Well, if this doesn't prove that Iraq is about to collapse in upon itself and create a political black hole large enough to swallow up Michael Moore, than I don't know what will - from the Brookings Institue via All Things Conservative:
Per Capita GDP (USD) for 2005 is forecast to increase from the previous year to $1,051. In 2002 it was $802.
Increases in GDP for the next five years: 16.8, 13.6, 12.5, 7.8, and 7.2.
Actionable tips from Iraqis have increased every month this year. In January, 4,025 tips were received; February, 4,235; and March, 4,578.
On an index of political freedom for countries in the Middle East, Iraq now ranks fourth, just below Israel, Lebanon, and Morocco.
Crude oil production reached 2.14 million barrels a day (MBD) in April of this year. It had dropped to 0.3 MBD in May of 2003.
Revenues from oil export have only slightly increased from pre-war levels of $0.2 billion, to $0.62 billion in April.
Electrical output is almost at the pre-war level of 3,958 megawatts. April's production was 3,600 megawatts. In May of 2003, production was only 500 megawatts. The goal is to reach 6,000 megawatts.
The unemployment rate in June of 2003 was 50-60%, and in April of this year it had dropped to 25-40%.
The number of U.S. military wounded has declined significantly from a high of 1,397 in November 2004 to 430 in April of this year.
Iraqi military casualties were 201 in April of 2006, after peaking at 304 in July of 2005.
As of December 2005, countries other than the U.S., plus the World Bank and IMF, have pledged almost $14 billion in reconstruction aid to Iraq.
Significant progress has also been made towards the rule of law. In May 2003 there were no trained judges, but as of October 2005 there were 351.
As of January 2006, 64% of Iraqis polled said that the country was headed in the right direction.
Also as of January 2006, 77% said that removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do.
In May of 2003, Iraqi Security Forces were estimated at between 7,000-9,000. They numbered 250,500 in March of this year.
The breakdown of foreign terrorists by country of origin is interesting. The largest number come from Algeria, at 20%. The next two countries are Syria and Yemen, at 18% and 17%, respectively.
The number of foreign terrorists fighting in Iraq was estimated at between 300 and 500 in January 2004. That number increased in April of this year, to between 700 and 2,000.
From May 2003 and April 2006, between 1,000 and 3,000 anti-Iraqi forces have been killed each month.
If you click on the Brookings link (which is PDF), you'll find some very interesting charts and graphs. What interested me most was the fact that all factors are showing an increasingly successful Coalition and Iraqi effort against the terrorists and the terrorists being less and less successful - and civil deaths in Baghdad account for nearly two thirds of all civil deaths...meaning, as we have long suspected, that the terrorists carry out their attacks mostly with a mind towards western media coverage of same.
Boiled down, the anti-liberation talking points are all out of date - sometimes years out of date. My advice to all and sundry: whenever the television news brings up a report from Iraq, turn off the TV. Essentially, shut down the sensationalist coverage and go look only for in-depth coverage...the more of that you get, the more likely you'll (a) understand what we're doing there and (b) how successfully we're doing it.
Posted by Mark Noonan at May 11, 2006 09:11 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/president.cgi/7114
Comments
Those are some pretty impressive accomplishments, and all it cost us was 2,500 dead, 17,000 wounded and $1-trillion and growing.
Of all the insanity that is going on in Iraq, I find this is the most poetic:
“Meeting for only the second full day of normal business after five months of sectarian stalemate over a new government, parliament was briefly adjourned after the Sunni speaker refused to let a Shi'ite woman member lodge a complaint about the melee.
Gufran al-Saidi, from the Islamist movement of fiery Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, stormed out and told reporters that a bodyguard for speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani had attacked one of her aides on Monday because her phone played a Shi'ite chant.”
That’s right, the Iraqi parliament can’t go five minutes without a riot, and this time over a ring tone.
Posted by: Barneyg2000 at May 11, 2006 09:40 AM
Barney, get a vision, for Pete's sake. This is great news and a great summary. If the likes of you and your friends were around during World War II and had control of the Drive-By Media or the Mainstream Media, we'd all be speaking German today and saluting "Heil Hitler."
Posted by: bethtopaz at May 11, 2006 10:06 AM
Barney
Yes, that is what it cost the US. What has it cost the Iraqi people? How many dead & injured Iraqi men, women and children?
Posted by: Canadian Observer at May 11, 2006 11:29 AM
Wait til they get to the important stuff like letterheads and chinaware. What a mess!
Posted by: Ash at May 11, 2006 12:13 PM
Barney,
Thats it - continue to accentuate the negative...I'm sure that 10 years from now you'll still be able to find tid-bits of Iraqi info that confirms you in your desire not to support the liberation.
Also, when did it become a trillion dollars? A few months ago, you guys were saying it cost half a trillion...
Posted by: Mark Noonan at May 11, 2006 12:51 PM
Ash, Blarney and the rest of boys...thank God they weren't around in the 1760's when our guys took damn near a decade to beat the British, had uniforms in tatters, poor conditions, food, etc....but they made it work.
These liberals have no understand that anything worthwhile takes a great deal of sacrifice up front and that, unfortunately, usually means lost lives and other tragic consequences. In the end, however, when you look back over the landscape you say "It was worth it".
Just like we did in the 1770's, 1860's, in the 1920's, in the 1940's, and hopefully in the next 5 years. That requires optimism and foresight and courage, something our liberal friends are in vast short supply of as is evidentary daily on these boards and with their leaders.
Posted by: Warriornation at May 11, 2006 12:54 PM
"Just like we did in the 1770's, 1860's, in the 1920's, in the 1940's"
You forgot the 1960's and 1970's.
Posted by: Parker at May 11, 2006 01:04 PM
You republicans are looking pathetic.
Posted by: Keefer at May 11, 2006 01:06 PM
Warmonger,
The take-home lesson from the 1770's is that no matter how long it takes -- the people will eventually throw a colonial occupier out.
Oops -- that's us these days.
Posted by: Salvelinus at May 11, 2006 01:34 PM
I didn't mention the 1960's or 1970's because that's when the liberals of this country became the enemy of this country and emboldened our enemies. What a shame.
Salvageyard...I believe we have said time and again that we will leave when it is the time to leave. Iraq is not a conquest or a property....we were part of the British Empire in the 1770's...perhaps you need a history lesson.
History and sacrifice go hand in hand.
Posted by: Warriornation at May 11, 2006 01:45 PM
You know what's the most sad about all of this. Not one liberal on here even acknowledging some of the positive things. Not ONE. If that doesn't speak volumes I don't know what does.
Even if you hate Bush and the war and everything else, you would think from the point of view as a HUMAN BEING that some of the listed items would be considered good news even in your molested hearts. But not ONE acknowledgement.
NOT ONE
Posted by: Warriornation at May 11, 2006 01:47 PM
I'm thinking maybe the patriots in the 1770's may have been the liberal hippies of their day. I mean criticizing the government, hating a King George. Taking up arms in rebellion. Sounds a lot like it after all.
Posted by: Ash at May 11, 2006 02:09 PM
Warmongernation,
The American Revolution was just the first of several anti-colonial revolutions (and, of course, anti-despotic revolutions). By the way -- they all succeeded.
Iraq not a "conquest" -- guess again -- then back to the Koolaid pitcher -- bottoms up!
Posted by: Salvelinus at May 11, 2006 02:33 PM
I doubt Iraq will become a conquest, as some have said. Officials of the elected government have pleaded with the US not to leave to quickly. If anything, Iraq would be more likely to become a pawn of Iran. This would be especially likely to happen, if we were to leave before the terrorists can be defeated. So far, the war between the US, its allies and the terrorists and their allies has been fought to a stale mate in Iraq. Decisive action on the part of one side or the other will be needed to break the stale mate. The international community nor our allies would allow the US to remain in Iraq long enough to colonize. I suspect, if we are successful, some bases and US military personnel will be left behind to assist the soverign Iraqi government, if they should want us there.
Posted by: B.Poster at May 11, 2006 02:52 PM
There are 100,000 dead Iraqis because of bush's war. Do you suppose that any of them feel good about what we did? Peace
Posted by: steve at May 11, 2006 02:57 PM
yeah, I got a better idea! Stick your head in a hole and leave it there.
OR
Stick your fingers in your ears and go LA, LA, LA, LA real loud.
Maroons.
Posted by: raker13 at May 11, 2006 03:13 PM
Posted by: Just Another Taxpayer at May 11, 2006 03:45 PM
This is really sad...all of the love and devotion poured out in a sublime act of generosity from one people to another, and all you opponents can do is keep your head in the sand in an ever more desperate attempt to not see it for what it is...
For crying out loud, how about a little pride in our effort? How about a word of congratulations for the Iraqi people? Is a small act of generosity entirely beyond you?
Posted by: Mark Noonan at May 11, 2006 04:34 PM
"There are 100,000 dead Iraqis because of bush's war. Do you suppose that any of them feel good about what we did? Peace"
Posted by: steve
The dead can't speak for themselves, but the according to the latest polls 77% of the 25 MILLION people of Iraq agree that they are better off without Saddam.
BTW: Best estimate are that 80% of the dead Iraqis were terroritst or armed resistance fighters. The lesson to be learned: pick up a gun and be prepared to die.
Posted by: phnxbmed at May 11, 2006 06:30 PM
Steve
100,000 dead Iraqis? You sure are fixated on 100,000. Please give us a REAL source that shows 100,000 dead Iraqis. When you're done not finding that, maybe we should talk about the 820,000 dead Iraqis Saddam is known to have ordered killed.
Remember when liberals cared about other people that were being oppressed and killed...remember.
Posted by: Warriornation at May 11, 2006 07:44 PM
It seems that liberals are hypocritical in the sense that one minute they double the value of an Iraqi life in order to double the death list, and then turn around and degrade those very lives they are saying they protect by pointing out their flaws and leaving them to rot, not believing that any good can come of Iraq.
Posted by: Omega Destructor at May 11, 2006 08:06 PM
Omega,
Good point - there is a "we've murdered 100,000!" as well as a "Leave now and let them rot!" attitude on the left...just shows that it really doesn't matter what happens, they just want to be anti-Bush all the time.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at May 11, 2006 08:33 PM
Mark, good point. I totally tune out the lib MSM now. I also did this the month before the 2004 election when all you heard was Bush hate conspiracy stories 24/7. Does anyone remember that ammo dump nonsense the lib media pulled just before the election. Now, I watch FOX news, read this blog, the New York Post and listen to Rush. The libs live in a pre 9/11 world and it is scary just being exposed to their mind set. I feel sorry for them in a way. History will not be kind to them. Thank God George W. Bush is our president. History gave us Abraham Lincoln when he was needed. History has also given us President George W. Bush. Unfortunately, the dems will always be with us like bad weather. However, President Bush has shown that he has a steel spine.
Posted by: james allegro at May 11, 2006 08:38 PM
"This is really sad...all of the love and devotion poured out in a sublime act of generosity from one people to another."
Mark, 100,000 dead? How much more love and generosity can these people take?
Posted by: Ash at May 11, 2006 09:30 PM
James---your comparison of George W. Bush and Abraham Lincoln, is a bit inapt---to compare our worst and best presidents----believe me Bush is no Lincoln---Lincoln wanted to unite this country, Bush has split us right down the middle so that we are at each other's throats. He's promoted polarizing issues -flag burning amendment, gay marriage amendment, warrantless wiretapping, tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, Terry Schiavo, wars based on cherry picked intel, etc. That is why he is mistrusted and despised by 2/3 of this country.
Posted by: kritter at May 11, 2006 10:09 PM
Libs live in a world where Saddam was a great leader who loved his country. Where were you when he murdered so many hundreds of thousands, did the protests you never held stop any killing? Why would you condemn the rest of the nation by leaving before their elected government asked us too. Do liberals even believe in democracy anymore?
Posted by: Derrek at May 11, 2006 11:37 PM
100,000 iraqi's dead. That number has been used since the beginning of the war. I don't know where that number comes from, is it a guess? You guys must be psychic, you predicted that number form the beginning. That was "Micheal Moore's" number after the onset of the war. I would think you would at least try to add on to the number of dead. The truth is, you don't know how many Iraqi's have been killed. I doubt that anybody does. So since you have no Idea you people just make this crap up. But for argument sake, let's say it is truly 100,000 thousand. Don't you mental midgets think that 100,000 dead is worth it to rid the world of a tyrant like Sadam. As stated above, he killed far more than that for his own greed and insecurities. The whole problem with this war is you liberals. Now I know this is gonna be way above your heads, but the truth is, if this war was allowed to be faught properly, from the beginning, it would have been over long ago. Now here comes the confusing part, you people are so worried about what everyone else in the world thinks, and how a few innocents will be killed that you can't in your small minds understand the art of true war. The collateral damage, although probably significant at the time, would in the long run been much less if we would have leveled the battlefield initially. Now I know, how is that our fault. Well, the damn politics get so involved, everyone on the war room side spends 10 times the amount of time and energy worrying about avoinding as much collateral damage as possible as they do on executing this war as an all out devastating attact that it should have been. It would have been a heck of a lot easier totally demolishing the sunni triangle and starting all over again than trying to pick through it, and then having to pick through it over and over again. See, all this anti-war rhetoric just makes the politicians to leary, which in turn doesn't let the military do it's job right. It's too bad we don't have a general Patton in the army today. All of this nonsense would be done with, and then we could move on to taking care of Iran.
Posted by:
redneckreality at May 12, 2006 01:42 AM
Fantastic job, well done!!
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050106K.shtml#1
Posted by: Canadian Observer at May 13, 2006 09:14 AM
Ash,
Nice try - but you don't know how many people have died...and what is better? To die in the liberation of your nation, or die at the hands of a tyrant? Which would you prefer, knowing that you must, in any case, die some day?
Posted by: Mark Noonan at May 13, 2006 04:03 PM
Post a comment
Those are some pretty impressive accomplishments, and all it cost us was 2,500 dead, 17,000 wounded and $1-trillion and growing.
Of all the insanity that is going on in Iraq, I find this is the most poetic:
“Meeting for only the second full day of normal business after five months of sectarian stalemate over a new government, parliament was briefly adjourned after the Sunni speaker refused to let a Shi'ite woman member lodge a complaint about the melee.
Gufran al-Saidi, from the Islamist movement of fiery Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, stormed out and told reporters that a bodyguard for speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani had attacked one of her aides on Monday because her phone played a Shi'ite chant.”
That’s right, the Iraqi parliament can’t go five minutes without a riot, and this time over a ring tone.
Barney, get a vision, for Pete's sake. This is great news and a great summary. If the likes of you and your friends were around during World War II and had control of the Drive-By Media or the Mainstream Media, we'd all be speaking German today and saluting "Heil Hitler."
Barney
Yes, that is what it cost the US. What has it cost the Iraqi people? How many dead & injured Iraqi men, women and children?
Wait til they get to the important stuff like letterheads and chinaware. What a mess!
Barney,
Thats it - continue to accentuate the negative...I'm sure that 10 years from now you'll still be able to find tid-bits of Iraqi info that confirms you in your desire not to support the liberation.
Also, when did it become a trillion dollars? A few months ago, you guys were saying it cost half a trillion...
Ash, Blarney and the rest of boys...thank God they weren't around in the 1760's when our guys took damn near a decade to beat the British, had uniforms in tatters, poor conditions, food, etc....but they made it work.
These liberals have no understand that anything worthwhile takes a great deal of sacrifice up front and that, unfortunately, usually means lost lives and other tragic consequences. In the end, however, when you look back over the landscape you say "It was worth it".
Just like we did in the 1770's, 1860's, in the 1920's, in the 1940's, and hopefully in the next 5 years. That requires optimism and foresight and courage, something our liberal friends are in vast short supply of as is evidentary daily on these boards and with their leaders.
"Just like we did in the 1770's, 1860's, in the 1920's, in the 1940's"
You forgot the 1960's and 1970's.
You republicans are looking pathetic.
Warmonger,
The take-home lesson from the 1770's is that no matter how long it takes -- the people will eventually throw a colonial occupier out.
Oops -- that's us these days.
I didn't mention the 1960's or 1970's because that's when the liberals of this country became the enemy of this country and emboldened our enemies. What a shame.
Salvageyard...I believe we have said time and again that we will leave when it is the time to leave. Iraq is not a conquest or a property....we were part of the British Empire in the 1770's...perhaps you need a history lesson.
History and sacrifice go hand in hand.
You know what's the most sad about all of this. Not one liberal on here even acknowledging some of the positive things. Not ONE. If that doesn't speak volumes I don't know what does.
Even if you hate Bush and the war and everything else, you would think from the point of view as a HUMAN BEING that some of the listed items would be considered good news even in your molested hearts. But not ONE acknowledgement.
NOT ONE
I'm thinking maybe the patriots in the 1770's may have been the liberal hippies of their day. I mean criticizing the government, hating a King George. Taking up arms in rebellion. Sounds a lot like it after all.
Warmongernation,
The American Revolution was just the first of several anti-colonial revolutions (and, of course, anti-despotic revolutions). By the way -- they all succeeded.
Iraq not a "conquest" -- guess again -- then back to the Koolaid pitcher -- bottoms up!
I doubt Iraq will become a conquest, as some have said. Officials of the elected government have pleaded with the US not to leave to quickly. If anything, Iraq would be more likely to become a pawn of Iran. This would be especially likely to happen, if we were to leave before the terrorists can be defeated. So far, the war between the US, its allies and the terrorists and their allies has been fought to a stale mate in Iraq. Decisive action on the part of one side or the other will be needed to break the stale mate. The international community nor our allies would allow the US to remain in Iraq long enough to colonize. I suspect, if we are successful, some bases and US military personnel will be left behind to assist the soverign Iraqi government, if they should want us there.
There are 100,000 dead Iraqis because of bush's war. Do you suppose that any of them feel good about what we did? Peace
yeah, I got a better idea! Stick your head in a hole and leave it there.
OR
Stick your fingers in your ears and go LA, LA, LA, LA real loud.
Maroons.
Deleted - Off Topic
This is really sad...all of the love and devotion poured out in a sublime act of generosity from one people to another, and all you opponents can do is keep your head in the sand in an ever more desperate attempt to not see it for what it is...
For crying out loud, how about a little pride in our effort? How about a word of congratulations for the Iraqi people? Is a small act of generosity entirely beyond you?
"There are 100,000 dead Iraqis because of bush's war. Do you suppose that any of them feel good about what we did? Peace"
Posted by: steve
The dead can't speak for themselves, but the according to the latest polls 77% of the 25 MILLION people of Iraq agree that they are better off without Saddam.
BTW: Best estimate are that 80% of the dead Iraqis were terroritst or armed resistance fighters. The lesson to be learned: pick up a gun and be prepared to die.
Steve
100,000 dead Iraqis? You sure are fixated on 100,000. Please give us a REAL source that shows 100,000 dead Iraqis. When you're done not finding that, maybe we should talk about the 820,000 dead Iraqis Saddam is known to have ordered killed.
Remember when liberals cared about other people that were being oppressed and killed...remember.
It seems that liberals are hypocritical in the sense that one minute they double the value of an Iraqi life in order to double the death list, and then turn around and degrade those very lives they are saying they protect by pointing out their flaws and leaving them to rot, not believing that any good can come of Iraq.
Omega,
Good point - there is a "we've murdered 100,000!" as well as a "Leave now and let them rot!" attitude on the left...just shows that it really doesn't matter what happens, they just want to be anti-Bush all the time.
Mark, good point. I totally tune out the lib MSM now. I also did this the month before the 2004 election when all you heard was Bush hate conspiracy stories 24/7. Does anyone remember that ammo dump nonsense the lib media pulled just before the election. Now, I watch FOX news, read this blog, the New York Post and listen to Rush. The libs live in a pre 9/11 world and it is scary just being exposed to their mind set. I feel sorry for them in a way. History will not be kind to them. Thank God George W. Bush is our president. History gave us Abraham Lincoln when he was needed. History has also given us President George W. Bush. Unfortunately, the dems will always be with us like bad weather. However, President Bush has shown that he has a steel spine.
"This is really sad...all of the love and devotion poured out in a sublime act of generosity from one people to another."
Mark, 100,000 dead? How much more love and generosity can these people take?
James---your comparison of George W. Bush and Abraham Lincoln, is a bit inapt---to compare our worst and best presidents----believe me Bush is no Lincoln---Lincoln wanted to unite this country, Bush has split us right down the middle so that we are at each other's throats. He's promoted polarizing issues -flag burning amendment, gay marriage amendment, warrantless wiretapping, tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, Terry Schiavo, wars based on cherry picked intel, etc. That is why he is mistrusted and despised by 2/3 of this country.
Libs live in a world where Saddam was a great leader who loved his country. Where were you when he murdered so many hundreds of thousands, did the protests you never held stop any killing? Why would you condemn the rest of the nation by leaving before their elected government asked us too. Do liberals even believe in democracy anymore?
100,000 iraqi's dead. That number has been used since the beginning of the war. I don't know where that number comes from, is it a guess? You guys must be psychic, you predicted that number form the beginning. That was "Micheal Moore's" number after the onset of the war. I would think you would at least try to add on to the number of dead. The truth is, you don't know how many Iraqi's have been killed. I doubt that anybody does. So since you have no Idea you people just make this crap up. But for argument sake, let's say it is truly 100,000 thousand. Don't you mental midgets think that 100,000 dead is worth it to rid the world of a tyrant like Sadam. As stated above, he killed far more than that for his own greed and insecurities. The whole problem with this war is you liberals. Now I know this is gonna be way above your heads, but the truth is, if this war was allowed to be faught properly, from the beginning, it would have been over long ago. Now here comes the confusing part, you people are so worried about what everyone else in the world thinks, and how a few innocents will be killed that you can't in your small minds understand the art of true war. The collateral damage, although probably significant at the time, would in the long run been much less if we would have leveled the battlefield initially. Now I know, how is that our fault. Well, the damn politics get so involved, everyone on the war room side spends 10 times the amount of time and energy worrying about avoinding as much collateral damage as possible as they do on executing this war as an all out devastating attact that it should have been. It would have been a heck of a lot easier totally demolishing the sunni triangle and starting all over again than trying to pick through it, and then having to pick through it over and over again. See, all this anti-war rhetoric just makes the politicians to leary, which in turn doesn't let the military do it's job right. It's too bad we don't have a general Patton in the army today. All of this nonsense would be done with, and then we could move on to taking care of Iran.
Fantastic job, well done!!
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050106K.shtml#1
Ash,
Nice try - but you don't know how many people have died...and what is better? To die in the liberation of your nation, or die at the hands of a tyrant? Which would you prefer, knowing that you must, in any case, die some day?