"As sad as these numbers are, we are seeing a low number of US fatalities since the media declared a Civil War in Iraq."

Isn't that what we would expect if hte Iraqis are fighting each other, and not us?

"Every time you pull away from the television and take a look at in-depth reporting from Iraq, you come away feeling great about our effort there."

ARE YOU SERIOUS??!?!?!?!?!HAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA

Doesn't matter anyway, all the enemy has to do now is sit and wait. Since President Bush stated yesterday we will be pulling out by the end of this year. Oh, wait, I mean we will be turning over operations to the Iraqis. I for one, am not happy with having the Iraqi Army doing the brunt of our national security work. Because if we're fighting them there so they don't come here, are we now going to stand down as they stand up to fight them there so they won't come here?

Baghdad may be doing OK but the surrounding cities have a turf war on their hands and it isn't pretty or promising.

Uh,no, Shortz. You're either being flippant or you can't compose an intelligent question. One of my three sons in the two theatres of war is in Baghdad. They patrol with Iraqis, and when they apprehend insurgents, the Iraqis take them, not us. He's very confident about the Iraqi Army, which is not something American soldiers take lightly.

"He's very confident about the Iraqi Army, which is not something American soldiers take lightly"

That's great. Good thing dubya gave us some benchmarks and a timeline huh?

And the media killed the 85 people found in Baghdad today? Or maybe they died from paint fumes while opening a new school?

Reality has this strange way of popping neo-con pipedreams, doesn't it?

"You go to war with the Army you have, not the [army] you want."

-Donald Rumsfeld on sending troops to Iraq without proper body armor.

Those are the words of an administration who put a country in to a war for which it was not ready.

There was a lack of forsight and planning on the part of the Administration when it came to the War in Iraq, and it cost American lives. Regardless of that fact or the current readiness of Iraqi troops, we are there now, and we have a duty to stay there until the job is finished.

About the jab a the media Mark put in there...

a.)The media has been harping on the possibility of an Iraqi Civil War, but it has not "declared" one. The Iraqi government seems to be warning of a Civil War as much as the media is.

b.)The greater number of American people don't care about a school opening in Basra, they care about how many of our finest are coming home in caskets. It's a sad fact, but the media is giving their patrons what they want.

Shortz:

When you jump down from the swingset we can talk. Otherwise, have a nice life.

"When you jump down from the swingset we can talk. Otherwise, have a nice life."

Benchmarks are quite serious. The wingnuts used to bitch so much when the left asked for them. Now bush finally has done the right thing, and seen that the left was right, and caved to our demands for some goals and benchmarks. Smartly, he set them for after the midterms. So he won't suffer.

No, the difference Shortz, is that the president sets realistic "benchmarks" for drawing down troops according to the actual situation on the ground, ie. Iraqi troop readiness. He gets this advice from military commanders in the field. Libs and defeaticrats like to set artificial deadlines that do not realistically take into account the situation on the ground, for craven reasons no more pertinent than furthering their dark political agendas.

"Libs and defeaticrats like to set artificial deadlines that do not realistically take into account the situation on the ground, for craven reasons no more pertinent than furthering their dark political agendas."

Nobody has ever asked for artificial deadlines, but meaningfull ones that we can gauge progress by.

No, I remember the libs talking about getting out of Iraq before the work was done. In other words, getting the work done was not important to them. All they wanted was for the US to fail.

There are two stories, alright - coming from within the same administration.

***

Changing rhetoric of war [2003].

* Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

* March 4, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a breakfast with reporters: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. . . . Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s," when its forces were routed from Kuwait.

* March 11, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator."

* March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside."

The war begins

* March 20, President Bush, in an Oval Office speech to the nation: "A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict."

* March 21, Rumsfeld, at a Pentagon news briefing: "The confusion of Iraqi officials is growing. Their ability to see what is happening on the battlefield, to communicate with their forces and to control their country is slipping away. . . . The regime is starting to lose control of their country."

* March 27, Bush, at a news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, when asked how long the war would take: "However long it takes. That's the answer to your question and that's what you've got to know. It isn't a matter of timetable, it's a matter of victory."

* March 30, Myers, on Meet the Press: "Nobody should have any illusions that this is going to be a quick and easy victory. This is going to be a tough war, a tough slog yet, and no responsible official I know has ever said anything different once this war has started."

* March 30, Rumsfeld, on Fox News Sunday, when asked whether Iraqis would "celebrate in the streets" when victory is won: "We'll see."

http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm

I thought that this story was interesting. Here's a quote:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - It didn't take long for the wave of sectarian hatred that washed over Iraq last month to hit the Baghdad home of the Samarrai family -- just a few hours, in fact, before black-clad militiamen came calling.

Screaming for revenge for the bombing at dawn that day of a Shi'ite shrine in Samarra, about 40 gunmen burst into the villa of the Sunni Muslim family who, as their name suggests, have roots in the mainly Sunni city of Samarra, north of Baghdad.

Brandishing Kalashnikov rifles, the men dragged Ziad al- Samarrai, 39, from the house, kicked and punched him in front of his mother, threw him into the boot of a car and sped away.

...

Ziad said his captors tortured him into confessing he was a "Wahhabi terrorist," referring to the austere school of Sunni Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia and by al Qaeda militants.

"They asked me if I listened to Osama bin Laden or to Sistani," he said, referring to Iraq's top Shi'ite cleric.

"I told them that I listened to music, watched Western movies and drank alcohol."

Samarrai, who had some of his teeth knocked out, said he just wants out now: "I want to leave Iraq as soon as I can. I want to seek asylum in any non-Arab country I can find."

Read the whole article; it's pretty informative. I admit that there are positive things happening in Iraq, but you can't call reporting deaths and attacks to be misleading.

shortz,

Grab a clue - the terrorists can't take on the US military or even the Iraqi military anymore, so they are going after civilians because only the defenseless can be attacked with any prospect of success.

I'm sure there is a bit of score-settling on the part of the Sunni...but most of the death is civilian death, and it is done deliberately in order to put on a show for the western MSM in the hopes that the American government can be made to quit by political pressure at home.

This rather cynical tactic of the terrorists has worked very well on you...

Georgia,

Yes, I can - beside each story of death and destruction there MUST be a story of life and construction; if there isn't, then it is a biased view of Iraq.

And Reuters is an anti-American wire service, so you should take anything they report with a grain of salt.

"Grab a clue - the terrorists can't take on the US military or even the Iraqi military anymore, so they are going after civilians because only the defenseless can be attacked with any prospect of success."

Why are you acting like I don't know this? its pretty standard: attack where the enemy is weak.

"I'm sure there is a bit of score-settling on the part of the Sunni...but most of the death is civilian death, and it is done deliberately in order to put on a show for the western MSM in the hopes that the American government can be made to quit by political pressure at home"

I think its done mostly to kill people.

"This rather cynical tactic of the terrorists has worked very well on you..."

Whats the tactic doing to me? All I want is benchmarks, Finally bush has seen the light and offered one, though we can't really hold him or his pary accountable to it because it is set for after the midterms.

maf,

Its a mix and match of stories dealing with two related yet separate subjects - the ability of the Saddamite military to resist (low) and the fact that the War on Terrorism won't be quick and easy.

Please don't post lies dressed up as factual reporting.

Mark-

First of all, do you have proof of your claim about Reuters, or is that entirely conjecture.

Secondly, with what you said about the having to be a story about construction with every story about destruction in mind, what you would say about the points I made in my earlier post...

If you guys want to control the media here's some quotes from the master of "feel good" reporting.

Actual Quotes From the Iraqi Information Minister
(aka 'Baghdad Bob')

"There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!"

"My feelings - as usual - we will slaughter them all"

"Our initial assessment is that they will all die"

"I blame Al-Jazeera - they are marketing for the Americans!"

"God will roast their stomachs in hell at the hands of Iraqis."

'We have destroyed 2 tanks, fighter planes, 2 helicopters and their shovels - We have driven them back."

"Surrender or be burned in their tanks."

"No I am not scared and neither should you be!"

YOU LOSER REPUBLISCUMS CAN'T CONTROL THE SITUATION YOU'VE CREATED, SO YOU WANT TO CONTROL THE MEDIA COVERAGE. THAT IS A SURE SIGN YOU'RE GOING DOWN. I LOVE THE SMELL OF LAME DUCK IN THE MORNING.

Georgia,

Reuters is an extreme, leftwing, anti-American rag. LGF often refers to Reuters as "Al-Reuters" ala Al-Jazeera. Click the link and judge for yourself.

"Reuters is an extreme, leftwing, anti-American rag."

Its a wire service. No rag

Freedom, and we all know how fair and balanced LGF is.

"Fair and Balanced" is FoxNews' motto. Get it right.

LGF is a War Blog against global Islamic jihadis.

Al-Reuters is a far-left, anti-American rag.

Btw, Barney, have you picked out your burkha yet? Your Islamic masters demand that you wear one.

Now we are touting the death of slightly less than one American soldier per day as GOOD news?

When this whole mess began the press was speculating on American attitudes if Iraq cost us a soldier per day.

While it's better than the tree per day we have been losing -- it's hardly something to cheer about.

Freedom-

Upon reading those articles in which LGF referred to "al Reuters," I don't see any of those "Anti-American" statements that you and they imply. The funny thing appears in the first post that comes up on your search. In it, they say that Reuters is downplaying the "Islamic Connection" in a French murder when they aren't passing judgement on whether the religion of the attackers provided their motive.

Apparently you guys don't want an objective media; you want a right-leaning media.

Georgia,

Don't make snap judgments. There were 128 articles. I doubt you read more than a handful of them, hardly enough to make an accurate assessment. Now, that you've been made aware that Reuters is anti-American, carefully consider Reuters' bias in the future.

Oh, and that story you mentioned was a follow up story on a gruesome kidnap, torture, murder of a Jew by a Muslim. Islam was most definitely the motive for the attack. This murder of a Jewish man by a Muslim was hardly an isolated incident. There have been many similar attacks against Jews perpetrated by Muslims. It's jihad on an individual or small group basis.

Nobody has ever asked for artificial deadlines, but meaningfull ones that we can gauge progress by.

Shortz-bus, we're fighting a flippin' war, not building a skyscraper! Wars aren't fought using timetables, you ignorant moron. And learn to spell, a**hat. Did you go to school with Baloney?

First of all, do you have proof of your claim about Reuters, or is that entirely conjecture.

Look at Frawg-arse, trying to sound intelligent while looking completely like a Barney, I mean, moron. Asks a question, ends question with a period. Knows nothing about Reuters, yet asks Mark for proof.

What a pathetic moron. As are the rest of you lemming trolls. You people need to grow up and free yourselves from the groupthink bubble.

And of course, mf53 shows up for some "nanny, nany boo-boo." You hate-Bush, hate-America limp-wristed kooks are sickening.

War is unpredictable, and hard to stomach sometimes. Unfortunately, the left has no stomach...or heart...or brains.

Georgia,

Lets just say that Reuters was the organization which said "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"...and since 9/11, it hasn't called terrorism by its proper name.

Salv,

A 67% reduction in the American death rate is nothing to be pleased about?

Man, you are just plain weird....

"Shortz-bus, we're fighting a flippin' war, not building a skyscraper! Wars aren't fought using timetables, you ignorant moron."

Hey,dubya's the one that actually set the benchmark. bitch him out.