, mm.




Proving my point - thanks.


You are so damn easy!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[musicman]

Your delusions will not become my own, mm.

I'm glad I don't have any delusions to offer you, Psychoblues. I don't see how you could possibly cram one more into your poor head. Look - here comes one now:


You are so damn easy!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have a nice day there, Napoleon.

[Psychoblues]

Who in hell are you trying to fool, 'lil napolean?



I'm glad I don't have any delusions to offer you, Psychoblues. I don't see how you could possibly cram one more into your poor head. Look - here comes one now:



Have a nice day there, Napoleon.

I have never tried to overcome anyone. What is your excuse or otherwise obfuscation of your complicity towards your anticipated democracy by force ideology that you so vociferously advocate?

[red states rule]

Not up on comment? Not surprising coming from one so delusional as yourself.

Libs cant acknowledge any good news from Iraq. Libs have invested their political future in the US losing in Iraq. So any good news from Iraq is bad news for them

[red states rule]

Good news grinches
David Limbaugh
July 27, 2007

Very good news is coming out of Iraq. Not surprisingly, this hasn't caused a change of heart among the Democratic leadership. It hasn't even given them pause. One wonders if they are capable of hearing such news anymore.

The Times Online reports al Qaeda faces rebellion within its ranks. "Fed up with being part of a group that cuts off a person's face with piano wire to teach others a lesson, dozens of low-level members of al Qaeda are daring to become informants for the U.S. military in a hostile Baghdad neighborhood."

Some junior al Qaeda members are said to be repulsed by the gratuitous, barbaric violence. One said, "I am sick of it and I hate them, and I am done.

The good news doesn't stop here. Al Qaeda not only faces internal dissension, but evidence emerges that other ethnic forces formerly friendly to al Qaeda are changing their tune. Iraqi locals are denying al Qaeda the sanctuary they need to operate. Lt. Col Stephen Michael, commander of a 700-troop battalion in Doura, says, "Al Qaeda's days are numbered, and right now he is scrambling."

This news, says the Times, comes out of Doura. But it "is part of a wider trend that has started in other al Qaeda hotspots across the country and in which Sunni insurgent groups and tribal sheikhs have stood together with the coalition against the extremist movement."

Along the same lines, The Washington Times reports U.S. forces have brokered an agreement between Sunni and Shi'ite tribal leaders in Taji, Iraq, to join forces against al Qaeda and other extremists, an extension of a policy carried out in Anbar Province "that has transformed the security situation" there.

This isn't some flimsy handshake deal. Tribal leaders agreed to use members of more than 25 local tribes to protect the area around Taji from Sunni and Shi'ite extremists. It's also significant that tribal forces approached U.S. forces to initiate this agreement.

Al Qaeda's inhumanity is not the only reason things are beginning to change in Iraq. The reports clearly indicate the increased number of U.S. forces in Doura has made the locals feel it's less dangerous for them to turn toward us. These reports are direct confirmation that the surge strategy is working.

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070727/COMMENTARY/107270023/1012

[red states rule]

NBC Nightly News Profiles Female Sergeant Fulfilling 'Dream' of Serving in Iraq
By Brent Baker | July 26, 2007 - 21:44 ET
Thursday's NBC Nightly News combined the usual with the unusual for an evening newscast story: A breast cancer survivor story which would appeal to woman and a look at an Army Sergeant who has now fulfilled her 'dream' of getting to serve in Iraq, hardly a view expressed very often on network news. Anchor Brian Williams introduced the profile: “Tonight we have a story of a woman who is serving her country and serving as an example, in her bravery, to the rest of us.” Checking in on the state-side training being undergone by Army Sergeant Elizabeth Cowie, reporter Jennifer London explained how “it's been her dream to serve in Iraq.” Cowie, however, was sidelined by breast cancer. But now that she successfully treated it, her dream has been “realized,” London related, as “this was Sergeant Cowie's final training mission before deployment.” Cowie expressed her idealism and commitment: “We have a lot of liberties, we have a lot of freedoms that other people around the world don't have, and so for me that's important, so I'm willing to do what I have to do and put my own life at risk.”

After London's piece, Williams followed up with how Cowie arrived in Iraq and sent an e-mail to NBC News “with the following request, quote: 'Keep our soldiers in your prayers. They are the best of America.'”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2007/07/26/nbc-nightly-news-profiles-female-sergeant-fulfilling-dream-serving-iraq

[Psychoblues]

Your ignorance and failure to comprehend are not my problems, mm.



Yeah, crazy me - I need something which remotely pertains to the point at hand - in English. Thanks for trying, anyway...

Do you care for extrapolations,,,,,,in English?

[red states rule]

Your ignorance and failure to comprehend are not my problems, mm.




Do you care for extrapolations,,,,,,in English?

Your problem is you suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome

and

PEST (Post Election Selection Trauma)

[musicman]

Who in hell are you trying to fool, 'lil napolean?




I have never tried to overcome anyone. What is your excuse or otherwise obfuscation of your complicity towards your anticipated democracy by force ideology that you so vociferously advocate?

That's what Iraq is, in your view? That's what Vietnam was?

[red states rule]

Your ignorance and failure to comprehend are not my problems, mm.




Do you care for extrapolations,,,,,,in English?

and the yellow streak runs all the way down your back

[red states rule]

Point out my inaccuracies, then.

Asking a liberal to speak the truth?

That is like asking Ted Kennedy to stop bending his elbow

[red states rule]

Your ignorance and failure to comprehend are not my problems, mm.




Do you care for extrapolations,,,,,,in English?

Shocking ‘Chris Matthews' Discussion: Maybe We Shouldn’t Leave Iraq
By Noel Sheppard | July 29, 2007 - 14:29 ET

Something happened on Sunday's "Chris Matthews Show" that likely shocked virtually all viewers on both sides of the aisle: the panel, stocked with liberal media members as usual, actually discussed reasons why America shouldn't pull troops out of Iraq.

In fact, not only was this issue seriously debated, but some of the statements made could have come from well-known conservative columnists like Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol, and Charles Krauthammer.

Yet, this panel was comprised of the Washington Post's David Ignatius, Time's Michael Duffy, NBC's Kelly O'Donnell, and U.S. News and World Report's Gloria Borger.

The shocking discussion was set up thusly by host Matthews:

Mike Duffy, you wrote a big piece for Time magazine last week highlighting three dangers Bush is pushing about if we withdraw: sectarian violence; safe haven for al Qaeda, and; a proxy war in Iraq fueled by its neighbors.

Duffy responded:

The Administration estimates that we have a thousand Iraqis dying a month at the current rate. That could explode, maybe ten times as many, if the U.S. leaves.

Shocking. O'Donnell entered the discussion:

Well, it's all about fear. Fear of the unknown. And, as we're seeing, it is potentially much more explosive if we were to have a reduced presence. And, that's what the president is focusing on.

Later, Matthews asked Ignatius the following:

When we get a national intelligence estimate that says al Qaeda is back and strong, and all over the world, what good does this war in Iraq do to reduce that threat?

Great question. Even better, Ignatius by no means gave the normal liberal media member response (fasten your seatbelts):

Well, these struggles are different fronts of the same war. There is a radical Islamic movement that is active all over the world. It's seeking to hit U.S. targets and targets of our allies...This national intelligence estimate says that it has regained its strength, and most important, it has regained a safe haven in northwest Pakistan. And, the big question the U.S. is going to have to decide: that's a very stark warning, that they have, they have a platform to stage 9/11 level attacks. What are we going to do about it?

The notion that, you know, a defeat for the United States and its allies in Iraq is costless in terms of the larger war against al Qaeda is just wrong. I mean, you know, bin Laden said again and again, "The Americans are weak. If you hit them hard, they'll run away. They were hit hard in Beirut, they ran away. They were hit hard in Somalia, they ran away."

If, if the Iraq experience shows the same thing, that will be emboldening.

[...]

Whether it's Bush's argument or not, I think anybody who rejects it out of hand hasn't read Osama bin Laden's writings.

Wow. Could have been said by Kristol, Barnes, or Krauthammer, right?

But don't unfasten those seatbelts yet, because moments later, Matthews posed the following:

If we pull out of Iraq in strength, and leave that country to its own devices, what will happen is the Shia will try to dominate the Sunnis, and then all the Sunni countries in the region, the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, will get into the fight. What's the outlook there?

Duffy responded:

They don't, this is one the Administration doesn't want to talk about much Chris because it doesn't just scare Americans or Iraqis. It scares markets. Because it immediately goes to the price of oil and what would happen to all kinds of countries in the Persian Gulf. At the moment, the U.S. doesn't want to talk about this, but it is so real that even Democrats are trying to figure out a plan are concerned about because the Saudis would come in on the side of the Sunnis, and this is already beginning to happen...

O'Donnell chimed in: "Jordanians, Syrians..."

Shocking. Moments later, Matthews said the following:

We put it to the Matthews Meter, twelve of our regular panelists: Can Bush keep 100,000 troops or more in Iraq until he leaves office? Looks like he can. Eight of our group says, "Yes he can." Four say, "No, pressure will prevent it." Kelly, you said, "Yes, he can keep all the troops he wants as long as he wants."

O'Donnell responded:

He has every intention to keep a sizable force. The next president will have a lot to do with this. And people are beginning to learn that exiting is not easy. There are enormous costs of getting out.

Better still, Borger shockingly added to this:

And can I say, this is such a problem right now for Democrats as we see them not only debate in Congress, but also in all of their presidential debates, because privately many of them will say, and Joe Biden has even said it publicly, that you can't withdraw overnight. That it would be dangerous for us to do so.

O'Donnell chimed in: Mechanically you can't do it.

Matthews then asked: "How will it be better if we stay there two years more than if we leave in a year?"

Duffy responded:

I think you get to maybe protect two clear interests that the U.S. has: keeping al Qaeda from having a safe haven on the order of Afghanistan, and; keeping that regional war from breaking out.

Shocking, so much so that 90 minutes later, I'm still questioning if this really happened.

However, as my DVR doesn't lie, I have to wonder if a staunchly anti-war media, after pushing for an expeditious withdrawal of troops for many months, are beginning to recognize the humanitarian disaster that certainly follows such a capricious act.

Or, is it possible that the surge is indeed working, and rather than report that before it has fully succeeded, press members are slowly moving away from their previous cut-and-run posture to position themselves better for a possible victory?

Either way, it was nonetheless refreshing to witness such an honest discussion about this crucial issue being had by such liberal journalists.

Of course, potentially even more delicious will be to watch the overwhelmingly likely rabid response in the liberal blogosphere to this program as they insist this proves how conservatively biased the media really are.

Stay tuned.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/07/29/shocking-chris-matthews-discussion-maybe-we-shouldn-t-leave-iraq

[Gaffer]

WOW, liberals actually realizing there's a real world out there. It has to be because the surge is progressing well and they see the writing on the wall. They can only cover up the successes for so long before the truth starts to leak out.

[nevadamedic]

WOW, liberals actually realizing there's a real world out there. It has to be because the surge is progressing well and they see the writing on the wall. They can only cover up the successes for so long before the truth starts to leak out.

Who would have thought? :laugh2:

[red states rule]

WOW, liberals actually realizing there's a real world out there. It has to be because the surge is progressing well and they see the writing on the wall. They can only cover up the successes for so long before the truth starts to leak out.

Chris will not let this happen again. He is being called on the carpet, and given the proper DNC talking points about surrender and appesement

[red states rule]

Columbia Journalism Review Equated Milbloggers to Chickenhawks
By Lynn Davidson | July 30, 2007 - 08:10 ET
The Columbia Journalism Review hit a new low with Paul McLeary's latest article when apparently claimed milbloggers didn't serve in the military. Outraged that milbloggers and the right dared to question the veracity of Scott Beauchamp's fantastical writings which claimed US soldiers in Iraq played with the skulls of Iraqi children, McCleary asked “Why do conservatives hate the troops” and pretended to take the side of those beleaguered “troops.” In response to the legitimate discussion of Beauchamp's liberal activism in college, McLeary cattily huffed (bold mine throughout):

How dare a college grad and engaged citizen volunteer to join the Army to fight for his country! (Which is something that most of the brave souls who inhabit the milblog community prefers to leave to others.)


Yeah, he really wrote that. It doesn't matter whether he meant that milbloggers didn't join the military or that they didn't go to college. Either statement is stupid, since 96.8% of the officers have a college education, and the first part of “milblogger” stands for....military! Because the left constantly remind us that people mostly join the military to get out of poverty and to go to college, I doubt that McLeary was referring to milblogger's education.

Since McLeary complained about milbloggers like Blackfive's Uncle Jimbo, who had the temerity to challenge the “Scott Thomas” writings, then maybe Uncle J could politely "explain" to McLeary that he's one of the acceptable bloggers. Because McLeary is on the left and in the media, obviously he's the better judge of who Uncle J should be allowed to address.

Next, McLeary criticized milbloggers for questioning the story and then said...there are questions about the story:

While there are some very legitimate questions about what Beauchamp wrote, nothing, it's worthy of note, has been proved false yet. But that hasn't stopped the sharp knives of a slew of bloggers from coming out.


In one fell swoop, he covered himself in case the story is false and also contradicted his entire premise. If there are “very legitimate questions,” then why is it wrong for milbloggers to ask them? I seem to recall the media and the left lecturing about the importance of listening to the military.

The media love a story too good to check, especially at “The New Republic. Without milbloggers and righty bloggers, there would be many real and fake soldiers and sailors telling false tales of terrible military abuses, along with the media's negative portrayals of the military, and all of them would still be portrayed as true by the media. Remember Ilario Pantano?

Since Jimmy Massey, Jesse MacBeth, Amorita Randall, Micah Wright, Josh Lansdale and others have been outed as either outright frauds or as liars, why should milbloggers and righty bloggers have believed claims from some anonymous person who said he was a soldier and told tales in "a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan," to quote a real soldier's soldier, especially when the author's legitimacy and veracity was backed up only by a magazine with a history of fraudulent reporting?

While McLeary professed that there are “very legitimate questions” about Beauchamp's tales, it seems that only the “right kind” of people are allowed to ask them. Now if only those people would ask.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lynn-davidson/2007/07/30/columbia-journalism-review-equated-milbloggers-chickenhawks

[theHawk]

Its funny to see the rabid liberals actually believe things will change with a Democrat President. In case you guys haven't noticed, in the Democratic Primary debates Hitlery has been harping on the fact that we can't just pull out within a few months. She is already making the case to Dims that we'll have to be there for a long while. This is the liberals' frontrunner!

Wake up PB! You're going to have to vote independent for a candidate that will withdraw immediately upon entering office.

[red states rule]

Its funny to see the rabid liberals actually believe things will change with a Democrat President. In case you guys haven't noticed, in the Democratic Primary debates Hitlery has been harping on the fact that we can't just pull out within a few months. She is already making the case to Dims that we'll have to be there for a long while. This is the liberals' frontrunner!

Wake up PB! You're going to have to vote independent for a candidate that will withdraw immediately upon entering office.

In the last high school style debate, the Dems were arguing who could surrender the fastest

The terrorists do not care which one wins, all they want is any Defeatocrat to win so they will have a free hand to kill