US Troops Are Winning in Iraq - When Will Dems Admit It?

[red states rule]

here is a novel idea:

I wrote a post to you in which I countered the assertions made at the outset of this thread. That was post #9. WHy don't YOU use YOUR words and try to compose a reply to MY words contained therein?

I know it's crazy,and something we've never tried before, you and I...but why not give it a try?

Translation - do not post facts, just go with what I tell you about Democrats

[red states rule]

pretty tough to have a "stable" senate with only 48 democrats. we'll do much better in '09!

Not with numbers like these
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=9555

[glockmail]

pretty tough to have a "stable" senate with only 48 democrats. we'll do much better in '09!

Here is a novel idea:

I wrote a post in which I countered your assertions made. Why don't YOU use YOUR words and try to compose a reply to MY words contained therein?

[red states rule]

Here is a novel idea:

I wrote a post in which I countered your assertions made. Why don't YOU use YOUR words and try to compose a reply to MY words contained therein?

Why should he start now?

[retiredman]

Reid's "feelings" are from constantly moving the goal posts for our military, and his inability to provide a stable Senate. I'd guess the Iraqi government has a higher approval rating than the Democrat Congress.

I thought I had.... but I will try to dumb it down for you.

I do not think that the goalposts for our military are moved by anything other than the changing situation on the ground. military success is always hollow and will never spell "victory" when the victory sought is not a military one but a political one.

Reid only has 48 democrats in the senate. as I said earlier, it will continue to be impossible for him to achieve any stability until his power base is expanded by a handful more of democrats.

And I'd guess you'd like to forget about the fact that the congress is made up of nearly 50/50 democrats and republicans. People are upset with the democratic leadership because they cannot get anything done (see above). Interesting to note, however, that even though the people give the congress low approval ratings, they give the republicans IN congress even lower approval ratings and have done so without fail since before the 2006 election. They KNOW which party is causing inaction in congress and they grade them accordingly.

[glockmail]

Why should he start now?

I just figgered, since he suggested it and is repentant, maybe he is the Newmaineman.

[retiredman]

Translation - do not post facts, just go with what I tell you about Democrats

NO. do NOT just go with what I tell you about democrats....use YOUR words to counter MY words. Don't ALWAYS hide behind cut and paste op-ed pieces or regurgitated Rush one liners.

[red states rule]

I thought I had.... but I will try to dumb it down for you.

I do not think that the goalposts for our military are moved by anything other than the changing situation on the ground. military success is always hollow and will never spell "victory" when the victory sought is not a military one but a political one.

Reid only has 48 democrats in the senate. as I said earlier, it will continue to be impossible for him to achieve any stability until his power base is expanded by a handful more of democrats.

And I'd guess you'd like to forget about the fact that the congress is made up of nearly 50/50 democrats and republicans. People are upset with the democratic leadership because they cannot get anything done (see above). Interesting to note, however, that even though the people give the congress low approval ratings, they give the republicans IN congress even lower approval ratings and have done so without fail since before the 2006 election. They KNOW which party is causing inaction in congress and they grade them accordingly.

So Dems can't get anything done, we need to vote more in in power?

Much like they have told blacks for 40 years. Dems keep telling them how rotten America is to them - just keep voting Democrat and things will get better

It never does - and they keep voting for them

Dems have broken all the promises the made to get elected - yet you expect the voters to forget that fact

Dream on

[retiredman]

So Dems can't get anything done, we need to vote more in in power?

Much like they have told blacks for 40 years. Dems keep telling them how rotten America is to them - just keep voting Democrat and things will get better

It never does - and they keep voting for them

Dems have broken all the promises the made to get elected - yet you expect the voters to forget that fact

Dream on

I am already counting the $500 I'll win from you.

or are you going to welch on that bet?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ssional_ballot

[glockmail]

I thought I had.... but I will try to dumb it down for you.

I do not think that the goalposts for our military are moved by anything other than the changing situation on the ground. military success is always hollow and will never spell "victory" when the victory sought is not a military one but a political one.

Reid only has 48 democrats in the senate. as I said earlier, it will continue to be impossible for him to achieve any stability until his power base is expanded by a handful more of democrats.

And I'd guess you'd like to forget about the fact that the congress is made up of nearly 50/50 democrats and republicans. People are upset with the democratic leadership because they cannot get anything done (see above). Interesting to note, however, that even though the people give the congress low approval ratings, they give the republicans IN congress even lower approval ratings and have done so without fail since before the 2006 election. They KNOW which party is causing inaction in congress and they grade them accordingly.

Insults aside, you didn't before nor have you done so now. Reid/ Pelosi have moved the goalposts, not the Iraqi army. We defeated them after 3 days!

Perhaps you can enlighten us with what the stated goal was at the outset, with a credible link maybe?

The goal in my mind was to establish a US presence in the MidEast to counter Syria and Iran's attacks on Israel. Just like we have in Japan, Germany, and Korea.

[red states rule]

I am already counting the $500 I'll win from you.

or are you going to welch on that bet?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ssional_ballot

maybe you are not up on current events

even Harry Rieid is in trouble in NV

[retiredman]

maybe you are not up on current events

even Harry Rieid is in trouble in NV

Reid's problems in Nevada are a Nevada issue.... nationally, democrats will pretty much sweep the table - as the Rasmussen poll suggests.

[red states rule]

You know things are going well in Iraq when the liberal media ignores those stories

Dems no longer can hold press confrences gleefully talking about US troops dying



Good News = Less News on Iraq War

Back in September, when General David Petraeus reported that the surge in U.S. troops had improved the security situation in Iraq, the big three broadcast networks were openly skeptical.

“Insurgent attacks are down from 170 in January to 120 in August,” ABC’s Terry McCarthy noted on the September 9 World News Sunday, the day before Petraeus testified before Congress. “But that is still four attacks a day, on average. Iraq remains a very violent place....Life in central Iraq is still deadly dangerous.”

“Victory is not at hand, not even in sight,” CBS’s David Martin similarly contended on the next night’s Evening News. On the NBC Nightly News, reporter Jim Maceda found it “palpably quiet” in an area of Iraq once controlled by Sunni insurgents, but “this is really an exception....That civil war as, again, as you get out of the capital of Baghdad, it is truly brewing. So this is really just a partial success for this surge so far.”

That was three months ago. Now, all three networks have become more optimistic in their on-ground reporting from the war zone, admitting that the surge in troops and new counterinsurgency tactics have reduced the violence. But as the news from the war front improves, a Media Research Center study finds ABC, CBS and NBC are less likely to tell viewers about it.

MRC researchers examined all 354 Iraq war stories that aired on the big three evening newscasts from September 1 through November 30, including weekends. That figure includes 234 field reports, plus 120 short headline items read by the news anchor.

■ Vanishing War. Back in September, as reporters voiced skepticism of General Petraeus’ progress report, the networks aired a total of 178 Iraq stories, or just under two per network per night. (See chart.) About one-fourth of those stories (42) were filed from Iraq itself, with most of the rest originating in Washington.

In October, TV’s war news fell by about 40 percent, to 108 stories, with the number of reports filed from Iraq itself falling to just 20, or less than one-fifth of all Iraq stories. By November, the networks aired a mere 68 stories, with only eleven (16%) actually from the war zone itself.

■ Pessimistic CBS. Of the three evening newscasts, ABC’s World News was the first to take serious note of the improving situation (back on October 1), and has offered the most stories (9 field reports, 7 from Iraq) detailing the progress. “Not only is there a huge increase in Iraqi citizens groups who are coming forward to help the Americans, but overall levels of violence have gone way down,” Terry McCarthy enthused on November 22. In a Thanksgiving week interview with President Bush, anchor Charles Gibson was congratulatory: “You took a lot of doubting and rather skeptical questions about the surge. I'll give you a chance to crow. Do you want to say I told you so?”

On NBC, reporter Tom Aspell filed five stories about progress, generally balancing good news with bad. “Refugees coming back to Baghdad are going to see a lot of changes. There are more people in the streets, shops are open and traffic everywhere,” Aspell noted November 27. “But it is still a dangerous city.”

For its part, the CBS Evening News has offered only three stories documenting the recent progress, just one from their reporter in Iraq, Lara Logan, on November 21. Five weeks earlier, Logan announced on NBC’s Tonight Show that the war was going “extremely badly, from my point of view.” Reality, she claimed, was “much worse than the picture, the image we even have of Iraq.” — Rich Noyes

http://mrc.org/realitycheck/2007/fax20071204.asp

[red states rule]

Reid's problems in Nevada are a Nevada issue.... nationally, democrats will pretty much sweep the table - as the Rasmussen poll suggests.

Tell that to Tom whats his name, He was once the head Dem in the Senate

[retiredman]

Insults aside, you didn't before nor have you done so now. Reid/ Pelosi have moved the goalposts, not the Iraqi army. We defeated them after 3 days!

Perhaps you can enlighten us with what the stated goal was at the outset, with a credible link maybe?

The goal in my mind was to establish a US presence in the MidEast to counter Syria and Iran's attacks on Israel. Just like we have in Japan, Germany, and Korea.

Please explain how Reid and Pelosi "moved the goalposts"

Oh...and the stated goal: Dubya said it best:

"Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."

I say, "mission accomplished"!! Where in there did he ever say anything about establishing a US presence? Where in there did he ever say anything about babysitting sectarian squabbles? Iraq has been disarmed of its WMD's (that was the easy one!) Saddam can no longer support anything except a thriving ant colony on his rotting corpse, and the Iraqi people are free to do whatever the fuck they want to do. It just so happens that what they really want to do is kill each other....and that ain't America's problem.