I am glad that our task in Iraq will soon be complete. I think the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi Policy force there are over 300,000 strong. They are trained and well equipped. And the coalition forces with the help of the Iraqi Army have depleted the terrorists to about maybe 3000 or less. With their training and experience this should be easily handled by the Iraqi Army. The US should soon handle security over to Iraq. This is a great victory for America, Iraq and all of our allies.

I'm ready for the Iraqis to take over, so we can start thinking about our next goal.

And I hope they blew up that airplane fuselage at Salman Pak--we don't need another "Saddam" helping to plan another 9/11-type attack...

we don't need another "Saddam" helping to plan another 9/11-type attack...
Posted by: keefer at April 18, 2007 05:00 AM

So if "Saddam" is responsible for planning the 9/ll attack, keefer, why were none of the hijackers from Iraq? Are we to accept also that poor old Bin Laden, hiding in his cave, would actually take the blame for Saddam? Turning out video after video, taking full responsibility, never once giving up his 'friend'. I don't think you believe this nonsense, keefer. There is no way, you, with all yours years of wisdom, could you buy this scenario. But, perhaps, with your advanced age, you have forgotten the events and aftermath of 9/ll.

Mark

I am so stunned I am not sure what to say..

You post this when Al-Sadr has pulled out all his ministers from the collation government and asking his followers to fight the American occupation troops. Last week you posted something about how much progress we were making reducing violence right after 300 people died in car bombs and the heavily fortified green zone was attacked.

I'm sorry Mark - the violence and complete disaster of Iraq are not the "noisy insect". Although there may be some signs here and there - overall its a complete and utter disaster

Are things getting so bad in Iraq that you're forced to publish a PRESS RELEASE from the official occupation web site and call it a news item, and then make assumptions about how things are getting better based on that press release?

This isn't news. This isn't an item published on a recognised news site such a Reuters or the BBC - this is a press release that has been published by the official occupying force website. You cannot use it as evidence that "things are getting better" because its biased to begin with.

I'm happy to withdraw these remarks and apologise, incidentally - IF you can show me where Reuters or the BBC or CNN or even (God help us) Fox News are reporting this as factual!

"So if "Saddam" is responsible for planning the 9/ll attack, keefer, why were none of the hijackers from Iraq?"

So why invade Afghanistan when none were Afghani?
Or did I miss someone?

From the BBC:

At least 82 people have been killed in a car bomb blast in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, security officials say.

The attack, on a food market in the Sadriya area of the city, left scores of people injured.

The blast was one of a series of bomb attacks which struck mainly Shia areas of the city, leaving at least 120 dead.

The blasts came as Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki said Iraqi security forces would assume control of the country by the end of the year.

(Emphasis mine)

Now, aside from the explosion I want to ask one very serious question. Read again that last paragraph. If Iraqi security forces are going to assume control of the country by the end of the year why are American forces required beyond the end of the year?

Surely if they are assuming control, the job is done and the US troops can come home again. Why then do we still have Bush and company wanting to keep our troops there?

The prime minister of Iraq says that his people can take control of security by 1 Jan 2008. That means HE has given US a timetable for withdrawal. Let's see you spin THIS one into "defeatest leftism"!

Whisper,

Heck, I'd like to see our forces out by the end of summer...but we can't legislate a timetable for withdrawal nor can we micromanage tactical decisions...the only thing we say to you on the left is that to set a date certain for US withdrawal or to attempt to control tactical deployment of the troops from DC is to play into the hands of the enemy....and that is defeatism and treason.

Yeah, Dad,
You apparently missed the part where the Taliban was harboring UBL and refused to extradite him on request -- going after al Qaeda was approved by the U.N. and virtually every nation on the planet.
That is a rather different situation than we have in Iraq, no?
Ww,
You beat me to the draw, and made a wonderful point.
You can't cite an official propaganda website as anything but what it is -- it is under no circumstances a credible source unless corraborated by an independent source -- which it has not.
Undergraduates wouldn't be allowed to get away with that kind of bull.

Mark

Burke pointed out two centuries ago that when looking at a situation, don't pay too much attention to the noisy insects of the hour, but take in the whole view and see things as they actually are.

So, who or what is that ‘noisy insect of the hour’. Could it be you?

Today, from CNN

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Bombers in Baghdad on Wednesday killed 127 people in a series of attacks, including 82 in a strike at the Sadriya market.

Ninety-four others were wounded when a car detonated at the Sadriya market, which is in central Baghdad, an Interior Ministry official told CNN. There were no further details about this blast.

In Baghdad's Sadr City, at least 28 people were killed and 44 others were wounded in an attack near an Iraqi Army checkpoint at one of the entrances to Sadr City, the official said.

The official said most of the Sadr City casualties are civilians. Five of those dead and seven of those wounded were Iraqi security forces. Iraqi police are telling CNN it was a parked car bomb, and Iraqi military sources are telling CNN it was a suicide car bomb.

Even in this 'positive news from Iraq' release they have to admit that:-

Many Iraqi policemen have left the station because they fear for their families lives while others have simply been fired, said Majid.

That should give you some indication of what the police situation is like in neighborhoods that are not so safe & cozy.

So why invade Afghanistan when none were Afghani?
Or did I miss someone?

Posted by navydad at April 18, 2007 09:46 AM

If I remember correctly, navydad, that was where the real mastermind behind 9/ll was hiding out. In addition, that was the training ground for AQ.
The objective was to go after the perpetrators.

Mark

to set a date certain for US withdrawal or to attempt to control tactical deployment of the troops from DC is to play into the hands of the enemy....and that is defeatism and treason.

General Gates does not agree with you, he finds it very usefull:

[Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Tuesday that] demands in the U.S. Congress for a timeline to withdraw American troops from Iraq are constructive because they exert pressure on Iraq’s leaders to forge compromises.

“The debate in Congress … has been helpful in demonstrating to the Iraqis that American patience is limited,” Gates told Pentagon reporters traveling with him in Jordan. “The strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably has had a positive impact … in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment.”

Mark,

Thank you for your answer, but the question still remains. The way I see it, the most recent reason for us being there is to support the Iraqi security forces until such time as they are ready to take over. "As they stand up, we will stand down."

Mr Maliki has been very specific here - he's said that by the end of the year, his forces will have "stood up". It's not about micromanagement, it's about not being an occupying force any longer than is necessary. What happens on January 1st 2008 when he says "Okay, we've taken over - leave now." because we've seen absolutely NO indication from the Bush administration that there's going to be a withdrawal so we're getting two conflicted opinions here. Mr Maliki, of the OFFICIALLY ELECTED Iraqi government says that his people will take over at the end of the year, meaning foreign intervention will be neither required nor welcomed, but Mr Bush, commander in chief of the occupying force, says that there should be NO timetable for his troops pulling out.

No matter how one tries to spin it, there is a conflict of interests here. It cannot be resolved without one side giving way. Either Mr Maliki's government will fall, in which case all hell will break loose and the "surge" will have failed because there will no longer be a coherent Iraqi army with a proper command structure to back it up, or Mr Bush HAS to accept that he should start withdrawing troops at the very latest by 1 Jan 2008.

Gates if of course Secretary of Defense, thought he was a General as well but that's false. He's an Eagle Scout.

Any doubt that the terrorists are killing and have killed thousands of Iraqi families and our American troops to support the Democrats?

Just look at this one thread alone. As soon as the terrorists provide the Democrats with their daily "stack of bodies" and violence, we have at least two Democrats (Liberals) right here to spread the news of the latest terrorist attacks. Check the other blogs and see how many have already posted the latest "success." I'd bet the liberal posters as scurrying like rats to make it to the next blog site to post word of today's terrorist "success"! The Liberal (Democrat) blogs especially will be all excited and joyous to hear and spread the news of the latest successful killings!

Check today's liberal news and see how many make the successful terrorist killings their headline or place it among their top news items. See if you can find any of them that try to explain to their readers this terrorism is caused and supported by actions and words like those from Liberal Left (Democrats) when they recognize and use the terrorism and killings to support their agenda, their political goals, and work to give the terrorists exactly what they want -- Iraq to the TERRORISTS -- COMPLIMENTS of the DEMOCRATS!

Yes, Democrats. TERRORISTS will be watching the news to see your enthusiasm for their latest efforts and success on your behalf. The TERRORISTS THANK YOU for recognizing their ongoing efforts to provide DEMOCRATS with the news they so anxiously wait to hear each day to begin that day's media campaign.

It's the simple action-reward effect. Reward bad behavior and you encourage even more bad behavior. Reward a terrorist for killing, violence, and destruction and they will do even more. Tell a terrorist that you will surrender to them because of their terrorism, killings, and violence and they will provide even more of it to help you sell your position and accomplish what THEY want! DEMOCRATS use AMERICAN DEATHS as the REASON to RETREAT and TERRORISTS will provide MORE AMERICAN DEATHS for DEMOCRATS to use in their efforts! And Democrats say they support our troops... in their dreams maybe!

It must be a sad existence when one longs to hear about more violence, more bombings, more killings, and more AMERICAN DEATHS to serve as the basis for today's efforts to surrender Iraq to the terrorists and undermine our troops and our efforts to establish a stable Iraq!!!

I'm sure the terrorists are already working on tomorrow's news today -- so let's hear some more recognition and acknowledgment of their success from the DEMOCRATS!!!

AAR

My question still stands lefties.

Most of you continue to preach that we invaded Iraq due to 911 ties and that none of the 911 perpetrators were Iraqi. So, why then invade Afghanistan if none were Afghani? It's a reasonable question and obviously none of you choose to answer because it nullifies your initial argument of Saudi's being responsible for 911.

Please don't twist this and beat around the argument since you all are the ones spewing these half-truths and insults, you should be held accountable for your comments.

If your facts are correct, then we should have gone after Saudi Arabia and be done with the war. But since none of you are willing to stick your necks out with the logical explanation of "it doesn't matter where they were from" and since UBL accepted responsibility and the Taliban harbored him...... Hmmm, as I recall, Iraq harbored Zarqawi, if I remember correctly, before we invaded Iraq...how coincidental.

BTW, Zarqawi was one man. Very much like UBL was one man.

Off topic, but a significant development in the Democrat's support of killing...

Apr 18, 2007, 11:04 AM US/Eastern...

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long- awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.

The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

That should take some of the enthusiasm and wind out of the Democrat's sail over the successful terrorist killings!

AAR

AAR

I know of no liberal who celebrates the death of an Iraqi citizen, or a member of the American military, murdered by terrorist activity. The persistent accusation that the left condones the actions of the terrorists, goes to show the remarkable ignorance coming from those who would even suggest it.

Most of you continue to preach that we invaded Iraq due to 911 ties and that none of the 911 perpetrators were Iraqi. So, why then invade Afghanistan if none were Afghani?

Posted by navydad at April 18, 2007 11:31 AM

And why do you continue to ignore the answer posted several times already?

If I remember correctly, navydad, that was where the real mastermind behind 9/ll was hiding out. In addition, that was the training ground for AQ.
The objective was to go after the perpetrators.
Posted by: Canadian Observer at April 18, 2007 10:02 AM

Yeah, Dad,
You apparently missed the part where the Taliban was harboring UBL and refused to extradite him on request -- going after al Qaeda was approved by the U.N. and virtually every nation on the planet.

Posted by: Salvelinus at April 18, 2007 09:59 AM

Navydad writes:

Most of you continue to preach that we invaded Iraq due to 911 ties and that none of the 911 perpetrators were Iraqi. So, why then invade Afghanistan if none were Afghani? It's a reasonable question and obviously none of you choose to answer because it nullifies your initial argument of Saudi's being responsible for 911.

Okay, I'll take this one. Afghanistan was invaded to depose the Taliban, which was our one success in the area - until we decided to leave a job half finished and go into Iraq. The ONE thing we did right in the region, and we didn't finish the job, and now it's verging on being out of control too.

As for invading Iraq due to 9/11 ties - it wasn't democrats who started that story, it was the Bush administration. Get your facts straight. "We" didn't tie Iraq to 9/11, Bush did. "We" didn't tie Afghanistan to 9/11, either, but America went into Afghanistan to stop the secular Taliban from destroying anything remotely non-Islamic, amongst other reasons.

Please don't twist this and beat around the argument since you all are the ones spewing these half-truths and insults, you should be held accountable for your comments.

This from someone who supports the very person he's now trying to deflect blame away from. The person who actually DID link 9/11 and Iraq. President Bush. And yes, I think it's a GREAT idea for him to be held accountable for his comments... when would you like "us" to go ahead and demand answers?

And, as Canadian Observer asks... Where IS Osama Bin Laden anyway?

When I read responses by Navy Dad, I just have to question the intelligence that goes into them. His responses tend to sound more like a 12 year old kid on the play ground trying to be tough. Do you really have a child serving in the Navy, or is "Navy Dad" just a name you have given yourself to attempt to gain respectability or some kind of authority? They are just so immature for an adult to make a valid point and be taken seriously. It is so obvious why the US went into Afghanistan after September 11, 2001 and to ask your immature question does little for your credibilty.

CO,

One of the reasons, but not the only reason to remove Saddam was to prevent him from conducting, contributing to, participating in, or otherwise providing support of one type of another to another 9/11!

The BIGGEST REASON for removing Saddam was to PROTECT the United States FROM FUTURE ATTACKS!

President Bill Clinton (December 16, 1998)...

"The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein WILL use these terrible weapons again."

"...Iraq would be free to retain and begin to REBUILD its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years."

"The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and PREVENT another Gulf War."

Al Gore (September 23, 2002) ...

"We know that he HAS stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Ted Kennedy (September 27, 2002)...

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is SEEKING and developing weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry (October 9, 2002)...

"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a REAL and grave THREAT to our security."

Senator Hillary Clinton (October 10, 2002)...

"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein WILL continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Nancy Pelosi (October 10, 2002)...

"Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is TRYING TO GET nuclear weapons."

Hillary Clinton (January 22, 2003)...

"I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the PROSPECT of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who CAN THREATEN not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, A VERY SERIOUS THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES."

MORE...?

AAR

Yes, we've all heard your regurgitation of scaremongering partial quotes before, AAR - can we try and stay on topic please?

Anyone going to answer my question? If Mr Maliki says his Iraqi force is prepared to take over by Jan 1 2008, why can we not have a timetable for withdrawal that at its latest date starts on January 1 2008?

AAR (January 17, 2003)

"I do not think Saddam has or ever has had any weapons of mass destruction. To go into Iraq looking for phantom weapons is nothing but a formula for disaster."

Whisperwolf,

You will continue to hear many of my same posts over and over until people begin to get the message... just like Democrats repeat their same old lies and propaganda day after day and time after time. If it were up to me, I would limit you to one comment per day!

Unlike you, not everyone has seen or remembers the facts! I will do all I can to remind them and to keep reminding them until those facts begin to sink in! I don't have the time to respond to all of the Democrat (Liberal) trash posted here, but as time permits, each time you and your Liberal Democrat friends post more of your misleading propaganda, I will comment accordingly!

You are more than welcome to post your same old repetitive Liberal trash on a LIBERAL site -- KOS perhaps!

AAR

You still aren't answering my question though. Promising to chant Bush mantras doesn't escape the fact that it was originally promised when the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. Mr Maliki says the Iraqis will be fully ready to take over by 1 Jan 2008 - when will we be standing down?

Whisperwolf,

You ask: "Where IS Osama Bin Laden anyway?"

I would ask... Do the Democrats have or know where Osama bin Laden is?

Will Osama bin Laden be turned over to the U.S. when it best suits the Democrat's purpose and agenda?

Is Osama bin Laden being held in Iran? Will Osama bin Laden be turned over to the U.S. after Democrats are successful in passing legislation to protect Iran from any action by the U.S.!

Did Democrats discuss Osama bin Laden's whereabouts and status during their recent mid-East "talks"?

Did Democrats secretly offer anything to Syria or Iran relative to Osama bin Laden?

Where is Jimmy Hoffa? Where are the FBI's 10 most wanted criminals? Those questions should be simple enough to answer. Most are likely right here in the United States!

AAR

AAR has it right lefties. You continue to cherry-pik and twist the facts to defend your defensless argument.

Whisper...did the Dems vote to give GWB the authority to got to war or not???

Did the dems that AAR outline agree that Iraq was a threat?

Lastly, why can't you loons just admit that your party was half responsible for both invaisions and get on with life? Or is your hatred for GWB our military and the Republican party so powerful that it hurts to admit guilt??

Admit it!!

Or you get...NO SOUP...LOL!!

Please ignore the typos...I was a bit Po'd.

This site is beginning to feel like the twilight zone. The Bush supporters are falling apart and are making less & less sense with each post.

Navydad: You answer my question, and I'll answer yours.

Maliki wants us OUT. Why aren't we willing to go?

Whisperwolf,

I have talked about that in previous posts. It is pointless to provide you with an in-depth response to that question to serve as a target for yet another of your one line "believable lie," misleading propaganda, and more Liberal fog (smog).

Even if the Iraqi government, police, and military take over the roles of fighting the terrorists directly, they will need the military support and back-up our that our planes, tanks, and military can and WILL provide for some period of time.

It is in the interest of the security of the United States to maintain some military presence in Iraq for the near future unless and until a stable Iraqi government, not controlled or intimidated by terrorists, asks us to leave.

It is in the interest of the security of the United States to assure that Iraq is not threatened by Iran and Syria, and it is in our mutual interest to have a military presence between Iran and Syria, and it is in our mutual interest to have a military presence on the border of Iran and Syria -- just in case President Bush needs them!

Once Iraq is somewhat stable and takes control over its own security, however, we will reduce our troop levels and take up a less visible support role. That would likely have occurred long before now if YOUR DEMOCRATS had not continued to SUPPORT, ENCOURAGE, and EMBOLDEN the terrorists to continue their murderous terrorism!

AAR

It's Maliki's country! If he says "we can take over security now, please leave" then we have got to respect that. If we say "No, we're staying because it's in our interests to" then we become foreign invaders under international law, assuming we're not that already (which is itself debateable)

Are you sure your initials are AAR not BOR?

Isn't it odd, how we conservatives continue to support the mission, our troops and the administration, all while we're fending off these petty attacks by the left to cut-n-run, hang Cheney, hang Bush, hang anyone who agrees with the war, tax cuts, or anything the Republican party stands for?

The left has only one job and our side has multiple jobs, so it seems odd to me that the kook left has the gall to even challenge our efforts on the WOT, when they don't support them. It really sounds hypocritical and I just wonder if any of the lefties here actually personally know anyone that has served in Iraq or Afghanistan, or are these all lies to try to create a picture of loyalty. Hmmm...gets ya thinking doesn't it?

The left would prefer the entire country simply throw in the toiwel and give up in Iraq, invade Pakastan to hunt for UBL (one person), re-distribute all the wealth in this country, allow child porn in schools, ban gun sales and legalize all drugs, advance the GW myth and vote in Alfgore and John Kerry (ya know he was in Nam).

I think Babs would make a good VP, this way she could stick that huge honker of hers into everyones biz.

Quoting Navydad:

The left would prefer the entire country simply throw in the toiwel and give up in Iraq, invade Pakastan to hunt for UBL (one person),

(emphasis again mine)

WTF??? Excuse me, but did I miss the fact that UBL was blamed for 9/11? Did I miss Bush swearing that he'd be found and bought to justice wherever in the world he was? JUST "one person"? This is the person that was supposedly behind 9/11, isn't there just cause to want to find him?

Or does stealing Iraq's oil trump that?

"Or does stealing Iraq's oil trump that?"

Tisk..tisk..tisk...oh Whisper, the good ole conspiracy theory finally surfaces. I knew I could make you so mad that your true colors would be exposed. We can always count on you kooks to make life intersting.

Yes, UBL is one person, and if you'll recall, there was "one" person named Zarqawi that we finally killed in Iraq. So, my question stands: "why the emphasis on one man?"
Or is the left so one-dimensional that it cannot multi-task?

Can you imagine if we'd only focused on Hitler, Mussolini, or Hideki during WWII, and allowed other countries to be torn apart by their insatiable desire for power?

"This is the person that was supposedly behind 9/11, isn't there just cause to want to find him?"

Absolutley, but why expend resources for one man, when there's a whole bunch just like him in Iraq?

And yet again you try to spin things away from the real question, about Maliki wanting us to abide by his timetable for withdrawal...

But man oh man, to just suggest "Oh, UBL is just one man, there's hundreds like him in Iraq"... that must just about be the worst wingnut thing I've seen here... I'd LOVE you to say that in front of relatives if 9/11 - they'd tear you to bits, and rightly so.

If I understand what you're saying, it's that anyone with an IED or an RPG who thinks about attacking our troops in Iraq now somehow has the potential and ability to kill 3,000 Americans and destroy buildings in our major cities...

Phew, that's one HELLUVA leap from the truth of the matter, and a good indicator just how out of touch you and your Bush worship-mantra chanters have become!

Do the 3,000+ deaths on 9/11 mean nothing to you? Does bringing the person accused of carrying them out mean so little to you that you'd just like to not bother looking for him any more? Is this really what you're telling everyone?

I'm telling you, whisperwolf, it's getting weirder and weirder here at B4B. They seem to have given up displaying even a grain of comprehension. Any intelligent debate at this point is senseless.

Whisperwolf,

RE: "Or does stealing Iraq's oil trump that?"

I would comment on that statement, but I need a little more information first.

Can you cite some legitimate information and facts showing that America stole Iraq's oil?

We already know that under the U.N.'s "oil for peace" program, Saddam was using his oil profits to purchase and build more weapons and "stole" the money (from his people) that the U.N. intended to go for humanitarian needs!

We already know that under the U.N.'s "oil for peace" program, Saddam bribed and paid various people around the world through his "oil vouchers"!

AAR

Whisperwolf,

Perhaps you can tell us where you think Osama bin Laden is right now.

Perhaps you can tell us what you would do to find and capture him.

AAR

I dont care what the lefties say, the surge is wokring...things in Iraq are getting better...the insurgents are in the last throws...a measley 137 people died today in only 4 bombings!!!!
Go Bush!

CO,

Then why don't you and Whisperwolf just mosey on over to KOS and have an "intellectual" and "intelligent" conversation with some REAL nuts?!!!

AAR

"If I understand what you're saying, it's that anyone with an IED or an RPG who thinks about attacking our troops in Iraq now somehow has the potential and ability to kill 3,000 Americans and destroy buildings in our major cities..."

This is exactly what I'm saying and if you think otherwise...you're dead.

Who do you think the 911 perpetrators were at one time? CEOs of a huge corp., or maybe a bus boy at Denny's?

This type of comment Whisper, is why we're in a GWOT. The left's inability to comprehend the threat.

Posted by AAR on April 18, 2007

"Then why don't you and Whisperwolf just mosey on over to KOS and have an "intellectual" and "intelligent" conversation with some REAL nuts?!!!"

Actually, I couldn't have said it better myself.
This is B4B, not B4Clinton or B4Hitlery, or B4Kerry, or how about B4Rosie.

Mark -

"This, of course, is the part of Iraq our critics ignore - the part of Iraq which is standing up and fighting (and dying - in much higher numbers than we are) for liberty and justice."

Much higher numbers? Well, so far this month, 73 US soldiers have been killed, compared to 109 Iraqi police. I don't know if that really qualifies as "much" higher. As far as fighting for "liberty and justice", by most accounts those who join the Iraqi police are from those most economically desperate sectors who are unable to flee the country. Unemployment rates are staggeringly high in Iraq - the choices for many are to either starve, flee the country, join the insurgency, or join the police. Pretty grim choices all around.

"It is by this process of sweeping with the Coalition and Iraqi armed forces and then setting up strong local policing which is responsible for the decline in overall violence in Iraq."

What decline Mark? Again, I keep pressing you to cite any evidence of a "decline in violence", and you cannot provide it. Meanwhile, just today 170 people have been killed in bombings in Baghdad. According to icasualties.org, since the Surge began, this is how the civilian causalties have broken down so far: Feb 2007: 1,381 civilians killed (49 per day), Mar: 1,674 killed (54 per day), and so far in Apr: 1,026 killed (60 per day). During the same period last year, 688 were killed in Feb, 901 in Mar, and 808 in April (we're already way ahead of that number for April this year, and the month is far from over).

So, both the short term and long term trends in violence in Iraq are UP, not down.

And as usual, Mark, you're wrong.

To all lefty wingnuts. Maliki said they would be ready to take over security, I don't think he said we should leave. What taking over means is they will be at the front, US and coalition forces will be backup. This will require a smaller force, thus we will be standing down, not a full withdrawal. Your lack of comprehension on this matter was fully displayed when the Brits reduced thier force size in Basra after the Iraqis took over security there. They did not withdraw, they took up the backup roll and did not need as many troops.

Now,if Maliki does ask us to leave, by all means we should. But do not twist what is being said into something that was not said, like you have with Iraq and 9-11. It is a timetable for the Iraqis to stepup. Not a timetable for surrender.

Are we to accept also that poor old Bin Laden, hiding in his cave, would actually take the blame for Saddam?

No, CO, Bin Laden was in on it too. That meeting in the Cxech Republic between Atta and that Iraqi official? The "Iraqi official" was Saddam. He was giving Atta money to help with costs. Money he had gotten from our "allies," selling his "oil for food."

Bin Laden and Saddam were partners, CO. You and kblack have to face the facts. That's why we invaded Iraq--that, and for the oil. For Halliburton...

Anyone going to answer my question? If Mr Maliki says his Iraqi force is prepared to take over by Jan 1 2008, why can we not have a timetable for withdrawal that at its latest date starts on January 1 2008?

Let me help you out, Whispa--if Maliki is serious, and if he asks/tells us to leave, we leave.

Anyone care to answer my question? If we removed CO's, Whispa's, tom Al-jeffie's, and kblack's brains, and were able to manufacture explosives out of the entire lot, would it even be enough to blow a gnat's nose?

Aarontime, have you answered my question yet? About your claim about Syria? What's the answer, lefty loon?

**crickets chirping**

Whisper,

I only just now noticed your earlier comments about the quoted article being from the "occupation" website and asserting that only recognised news sources such as the BBC and Reuters can be trusted. There are your two problems:

1. It isn't an occuption: we are there at the express invitation of the legitimate, elected Iraqi government. You can't occupy a place you've been invited to and where you are building up and working with the armed forces of the host nation.

2. I have absolutely no reliance upon the BBC or Reuters unless confirmed by MNF-Iraq. I also don't trust NBC, the New York Times or the Associated Press unless confirmed by MNF-Iraq...all too often all five of those organizations have broadcast stories about Iraq which have proven to be highly biased when not entirely fake.

You've got to drop your hatred of President Bush and the United States of America - it will allow you to see things clearly. Unless you do that, there's really not much point in further discussion...you can't argue with a person who refuses to see basic facts of the case.

Aaron,

IC is worthless as a place for determining Iraqi casualties...there is no cross checking sources...they just take what anyone tells them and tally it up with no questions asked about the source.

The Iraqi government and MNF-Iraq say violence is down - until you come up with absolute, stand-up-in-court proof that they are wrong, I'm going with their assertion.

You can't occupy a place you've been invited to and where you are building up and working with the armed forces of the host nation.

Posted by: Mark Noonan at April 18, 2007 06:17 PM

O.K., you've been invited to occupy a place so you can build up what you tore down during a shock & awe invasion to which no invitation was issued. Yeah, that makes sense.

Mark:
If the MSM proclaimed that the sun rises in the east, you'd build a mirror in the west to argue the point.

"...you can't argue with a person who refuses to see basic facts of the case." Posted by: Mark Noonan

Yeah. This is where we are today. The Left refuses to see and understand basic facts. It's gotten so bad that it's almost pointless to debate the Left. Lately finding any sane Democrats has become next to impossible.

The Left doesn't understand the GWOT. They don't understand who the enemy is-the religion of Islam. They don't understand that this is one war with many fronts. Places like Iraq and Afghanistan are just two of the many, global fronts of this war. Two of the other war fronts are in Turkey and Thailand:

"Religion of Peace Strikes Again in Turkey:" 3 killed in attack on Christian publishing house in Turkey.

ISTANBUL, Turkey: Assailants killed three people Wednesday at a publishing house that distributed Bibles, in the latest attack apparently targeting Turkey’s tiny Christian minority.

The three victims were found with their throats slit and their hands and legs bound at the Zirve publishing house in Malatya, a city in eastern central Turkey, local Gov. Ibrahim Dasoz said. One was found still alive, and was taken to the hospital but later died, he said. Two of the victims were Turkish, and one was a German who had lived in Malatya since 2003, Dasoz said. The German ambassador to Turkey said he was shocked by the attack.

Thailand: "Suspects Muslim insurgents Kill 2 Buddhists, leaving one Beheaded, in Southern Thailand"

AP: BANGKOK, Thailand: Suspected Muslim insurgents shot and killed two Buddhist laborers and then beheaded one of them as deadly violence and scattered bombings continued Wednesday in restive southern Thailand, police said.

[..]In separate violence, three suspected insurgents stormed a construction site late Tuesday in the Sisakorn district of Narathiwat province and fatally shot two Buddhist workers, said police Lt. Pattarakorn Srisurin, according to a witness.[..]

Beheading of Buddhists has become increasingly common in Thailand's three Muslim-dominated southern provinces, where an insurgency has claimed more than 2,000 lives since 2004.

Buddhist civilians have been targeted by the insurgents in what is believed to be a tactic to drive them from the area and divide followers of the two religions.

Police, civil servants and others seen to be symbols of authority are also targeted in what has become almost daily drive-by shootings and bombings in the three provinces of Yala, Narathiwat and Pattani.

littlegreenfootballs.com

I'm glad the Iraqi Police are improving because Iraqi Christians are in desperate need of their protection: From AsiaNews.it:

Islamic group in Baghdad: “Get rid of the cross or we will burn your Churches”.

In the Dora quarter threats continue to be made against Christians. In the last two months Christian parishes have been forced to give in to extremist pressure, only the Church of Sts Peter and Paul has withstood so far. A fatwa forbids the practice of Christian ritual gestures. The US army occupies Babel College, property of the Chaldean Patriarchate.

Baghdad (AsiaNews) – “Get rid of the cross or we will burn your Churches”. This is the threat aimed at the Chaldean Church of Sts Peter and Paul, located in the ancient Christian quarter of Baghdad, Dora. Local sources say an unknown armed Islamic group is behind the threats which are inseminating terror in the capital. The Arab website Ankawa.com and Aina news agency speak of a campaign of persecution in act in the area. Even Mosul, a Sunni stronghold, the Christian presence is being gravely threatened. [..]

The Islamic group active in Dora seems to have delivered an ultimatum to the Christian community there: convert to Islam or die; moreover reports say that they have delivered a Fatwa forbidding Christians to wear the cross or make any religious gesture. It also permits the confiscation of goods and properties belonging to the Christian families who find themselves forced to flee their homes for safety at short notice.

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=9026&size=A

O.K., you've been invited to occupy a place so you can build up what you tore down during a shock & awe invasion to which no invitation was issued. Yeah, that makes sense.

Please, CO, stop peddling your b/s talking points. Only you, tom Al-jeffie, kblack, and Whispa believe your tripe. Iraq was in shambles before we liberated it--the infrastructure had been neglected for decades. Saddam was too busy planning 9/11 to worry about his own country, except for his palaces.

If the MSM proclaimed that the sun rises in the east, you'd build a mirror in the west to argue the point.

tom Al-jeffie,
If your aunt had nuts, she'd be...your boyfriend!

you can't argue with a person who refuses to see basic facts of the case.

Yes, that's the problem we all run up against when trying to discuss Iraq with you. Are you going to change your ways, or are you still going to cling to falsehoods (Iraq had WMDs, Saddam/Al Qaeda connection, it's not a civil war in Iraq, etc. etc. etc.) because you like them better than the truth? If you want to continue being a joke, I certainly won't stop you--or stop laughing at you--but if you actually want to be a constructive part of the discussion, then you're going to have to join us here in reality, and that means letting go of your precious and false security blankets. Your choice.

"The Iraqi government and MNF-Iraq say violence is down - until you come up with absolute, stand-up-in-court proof that they are wrong, I'm going with their assertion."

As usual, government propaganda trumps any other information.

Mark -

"IC is worthless as a place for determining Iraqi casualties...there is no cross checking sources...they just take what anyone tells them and tally it up with no questions asked about the source."

By the way, Mark, one of the main sources of information used by IC is the DoD.

Recent GWOT headlines from TheReligionOfPeace.com:

"Canada: With Islam, Comes Hate - Jewish School Firebombed..."
"Hubby Gives Wife the Axe..." [Gruesome!]
"Woman Raped as Punishment for Reading the Bible (Australia)..."
"Christian Bookstore Bombed by Palestinian Islamists..."
"Australia: Pro-Terror, Anti-Semitic Film Gets PG Rating..."

"Christian Boy Escapes Muslim Kidnappers in Nigeria..."
"Qur'an Advocates Want NY Chaplain Fired for Insulting Islam"
"Man Loses Family after Hindu Wife is 'Declared' a Muslim..."
"UK: Additional Welfare Benefits for Additional Wives..."[UK supports Islamic Harems]

Saddam was too busy planning 9/11 to worry about his own country.

Posted by: keefer at April 18, 2007 07:30 PM

Keefer, if you detest talking points so much, why do you keep repeating them over and over? Just because the right-wing propaganda merchants have brought this lie forward once more does not mean it has any validity. It actually makes you appear a little feeble-minded when you buy the garbage they sell.

It actually makes you appear a little feeble-minded when you buy the garbage they sell.

While I'd love to keep this going, because I'm currently ROFLMAO, I must stop, CO, out of pure compassion for the ignorant.

My posts about Saddam and 9/11 are a little game I've been playing with kblack, because he never fails to remind us that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, in every Iraq War thread.

So, you've been played like a cheap fiddle, my Canadian lefty friend--who's the feeble-minded one now? Bwahahahahahahaha!!!

btw, kblack, Saddam didn't have much to do with 9/11, but the mere fact that he supported terrorism, and paid family members of suicide bombers, was justification for our invasion, post-9/11. I know you hate the fact that we're there, but we are. I hate the fact that you hate your country, but you do.

Goodnight, trolls...

More good news from Iraq:
http://tinyurl.com/ywnm3r

I suppose it is easier to call information from MNF-Iraq as "propaganda" by the "occupiers" than to admit things are improving in Iraq. Today was a bad day for sure. Unfortunately that is going to happen. It's called desperation. The coalition forces and the Iraqis make progress; the terrorists become desperate. I say desperate because time and support for them and their "cause" may be running out. Isn’t it interesting that both the House and Senate are back in session now and discussion on funding for the war began today. The timing of the attack today is hardly a coincidence. It’s a scare tactic to continue to get the Dems to push for a timetable for withdrawal. But President Bush won't give up, our troops won't give up, the Iraqis won't give up and Americans (well, some) won't give up. The terrorists do not like that. It threatens their very existence.

To the multi-national forces and Iraqis, keep up the great work.

Keefer:
I wish I had the opportunity to get you into a boxing ring. I would aim directly for your temple and then your jaw. The end result being you could not think and you could not talk.
Expose yourself to a plague, you mean spirited eunuch.

Tom, keefer isn't worth the effort.

More good news from Iraq: http://tinyurl.com/ywnm3r

You call that good news? Do you know anything about the Maysan Province? The British troops have been pulled out of Camp Naji near Amara last August because they were under constant mortar attack from nationalist Shiite guerrillas. They turned the base over to the local Iraqi security forces of Maysan province, which is dominated by followers of Muqtada al-Sadr.

Aaron,

Only for American deaths.

jules,

RE: "Isn’t it interesting that both the House and Senate are back in session now and discussion on funding for the war began today. The timing of the attack today is hardly a coincidence."

Excellent point! I never even thought of that, but you are absolutely right. The terrorists wanted to send the Democrats a message to let them know they were still there, ready to provide more death and destruction for the Democrats to use to sell their message. The terrorists wanted to make sure that Iraq was back in the headlines and at the top of the news as Democrats continue working for their mutual goal of America's retreat, defeat, and surrender of America!

The terrorism began and escalated when the nine Democrat presidential candidates first started using the deaths and terrorism in Iraq as their central campaign theme to support the left-wing's anti-war activists. It got worse during all of the Democrat's campaigning and their anti-war protests, and increased again just before the last election as terrorists worked to provide the daily media headlines Democrats used in their election rhetoric and ads. And now that Democrats control the House and Senate and are working to surrender Iraq to terrorism, the terrorists are working even harder to help the Democrats make good on their campaign promise. How many of the terrorist attacks just "happen" to coincide with various speeches, events, and actions from and by Democrats, which just as coincidentally, were and are helped by more terrorist bombings and killings?!

It would be nice if one of the news organizations would do some research on the harm Democrats have caused, the number of lives it has cost -- American, Iraqi, British, and others -- and how Democrats have extended the war, raised the cost, and delayed the return of America's troops by providing terrorists with hope, encouragement, and a reason to keep fighting!

AAR

Keefer:
I wish I had the opportunity to get you into a boxing ring. I would aim directly for your temple and then your jaw. The end result being you could not think and you could not talk.

Then I guess the end result would be that the playing field would be level between us, eh tom Al-jeffie? And you may want to be careful; one may interpret your comment as a threat.

Expose yourself to a plague, you mean spirited eunuch.

Ouch. You mean-spirited copycat.

tom Al-jeffie, in light of recent events, I think it's best I left you alone. You are obviously a fragile human being, and I'd hate for you to be the next kook to snap. Take Willemena van Orange Sunshine's advice...

It would be nice if one of the news organizations would do some research on the harm Democrats have caused, the number of lives it has cost -- American, Iraqi, British, and others -- and how Democrats have extended the war, raised the cost, and delayed the return of America's troops by providing terrorists with hope, encouragement, and a reason to keep fighting!

Why should they, AAR, when they're just as complicit? The drive-by media is co-owner, with the Dems, of defeat. Hell, they never even reported on the terrorist training camp at Salman Pak, where Saddam had a jet fuselage, and used it to train the 9/11 hijackers. Baghdad Bob claimed it was to be the plane ride for Disney Iraq, and that's what they went with. But we all know better...

Aarontime, I'm waiting...where's your answer?

It would be nice if one of the news organizations would do some research on the harm Democrats have caused, the number of lives it has cost -- American, Iraqi, British, and others -- and how Democrats have extended the war, raised the cost, and delayed the return of America's troops by providing terrorists with hope, encouragement, and a reason to keep fighting! Posted by: AAR

Wow! Great post, AAR!- especially the above! A hat tip to you too, Jules.

The Democrats are the treasonous political arm of Al Qaeda and other Muslim terrorists!!! The Democrats are working day and night to surrender to these blood-thirsty terrorists.

Oh, Keefer, you're right. The MSM is complicit and co-owner of the defeat they are feverishly working to engineer. But, AAR's point that if you add up the cost in lives and treasure of the Democrats' treasonous campaign is well taken.