Dems Pushing For Surrender Once Again

[red states rule]

Despite all the good news coming from iraq, the success of the US military, and al Qaeda on the roles - Dems still are trying to get the US to surrender to the terrorists

The surrender date in the latest bill shows Dems have no desire to9 stand up to the terrorists - even when we are winning


Pelosi's surrender date
These are difficult days for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other politicians who have staked their political futures on an American defeat in Iraq. In the past 10 days alone, the mainstream media has reported the new reality: that the changes in military strategy instituted by Gen. David Petraeus are resulting in major improvements in the security situation there.

For example, the Associated Press reported: "Twilight brings traffic jams to the main shopping district of this once-affluent corner of Baghdad, and hundreds of people stroll past well-stocked vegetable stands, bakeries and butcher shops. To many in Amariyah, it seems little short of a miracle." According to The Washington Post: "The number of attacks against U.S. soldiers has fallen to levels not seen since before the February 2006 bombing of a Shi'ite shrine in Samarra that touched off waves of sectarian killing...The death toll for American troops in October fell to 39, the lowest level since March 2006." And on Thursday, the New York Times noted: "American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood in Baghdad, a top American general said today, allowing American troops involved in the 'surge' to depart as planned."

Responding to the good news, Mrs. Pelosi has unveiled her newest legislative strategy to damage the war effort: House Democrats this week will try to enact a bill calling for immediately beginning to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, with a goal of completing the pullout in one year (in other words, announcing a date to surrender Iraq to the very jihadists that coalition forces are defeating on the battlefield right now.) The surrender language will be attached to a four-month, $50 billion funding package for the war in Iraq, roughly one quarter of the funding requested by President Bush. The president, in all likelihood, will be forced to veto this irresponsible bill, which will once again jeopardize funding for the troops.

The contrast could hardly be any more striking: American soldiers perform heroically and successfully, risking their lives on the battlefield in Iraq. Mrs. Pelosi and the Democratic leadership, by contrast, look for new ways to advertise American weakness to the enemy -— in effect, to tell al Qaeda in Mesopotamia that if it can hold out against U.S. forces for another year, "progressive" politicians in Washington will deliver the votes to ensure that Iraq becomes a jihadist colony.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/artic...111120007/1013

[red states rule]

No matter how you look at it, the US is winning the fight in Iraq
Al-Maliki trumpets decline of terror acts
By Lauren Frayer


BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said yesterday that suicide attacks and other bombings in the Iraqi capital have dropped dramatically since last year's high, calling it a sign of the end of sectarian violence. A top U.S. general here said he thinks the drop is sustainable, as Iraqis turn away from extremists.

Mr. al-Maliki said "terrorist acts," including car bombings and other spectacular, al Qaeda-style attacks, dropped 77 percent. He called it a sign that Sunni-Shi'ite violence was nearly gone from Baghdad.

"We are all realizing now that what Baghdad was seeing every day — dead bodies in the streets and morgues — is ebbing remarkably," Mr. al-Maliki told reporters at his office in the U.S.-guarded Green Zone.

"This is an indication that sectarianism intended as a gate of evil and fire in Iraq is now closed," he said.

Before the arrival of nearly 30,000 U.S. reinforcements last spring, explosions shook Baghdad daily — sometimes hourly. Now the sounds of warfare are rare.

U.S. troops have set up small outposts in some of the capital's most dangerous enclaves. Locals previously lukewarm to the presence of U.S. troops patrol alongside them. And a historic lane on the eastern banks of the Tigris River is set to reopen later this year, lined with seafood restaurants and an art gallery.

Mr. al-Maliki's assessment yesterday matched those of U.S. military officials, and is borne out by AP figures that show a sharp drop in the number of U.S. and Iraqi deaths in the past few months. The number of Iraqi civilians who meet violent deaths dropped from at least 1,023 in September to at least 905 in October, according to an AP count.

The number of U.S. military deaths fell from 65 to at least 39 over the same period.

for the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...111120063/1001

[April15]

This nation needs to be out of the middle east. Bush invaded a sovereign nation on false information. He should appollogize and get us out, now!

[red states rule]

This nation needs to be out of the middle east. Bush invaded a sovereign nation on false information. He should appollogize and get us out, now!

Party before country April?

The US military is kicking the terrorists ass and you still want to surrender

Amazing

[red states rule]

This nation needs to be out of the middle east. Bush invaded a sovereign nation on false information. He should appollogize and get us out, now!

By all means, let leave while we are winning

Iraq rocket, mortar fire at 21-month low By LAUREN FRAYER, Associated Press Writer
Mon Nov 12, 11:53 AM ET

BAGHDAD - Rocket and mortar attacks in Iraq have decreased to their lowest levels in more than 21 months, the U.S. military said Monday. In the capital, Iraqi officials said a taxi driver was shot dead by a private security guard hired to protect U.S. convoys.

Last month saw 369 "indirect fire" attacks — the lowest number since February 2006. October's total was half of what it was in the same month a year ago. And it marked the third month in a row of sharply reduced insurgent activity, the military said.

The U.S. command issued the tallies a day after Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said suicide attacks and other bombings in Baghdad also have dropped dramatically, calling it an end of sectarian violence.

Despite the drop in violence, the capital remains tense and al-Maliki and other Iraqi and foreign officials are under heavy protection.

Embassy spokesman Philip T. Reeker said the company involved in Saturday's shooting was DynCorp International, one of three firms contracted to protect American officials in Iraq.

Reeker could not confirm anyone had died, and he would not say who the seven-vehicle convoy was carrying nor give its destination.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071112/...q_071029195379

[retiredman]

RSR...can you explain for me what the difference is between an Iraqi insurgent and a terrorist?

and what the difference is between a shiite insurgent and a sunni insurgent?

[red states rule]

RSR...can you explain for me what the difference is between an Iraqi insurgent and a terrorist?

and what the difference is between a shiite insurgent and a sunni insurgent?

Trying to change the subject again MM?

Dems have been trying to push their surrender bills since they took office and have lost everytime

Democrats zero for 40 on Iraq

By: Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris
Nov 13, 2007 06:07 AM EST

As the congressional session lurches toward a close, Democrats are confronting some demoralizing arithmetic on Iraq.

The numbers tell a story of political and substantive paralysis more starkly than most members are willing to acknowledge publicly, or perhaps even to themselves.

Since taking the majority, they have forced 40 votes on bills limiting President Bush’s war policy.

Not a single one has passed both chambers, even though both are run by Democrats.

Indeed, the only war legislation passed during this Congress has been to give the president exactly what he wants, and exactly what he has had for the past five years: more money, with no limitations.

Disapproval of the Democratic majority in Congress has risen steadily, albeit with no corresponding increase in enthusiasm for Republicans.

Even more notably, public opinion about the war — while still dominated by opposition to a military adventure most people think was a mistake — has risen modestly in recent weeks, according to several nonpartisan polls.

Democrats plan to spend the December recess reviewing their strategy and determining if they missed opportunities to put limitations, even if they were smaller than war activists were demanding, on Bush’s war policies.

Some Democratic strategists are warning that congressional leaders are “muddling through” with a strategy that carries both political and military risks for the party.

for the complete article

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6845.html

[retiredman]

Trying to change the subject again MM?

I am not trying to change the subject at all.

YOU just got done saying, "The US military is kicking the terrorists ass and you still want to surrender."

I asked you if you considered there to be a difference between terrorists and insurgents, be they shiite or sunni.

Do you have an answer to that, or will you respond with yet another lame ope-ed cut and paste in lieu of actually having to come up with anything on your own?

[red states rule]

I am not trying to change the subject at all.

YOU just got done saying, "The US military is kicking the terrorists ass and you still want to surrender."

I asked you if you considered there to be a difference between terrorists and insurgents, be they shiite or sunni.

Do you have an answer to that, or will you respond with yet another lame ope-ed cut and paste in lieu of actually having to come up with anything on your own?

We are winning in Iraq. The liberal media lack of coverage proves it

Libs like you MM do not care about the troops, you do not care about defeating terrorists. You do care aboput your power, and appeasing the terrorists and your kook base

A 'FORGOTTEN' WAR
AS IRAQ IMPROVES, COVERAGE DRIES UP

November 13, 2007 -- LAST weekend's news coverage of our veterans was welcome, but deceptive. The "mainstream media" honored aging heroes and noted the debt we owe to today's wounded warriors - but deftly avoided in-depth coverage from Iraq. Why? Because things are going annoyingly well.

All those reporters, editors and producers who predicted - longed for - an American defeat have moved on to more pressing strategic issues, such as O.J.'s latest shenanigans.

Oh, if you turned to the inner pages of the "leading" newspapers, you found grudging mention of the fact that roadside-bomb attacks are down by half and indirect-fire attacks by three-quarters while the number of suicide bombings has plummeted.

Far fewer Iraqi civilians are dying at the hands of extremists. U.S. and Coalition casualty rates have fallen dramatically. The situation has changed so unmistakably and so swiftly that we should be reading proud headlines daily.

Where are they? Is it really so painful for all those war-porno journos to accept that our military - and the Iraqis - may have turned the situation around? Shouldn't we read and see and hear a bit of praise for today's soldiers and the progress they're making?

The media's new trick is to concentrate coverage on our wounded, mouthing platitudes while using military amputees as props to suggest that, no matter what happens in Iraq, everything's still a disaster.

God knows, I sympathize with - and respect - those who've sacrificed life or limb in our country's service. I just hate to see them used as political tools.

How many of you really believe that those perfectly coiffed reporters care about our soldiers and their families? Does anyone think those news anchors will invite any Marines in wheelchairs home for Thanksgiving
http://www.nypost.com/seven/11132007...war_700971.htm

[retiredman]

I am not trying to change the subject at all.

YOU just got done saying, "The US military is kicking the terrorists ass and you still want to surrender."

I asked you if you considered there to be a difference between terrorists and insurgents, be they shiite or sunni.

Do you have an answer to that, or will you respond with yet another lame op-ed cut and paste in lieu of actually having to come up with anything on your own?

and true to form, RSR answers the question in his own inimitable way!

[red states rule]

[/size][/color]

and true to form, RSR answers the question in his own inimitable way!

You hate seeing proof how your party is trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

[retiredman]

You hate seeing proof how your party is trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

no...I love to watch you prove what an intellectual lightweight you are by being absolutely incapable of stringing six sentences together in anything that even remotely resembles independent thought!

[red states rule]

no...I love to watch you prove what an intellectual lightweight you are by being absolutely incapable of stringing six sentences together in anything that even remotely resembles independent thought!

Translation - Stop posting links that back up your claim my Dems are still pushing for surrender despite the fact the surge is working, and the US is winning

To MM, party before country and the US military

[manu1959]

This nation needs to be out of the middle east. Bush invaded a sovereign nation on false information. He should appollogize and get us out, now!

false information provided by a Clinton appointee ........

hmmmmmmmmmm i wonder.......

[Hagbard Celine]

So where do you stand RSR? Other than whining about the presented options for bringing our military home of course. Are you hoping for an indefinite US presence in Iraq? In your opinion should we build permanent bases there and set up shop forever?