Democrats can't afford for the reinforcement to work. If we prevail, they are proven wrong and Bush is proven right.

Their hatred is what will bring about our defeat and they will blame it on Bush, as usual.

Democrats don't rattle sabers, they wave white flags.

Since victory and defeat is so amorphously defined in this conflict, there's not much to say.

So it goes.

Since victory and defeat is so amorphously defined in this conflict, there's not much to say.

Which is right up your alley, minnowhead. You never have anything to say.

Now run along back to your empty blog, so's you can brag to DAV how you "kicked ass over at B4B again..."

One thing that continues to show the bias of this blog is where stories that are "quoted for truth" are taken.

The last item quotes a proper news source in calling for prayers for someone - this is quite acceptable blog-journalism.

But this article, quoted with the same "authority" comes from yet another GOP blog, which naturally will say the surge is working, because all the GOP blogs are desperately saying that, in a "there's no place like home... there's no place like home" way that would be amusing, were it not for the fact that it tries to cover up the reason for innocent deaths in another country.

And John McCain being called "Bold and Courageous"??? The very guy who claimed that taking a walk in a Baghdad market was safe for all, when he had attack helicopters, snipers, armoured convoys and troops sealing of nearby roads - he is now being called "Bold and Courageous"? Surely if he was truly "bold and courageous" he'd have walked alone in the market, except for journalists... We've all seen his example of reality, and - at least according to Iraqi traders in the very same market - it's a LONG way from the actual truth of the situation.

As for General Petraeus, his strategy for using the troops provided to him in this surge is to divide Baghdad up into neighborhoods that can then be saturated to clear them out, and protected on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis - but this is very akin to creating each neighborhood as a "green zone" once cleared. And the explosion at the Iraqi parliament shows that even the most secure buildings can't be safe against an enemy who knows the terrain and is not afraid to die.

ANY security or containment policy depends on the attitude of the individual. You provide security by causing a situation where there is a serious threat to the liberty or even the life of anyone trying to breach your security. But that will ONLY work if the individual making the attempt to breach security cares about those things. A deterrent isn't a deterrent if the individual doesn't care. These people KNOW they're going to die so what deterrent is the threat "you enter my secure zone, and I'll shoot you?"

THIS is why the tactics that are going to be used in the surge won't work. This is why no amount of troops or military hardware won't do any good. How many more American lives are going to be lost before that's finally admitted?

You're so bright keefer. Thank you for your kind words. I especially love them when they are from one of your many pseudonyms.

Kisses and Love,
Winnowhead

The Iraqi parliament is holding a special session a day after eight people were killed when a suicide bomber blew himself up in the building's cafeteria.

Two parliamentarians were among the dead and 23 people were also injured in the most deadly attack ever carried out in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.

Surge is working at uniting Shia and Sunni to gang up on US and UK.

"One thing that continues to show the bias of this blog is where stories that are "quoted for truth" are taken."

Maybe you should hold the anti-war people to the same standards....

"but this is very akin to creating each neighborhood as a "green zone" once cleared"

Well yes, that's called creating a secure Iraq...
I gather by your comment your against securing Iraq..

I agrre with Whisper in that you can't stop suicide bombers, and to quote. "And the explosion at the Iraqi parliament shows that even the most secure buildings can't be safe against an enemy who knows the terrain and is not afraid to die"

Too bad your didn't state that nearly 100% of suicide attakcs are carried out by terrorist organizations.

If not mistaken, Democrats say they would have US troops in Iraq to fight the terrorists.

One of the planners of the Shock and Awe strategy in Iraq is reported to be a regular client at a house of prostitution in DC. I wonder if he was also behind the surge.

Why is our government taking military strategic advice from a john? This is worse than giving a White House press pass to male prostitute Jeff Gannon.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The alleged "D.C. madam" dropped a name in court documents filed Thursday, but the man named bristled at being accused of hiring the high-end escort service run by Deborah Jean Palfrey.

Government prosecutors say Pamela Martin and Associates was actually a prostitution ring that Palfrey operated in the Washington area for 13 years. Palfrey denies that her business provided sexual services to its customers.

In her motion to reconsider appointment of counsel, Palfrey named Harlan K. Ullman as "one of the regular customers" of the business.

Ullman is one of the leading theorists behind the "shock and awe" military strategy that was associated with the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Once again I'll just repeat my observation that it staggers the mind to think that Democrats actually believe that a few thousand ragged terrorists are more than a match for the United States military.

Posted by Mark Noonan at April 13, 2007 03:17 AM

Mark, if a few thousand ragged terrorists are no match for the US military, then go ahead already, do the job and get out. Why is it taking sooooo long? Why are so many innocents still being sacrificed in this debacle? A few thousand ragged terrorists should be an easy foe for the mighty US military to eliminate. Why in the blazes are you still there?

Thanks CO, go club some seals.

Whisperwolf. We know whats going on in Iraq because our friends and relatives are there.

You might be right, the surge may be working. However I'm a bit skeptical. How about supply some evidence of this success. I haven't seen anything that remotely appears like success instead there was a major bombing in the heart of the Green zone. I'm not a military expert but this guy is and he seem's to have a different take on the situation:

"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq. "So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks,' " he said.

Mark - The "ragged terrorists" have one tremendous advantage over our military. They dress as civilians, hide behind civilians and target civilians, but when civilians die, our side gets blamed. Either we were the "catalyst" (Senator Byrd's term) that sparked their violence, or we failed to stop them. Everything the terrorists have done, every success they have had, is precisely because they deliberately and systematically violate the rules of war. On the other hand, when our side violated those rules, such as at Abu Ghraib, there was outcry from sea to shining sea (as was deserved), even though our misconduct was by far an aberration. In other words, we cheat very rarely and get called on it, while the enemy cheats routinely and gets away with it.

The surge is working?

You certainly have a firm grasp on the opposite of reality.

Once again I'll just repeat my observation that you have been entirely, continuously wrong about Iraq. Today is no different, as you state that a few thousand ragged terrorists are the problem in Iraq. If only this were true. The real problem is the sectarian violence. Sunni vs. Shiite, Arab vs. Kurd, and us in the middle. This is the problem that we have no military solution for. This is the problem that you continue to ignore.

Mark - the levels of delusion you have reached are remarkable even for you. There are still thousands of people dying violent deaths every month. There was an attack on Iraqi parliament just yesterday. Thousands of Iraqi's took to the streets to protest the US presence. Al-Sadr has called on Iraqi's to attack US troops.
But everything is great and coming up roses according to you. Just like we were greeted as liberators? Just like the insurgency was in "its last throws" several years ago?

All of the supposed "success" of the surge is just careful playing with numbers. Violence is down in Baghdad since January - but January had a spike in violence and violence is *not* down since 2006 AVERAGES. And if violence has gone down in the past few months in Baghdad it has gone *UP* outside of Baghdad - because of course they are smart enough just to go to part of the country where the surge isn't focused.

The idea that you can enforce civility, democracy, and peace at the barrel of a gun with foreign c occupation is vacuous - and has been proved invalid time and time again throughout history.

If things are so great there Mark? Why not move in to Sadr City and stand with your convictions?

The Democrats know for a fact that if Iraq succeeds... which it will... They will have no leg to stand on. I just wish that Harry Reid and the other Dems in congress would stop trying to be commander in cheif and do their job and fund the troops. Joe Lieberman is the only Dem with a brain on this matter it seems.

The only time in American history has the US not been successful in a military operation is when they were prevented from finishing the job. That is a fact. This is not Vietnam, this is not the 1970's and the US military will not give up, despite what the morons in the Democratic party (specifically Obama, Clinton and Edwards) say. The rest of the 60 year old hippies out there can just go bang their drum somewhere else. The US military will not give up. The Republicans will win the White House in 2008. Anti-war boobs like Obama and Clinton have already guaranteed that.

"Once again I'll just repeat my observation that it staggers the mind to think that Democrats actually believe that a few thousand ragged terrorists are more than a match for the United States military."

Isn't it the Republicans who think that? Aren't y'all the ones who are constantly going on about how "the Muslims" are going to come take over the country and impose Sharia law on us and all that?

To all the right-wing crazies that get their news from the GOP website and the GOP TV (aka Fox News) instead of reading real newspapers:

There was a suicide bombing yesterday INSIDE the parliament building. INSIDE the heavily guarded green zone. This is obviously unfortunate, and hardly a sign of the surge working.

If you were really not aware of this development, as I suggest facetiously above, the extent of your ignorance would be plain scary.

If you knew about this and chose to ignore it, instead posting the fantasy piece about how the surge is working, that is a different story (and unfortunately, that is most likely). Chosing to ignore the facts and just continue to throw American lives at it out of stubborness and fear of having your fragile little pride hurt is the sort of moral depravity that I have no words for...

Many would think Charlie is disconnected from reality given yesterday's news items. In fact I'm coming to the conclusion that this sort of visibly nonsensical special pleading is doing the Republican party more harm than good. Krauthammer has a reason for continuing to justify what's happening over there because he was one of the people who sold the idea we should do it. Whether it's in the interests of the rest of the GOP to follow him is perhaps another matter.

Responding to Krauthamer:
How at this point -- with only about half of the additional surge troops yet deployed -- can Democrats be trying to force the U.S. to give up?

To be fair to the Dems, they never signed on to the "surge" idea. It wasn't on the horizon before the election. Maybe if it was we'd know with more certainty where the American public stood. Personally, I think the surge was way overdue even by then. Bringing it up only after the elections was politically risky. Or maybe the alternative was deemed more risky? If so, then Krauthamer's question is disingenuous.

Second, if the electorate was sending an unconflicted message about withdrawal, how did the most uncompromising supporter of the war, Sen. Joe Lieberman, win handily in one of the most liberal states in the country?

Lieberman ran on a "10-point plan for Iraq" which, in retrospect, sounds very much like the ISG's plan -- complete with an emphasis on diplomacy and pressuring the Iraqi gov't to step up politically and economically. Now it appears he's abandoning it. Go figure.

And third, where was the mandate for withdrawal? Almost no Democratic candidates campaigned on that. They campaigned for changing the course the administration was on last November.

That's largely true. Then again, whatever suggestions they had for "changing the course", I can't recall any of them involving a surge. And it wasn't like it was a popular idea even among the military.

So now there's a stand-off. All in all, it's not exactly a surprise. But is it all the Dem's fault? That too strikes me as a little disengenuous. Personally, what I want to see is progress in Iraq. Not progress in certain areas to the detriment of others, but real progress. In that respect I don't think I'm all that different than most people in America. I believe most people are willing to sacrifice, and have been willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt. But their patience, and mine, is not unending. Bush better get his butt in gear and figure out a way to pressure the Iraqis to come through. Otherwise, he's likely to get very lonely in a few months.

Once again I'll just repeat my observation that it staggers the mind to think that Democrats actually believe that a few thousand ragged terrorists are more than a match for the United States military. Here's a hint: never bet against the American fighting man and woman, ok?

It's not the fighting men and women that they are a match for. It's the dimwitted administration that you shill for every day of your life. GWB and Co. simply do not have the brainpower to deal with these "ragged" terrorists. They obviously didn't have a plan, and when they finally realized that "oh my gosh, we'd better come up with something", it was too late. Face it, they are inept. They couldn't lead their way out of a paper bag. We have the most powerful military ever. We spend half a trillion dollars a year on it. Yet, a few thousand ragged terrorists HAVE managed to confound us. We managed to beat back the German and Japanese army in less time than it has taken us to show ABSOLUTELY NO PROGRESS in Iraq.

Is anybody there?

Where are all the Bush supporters on the Green Zone attacks? No report on it? Or will there be one of Mr. Noonans grudging acknowledgments of its' occurence and its significance ie "Ok you leftys. You want to talk about it! Here's your chance."
Would like to hear your thoughts on it.
Also, Mr. Noonan, no report on Pope Benedicts recent comments decrying the ongoing violence in Iraq? Would like to hear your thoughts on them.
Really, Bush supporters can't seem to get any of the popes on your side. (Although I'm sure Ted Haggard is still with you folks on this one.)
Have a good day.

Mr. Noonan,

My apologies. You did have a post about Pope Benedicts comments on Iraq. I stand corrected.
Will respond later.

Apparently the Democrats are not willing partners in being set up for taking the blame for this civil war. The administration has come up with another strategy to remove blame from the Neocons; creation of a War Czar. This position is not to be confused with Reagan’s Drug Czar. This Czar will be required to do acutally do something. Primary task will be to take the blame for all the administration’s Iraq Civil war incompetence.

uhhh, sure, whatever you say Mark. It's working, we're winning, and they're in their last throe's.

OK...right.

Mark:
Do you really believe this drivel? The surge is working? Right. This comes the day after both the Iraqi Parliament and a key bridge were blown up. And 2 days after the troops have had their multiple tours of duty upped to 15 months because our military is being run into the ground. And for what? Taking sides in a civil war that our lack of planning fomented? The only "surge" that is working is Bushes fail forward surge. You remember Baghdad Bob don't you? You should rename this site Mark Noonan channels Baghdad Bob Blogs for Bush.

The Green Zone attack was proof that the Democrats' support for terrorists has emboldened them, just as countless people, including lefty-buddy Michael Ware, predicted.

tomjeff,

Do you ever feel a bit of embarrassment for being taken in that easily by terrorists? The whole point of those two attacks yesterday in Baghdad was to get people like you to think the surge isn't working...and you fell right for it.

Meanwhile, the real fight goes on and life returns to the streets of Baghdad...but, hey, a big boom happened and it had sound and, and, and stuff...ya know?

Mark,
What is even more laughable is the left's lame belief that the WOT is non-existant.
Let's take a look at the latest terrorist attack in Algeria...shall we.

"Seven persons killed in terrorist attack in Algeria
Algeria, Local, 1/5/2000

Seven persons were killed in Algeria yesterday, including militants, by a group of terrorists. The Algerian newspaper Le Matin said that 'a group of nearly 12 armed persons attacked El-Amaria village after exploding two bombs, one of which was placed inside a housing building. When its inhabitants tried to escape, the armed people killed the family's five members."

Huh, and if we were to believe the left that the WOT was a myth, what do you call these acts in Algeria....mud wrestling? Over the past four years, there have been a number of attacks on countries OTHER than Iraq, but the kook left continues to put their head in the sand....pathetic.

BTW, Raker, I just noticed that Orielly's show raked in (pun intended) more than three times the viewers over your beloved Keefy Doberman.

So, this brings me to my next question.
If Fox News kicks the poop out of CNN, PMSNBC and the other lib news networks, what does this say about the so-called overwhelming number of Americans that the left claims support the so-called DemocRAT cu-n-run mandate?

Anyone see a connection here?

I say this proves the country is significantly more conservative than most believe and that the mandate was for change yes....but not the change our lib friends here at B4B preach.

Mark:

Bush lost the war. Period.

All this nonsence about how we need to keep fighting for victory, is just wishful thinking at this point. Bush had five years and the support of the American people to get this thing nipped in the bud, but couldn't because he, and the rest of the administration, drew up the post-war plans on the back of a dinner napkin at Dennys.

Ask me this Mark: when everything we've done in Iraq has eneded in failure and the Sunni and Shiia are engaged in a civil war, with our troops suck in the middle, why would you continue to support a failed policy that gets us nowhere?

Mark, you, I and the rest of those here who are free-thinkers are aware that this isn't easy, and that more violence is going to occur. These kooks who you refuse to ban are of one mindset; all they do is engage in groupthink.

Kooks, the surge isn't even at half-strength yet. There's more to come. There will be more attacks. And, I'm sorry to say, more good people will die. Also, your MSM will continue to feed you one side of the story, to keep your hopes of defeat high. You own defeat; you pray for it. Any other result would be the end of your sick movement. So keep praying, chumps...

When a person after being attacked decides he is going to fight back and lands a punch on his rival he may get hit back. It is called a fight.
You can choose to continue to fight or you can as the democRats have give up and declare that the fight is not worth the cost. It reminds me of a group of cowards that feel tough because the biggest guy in the neiborhood id willing to fight along side them but run and hide when the fight starts. The dem stood beside Bush when he stood atop the rubble of 9-11 and said "i hear you and the persons that did this will soon hear you too".

As soon as their ass was on the line they bailed and acused President Bush of promoting hatred.
Well I hate the People who walk into an office and blow themselves up in order to kill innocent people. thank god President Bush loves this country more than he cares about his popularity.

Is that teanage mutant liberal?

This is one of the worst cases of severe rectal cranial inversions I've seen!!

I could have sworn the kook left had us already in a civil war and haven't you noticed Master Splinter, that the surge is working? We're killing more bad guys and the Iraqis are starting to believe this is doable.

If you can read through your mask, check out this article at CNN and then tell me if these people are worth fighting for.

CNN April 13, 2007
"These explosions have united us as the sectarian violence divides us. Whether we are Sunni, Shia or Kurd, we are all targets and that has brought us closer," said Muhklas Ali, also a junior."

"No amount of terror has kept them from dreaming big. In all, 12 explosions shook the classroom. Many of the students still managed to smile as they voiced their aspirations for themselves and their country."

Left to the defeatOCRATs, these kids would never have the opportunities that you do Ninja Liberal, so why wouldn't you want to allow them those freedoms...eh?

You know Mark, I would love to have a one on one face to face debate with you just so I can look into your smug and cynical face. How dare you insinuate that I am being taken in by "terrorists". Eveything to you is so simple, isn't it? Things are either black or white.
This war has been going on for over 4 years now with no end in sight and yet you refuse to even acknowledge that their is a majority of military leaders, writers, policy wonks and conservative intellectuals who are dismayed at the direction the administration has taken us. If anyone disagrees with you they are on the side of "the terrorists". You then pass judgement in true christian fashion on a reasoned, well read and well informed person such as myself and suggest that I should be embarrassed (which I am not) and then imply that I am stupid for believing my own eyes and ears. If there is ever a group of people who are blind,zealous syncopants to the utter crap that eminates from the Bush administration it is your sad little group. Do you ever question anything? Does it ever occur to you that there may be a reason and some truth to what this vast liberal conspiracy says about Bush and Iraq?
Late breaking news Mark. "Terrorists" are not a country. "Terrorists" use terror; fear, as a manner of control and according to the Pentagon, account for less than 5% of the violence against US troops is Iraq. We are in the middle of a civil war there Markie boy. The Iraqis themselves don't want us there and guess what Mark! When the replacement for Bush is sworn in WE WILL LEAVE!
Unless we are gone before hand which is a distinct possibility. Let me ask you this: If Bush (somehow) comes to the conclusion that our troops need to be removed from Iraq before his term expires what will you say then? Will you accuse Bush of being on the side of the "terrorists"?
You are pathetic. There are more people who post on your site that are opposed to what you purport than those that agree. Do you wonder why this is?

The terrorists in Iraq, blow up cars with little kids in the backseat, cut off heads and blow up women, children and men who just want to live a better life, and these are the people the dems want us to surrender too?

Navydad and Keefer,

Defeat is victory, and victory is defeat. Bushs failures are always someone elses fault.
1984 Lamos. Bush is taking a page from Saddams book. If you control your people, you can call it whatever you want.

tomjeff, calm down--noone's condemning you for being taken in by terrorists. It happens to a lot of you lefties, even you lefties who claim to be Republicans. There's a cure, tomjeff--stop hating your country.

JAT, your post is even stupider than tom Al-jeff's, so I'll not bother...

TL,

Well, General, I'm glad we've got your expertise...

This was a hot, overcast and oppressive night, "heavy with impending doom," as a novelist woudl say. At 2315, when Turner's flag conference opened, the two cruiser groups off Savo Island were steaming at low speed on their monotonous patrol courses. Officers and men were dog-tired after two full days of incessant action. They had been at General Quarters for forty-eight hours.

At 2345 cam the first disturbance: three unidentified planes reported by picket destroyer Ralph Talbot. Turner did not get this report; but the cruiser captains who did, and who even saw the planes overhead, assumed with incredible optimism that they were friendly. These planes had been catapulted by Mikawa's cruisers at 2310 to tell him what to expect, and to illuminate targets for his gunners. They droned unmolested over the sleepy American ships for an hour and a half, sending exact information of their movements that was very helpful to the Japanese admiral.

At 0040 August 9, Admiral Mikawa, having sighted Savo Island in the darkness, summoned his men to battle stations. He was using hooded blinkers, invisible outside his column, to signal his ships. Three minutes later, lookouts in flagship Chokai sighted a ship, obviously enemy, on their starboard bow. This was the picket destroyer Blue. Mikawa wisely decided that this was no moment to alert the enemy by shooting. He ordered a slow-down to 22 knots, and the Japanese column padded silently by, every gun trained on the Blue, just in case she opened up. Nobody in the destroyer suspected a thing. Her SC radar didn't register, and her lookouts were looking the wrong way.

After another tense half-hour, the Japanese sighted ahead two American cruisers and two destroyers. At 0136 Mikawa ordered Commence Firing. Two minutes later a flock of torpedoes leaped out of their tubes, aimed at Chicago, Canberra and Bagley. For five minutes more the Japanese force approached undetected. Not until 0143 did Commander Frank Walker of destroyer Patterson, the only American ship properly awake that night, sight them. Immediately she broadcast the tocsin:

WARNING, WARNING, STRANGE SHIPS ENTERING HARBOR!

Too late, too late! Three Japanese float planes, alerted by Mikawa, now dropped brilliant flares which silhouetted the American southern group; and at that moment the Japanese heavy cruisers opened gunfire. A few seconds later HMAS Canberra, with General Alarm sounding and her guns still trained in, was hit by two of the torpedoes launched at 0138. Next (range less than one mile) she was literally taken apart by 24 shell hits in less than one minute. Her captain and gunnery officer were killed, unquenchable fires spread, and this fine Australian cruiser had to be abandoned and eventually scuttled. Chicago was similarily surprised. Captain Bode, who in Crutchley's absence was O.T.C. of this group, was awakened out of sleep by gunfire, and, with a column of five heavy cruisers to shoot at, steamed off in pursuit of Mikawa's lone destroyer, little the worse for one shell hit and one torpedo explosion well forward. Chicago was out of the battle.

Having dealt with these two cruisers and their destroyers, Mikawa divided his yet untouched column to put the pincers on the northern group of American cruisers. They had heard Patterson's warning at 0143, but no other word; shut off from the southern group by a heavy rain squall, they could not see what was going on and Captain Bode in the confusion forgot to signal their O.T.C. Vincennces was followed in column by Quincy and Astoria, with destroyers Helm and Wilson on their flanks. All were on the northwesterly leg of their box patrol when, at 0148, Chokai launched torpedoes at Astoria, the nearest. Captain Greenman was catching a little sleep after some 40 hours spent on the bridge. His gunnery officer, Lieutenant Commander Truesdell, commenced firing the main battery on his own initiative, at 0152 1/2. Chokai's torpedoes missed; but she poured salvo after salvo of 8-inch shell into hapless Astoria, which became a blazing shambles. She went dead in the water and, defying all efforts of her damage control crews, sank next day.

Quincy, next astern of Astoria, was the least prepared for action and took the worst beating; but, in the opinion of the Japanese, she put up the best fight of any Allied ship that night. A searchlight from Aoba which brilliantly illuminated her at about 0150 found her guns trained in, fore and aft. Promptly she trained them on the target and got off two 9-gun salvos, from which two shells hit Chokai, one of them demolishing the Japanese admiral's staff chartroom. In avoiding collision with Vincennes ahead, she appeared to the enemy to be bearing down on them to ram. Although enveloped in flames from midships aft, a shellburst having lighted a plane on her fantail, her forward guns continued to fire. Now the doomed cruiser was caught by crossfire between the two Japanese collumns. Turrent No. 2 exploded after a shell hit, No. 4 fire room took a torpedo, engine rooms became sealed deathtraps, the sick bay was wiped out, a shill ignited the ammunition for a 5-inch gun, fires raged throughout. The only question now was whether she would burn to death or sink. Captain Moore, mortally wounded by a shell hit that killed almost everyone on the bridge, ordered the helmsman to try to beach her on Savo Island; then he gave up the ghost. The senior surviving officer - seventh in the chain of command - ordered Abandon Ship. At 0235 Quincy rolled over and sank, first piece of the steel carpet that now underlies Ironbottom Sound.

Leading the northern cruiser collumn and last to be engaged was Vincennes. At 0150 Captain Riefkohl and his executive offer were still speculating about Patterson's warning, and what the sound of distant gunfire and airplane flares meant, when Japanese searchlights fastened on their ship. Riefkohl assumed they were from the southern group, having strayed off its patrol course, and even signaled Chicago by radio to shut off the searchlights! An 8-inch salvo from Kako ended that line of thought. Vincennes replied in kind at 0153, and her second salvo made a hit on Kinugasa; enemy gunfire simultaneously exploded the planes on the American cruiser's fantail and their flames provided a brilliant illumination which helped the enemy, as he swept by, to destroy Vincennes methodically by gunfire and torpedoes. She took three of these in two fire rooms, floundered to a halt, and, pounded by repeated gunfire, with direct hits on every gun turret, went down into the depths a few minutes after Quincy took the plunge.

This is a description of the Battle of Savo Island, off Guadalcanal, fought on August 9, 1942 - it is from Morrison's "The Two Ocean War".

At the end of the battle, the United States had lost four cruisers, 1,270 dead and 709 wounded in the space of 32 minutes. The Japanese lost no ships, 35 men killed and 57 wounded. It was a stand up fight between equally matched opponents and we got soundly beaten.

The Japanese proved themselved better night fighters than we were - their crews were better trained, their torpedoes exceptionally deadly. The command of the American ships was faulty to a great degree - and the Admiral in command was nowhere near the battle.

Should we have quit? How would the modern MSM have covered such a crushing defeat inflicted upon our Navy? Remember, we didn't have much of a Navy in 1942 - with the losses since December of 1941, the US Navy was at its World War Two nadir after the Battle of Savo Island. Would the modern MSM, transported back to 1942, have asked if the US Navy had the strength to beat back the Japanese who had proved themselves better than our Navy?

Would there have been calls for investigations on how the particular commanders had risen to their ranks? What about the fact that our sailors were exhausted from extended overseas service?

But, of course, we didn't quit... we kept on coming back and kept on fighting until, after many sorrowful losses, we finally got the better of the Japanese Navy at the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal in November of 1942.

You need to take a longer perspective...you also need to start reading up on some history of war.

Thanks for the historical narrative. Take your own hint Mark. This isn't WWII and we are fighting the population of the country that we invaded. A country that did not attack us. (Unlike Japan 60+ years ago.) Why do you refuse to admit that? Are you that entrenched in your belief in false idols and false patriotism? You are no patriot because if you were you would be as outraged as I am over what has happened to our country in the past 6 years.
I don't hate America. I hate what has happened to it under the Bush administration had how they used 9/11 to conduct some experiment in the Middle East and to erode liberty here at home.
The good news is that the next few months will prove me and the rest of us terrorist loving liberals correct.

Mark,
If you are going to historial comparisons you might want to compare apples to apples.
First, Japan attacked us first. They had the capacity to defeat us. The American people had been asked to make sacrifices and understood what was at stake.
Iraq never attacked us. There isn't anyone over there that has the capacity to defeat us, and after 9/11 we were told to go shopping.
Our country will prevail whether or not we stay in Iraq.

Mark, you "Battle of Savo Island" is perhaps your most specious historical analogy yet. Except perhaps (just perhaps) there may be one useful aspect to it. That is: don't get caught in a slot.

So, how are things going in and around Basra these days?

"How...can Democrats be trying to force the U.S. to give up?" -Charles Krauthammer

The Democrats are guilty of treason.

Casper

Neither did the Serbs, but we intervened when we felt the cause was just.

Am I to assume that you only believe when our homeland is attacked that we should go on the offense to protect those that cannot protect themselves?

Thanks for the historical narrative. Take your own hint Mark. This isn't WWII and we are fighting the population of the country that we invaded. A country that did not attack us. (Unlike Japan 60+ years ago.) Why do you refuse to admit that?

Posted by: tomjeffairplane at April 13, 2007 06:51 PM

He can't admit it, tom, because if he did, he would also have to admit that the blind support he shows for Bush's war in Iraq is a colossal error in judgment and you will never get him say that.

Facts don't matter to Mark, they just don't matter.

Navydad,
Good question. I guess what I would like to see is consistancy. If our place in the world is to defend the weak then we should be doing it across the board. We should be intervening in Darfur, Rawanda, and Tibet. However, since that isn't feasible then the policy is defend our own country first and last.

This is World War III. It's Islam vs. the Non-Muslim world. The battle fronts are global. There are battle fronts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Algeria, Thailand, France, Serbia, Kosovo, Russia, Pakistan, Australia, America, UK, Europe, Africa-Darfur, Nigeria, Ethiopia; etc.

What do these nations have in common? They are all being attacked by Muslim terrorists. This is a WORLD WAR. We are in major trouble. Here's a list of recent attacks around the world: TheReligionOfPeace.com:

"Four Girls Receive 80 lashes for Being Raped by Stepfather..."
"Norway: Female Genital Mutilation Opponent Badly Beaten..."
"Alarm in Spain as al-Qaeda Calls for 'Reconquest'..."
"Holy Crap! Dutch Inmates Pointed Wrong Way to Mecca..."
"Senior Australian Cleric Praises Islamic Terrorists..."
"85 Dead in Yemen as Radical Shiites Battle Government..."
"Saudis Fearful of Aids-Infected Melons from Israel..."
"US: Mortgage Fraud Funding Jihad?..."
"US: 'Sleeper Cell' Professor Left E-mail Trail..."
"Toll from 3/31 Arab Massacre of Chad Villagers Could Reach 400..."
"CAIR's Omar Ahmad Spreads Anti-Israel Lies..."
"Hamas Reaffirms Commitment to Genocide of the Jews..."
"Taliban Gunmen Stop Vehicles, Destroy Radios, Cassette Players"
"Sunni Gunmen Take Down Five More Shia Villagers in Pakistan..."
"Bangladeshi Prosecutor of Islamists Murdered..."
"Holy Warriors Murder Woman and Husband, Burn Bodies..."

Well Casper

I actually think it's somewhere in the middle, and if the UN-believable would do what they were intended, many tragedies such as Darfur would be moot at this point. But since the US has been given the task, and not by our choice, to police and rid the world of bad apples such as Slobo (my Mom's hero) and Saddam, I guess we're stuck with the title until someone else decides to step up and take over, or half for that matter. I'd be satisfied if the Canucks would pitch in a bit...but I don't expect much after reading most of CO's posts.;)

Navydad and Casper,

CO and the Canucks are a little busy fighting their own homegrown Muslim jihad: Canada's Jihadist Fifth Column

FrontPageMagazine.com (3/1/07): What’s in a number? That is what some Canadians are asking with disbelief after the results of a recent poll asking Muslims about their satisfaction with their lives in Canada.

What astonished people about the poll, broadcast on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation,was not the fact that about 80 percent of the approximately 700,000 Muslims living in America’s northern neighbor are happy with their existences: no surprise there, considering the shape of the countries many of them come from. Rather, it was an almost hidden figure that provided the jolt: 12 percent of Canadian Muslims believe the foiled terrorist attacks a cell of Muslim radicals were plotting for southern Ontario last summer were justified.

Eighteen Muslim men, many of them Canadian citizens, were arrested before they could execute their plan, which included truck bombs exploding on the streets of Toronto and the beheading of Canada’s prime minister after a storming of the Parliament buildings in Ottawa. To say the country was shocked by the details of the plot would be a classic understatement.

The fact that some 84,000 Muslims living in a western democratic country sympathize with the aims of these 18 would-be jihadists should not come as a surprise. Their number corresponds to the ten to 15 percent of the one billion Muslims worldwide who, experts say, support jihad. So even if one accepts the lower ten percent figure, that makes one hundred million people -- more than the membership of the Communist and Nazi parties combined -- who wish violent death upon the infidel. Not an insignificant number, to say the least.

For the record, the Parliament Building is not in the Green Zone:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/04/the_real_story_.html

Lew states "Democrats can't afford for the reinforcement to work. If we prevail, they are proven wrong and Bush is proven right."

You hit the nail right on the head, Lew.

What really disgusts me that deep down inside, these neorads are hoping for defeat. Not one has said, "I hope the surge is working", despite their dislike of Bush and the war.

It makes me wonder what kind of lives they lead, always looking at the half-empty glass. You know, neorads ... the tough keep going and the wimps ... well, they just fade away.

Go troops! WE support you in this difficult endeavor!!

"The real problem is the sectarian violence. Sunni vs. Shiite, Arab vs. Kurd, and us in the middle. This is the problem that we have no military solution for."

I didn't realize the Kurds were attacking Arads and or the reverse?

Maybe you can provide with a respected source to the comment.

As for secterian violence between Sunnis and Shites, I more shocked that people don't just claim that they knew it would happen, when one group using torture/mutder to suppress another group for 30 years....

Of course there would be retribution in Iraq, but don't mistake that for the majority of Sunnia/Shite Iraqis...

And from what I've been reading in the news, most of the deaths in Iraq since the commencement of the 'surge' policy has greatly reduce sectarian violence.

"Of the 1,586 civilians killed in Baghdad since the start of the crackdown, more than half — or 832 — appear to have been the victims of sectarian death squads. Their bodies were found scattered around the city. That number represents a significant drop from the 1,754 bodies found in the capital during the two months before the crackdown, according to AP figures"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070414/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_ap_tally;_ylt=AhFXwJqRS3wqRUNsoURVO3QLewgF

In reading the news, it appears to me the so-called civil war/secterian violence has been greatly reduced... and terroist attackes have increased, mainly outside of Bagdad.

Overall the number of deaths has been reduced by 25%.

That is only while setting up the inital phase of the 'surge" strategy.

In Bagdad, deaths are nearly 1/2 of what they previously were.

I think people who say the USA shouldn't be involved because it's a civil war or sectarian violence are misleading others.

Compare Iraq to the Balkens
Compare Iraq to Ireland

Both would e classified as civil wars and sectarian warfarw, using the standards used today.

How about this quote of the day:

Lee Iacocca-

"Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."

Well said Lee, well said.

This isn't WWII and we are fighting the population of the country that we invaded.

Whatever you say, tomjeff--the "population" we are fighting is allied with either the Iranians, who are providing training and bombs, or Al Qaida. Both of these groups are heavily invested in U.S. defeat, so they can take over Iraq and use its resources to fund their global jihad.

Only when you stop hating your country, and stop buying into the terroists logic, will you see the light, tomjeff.

Or maybe you can take some of your riches, and build yourself a fortress in the mountains somewhere. Make sure you take plenty of sand...

Gee Keefer, sure wish I had your sources of information. And your brain power is overwhelming! I bet you graduated from Regent, didn't you? I didn't know that the problems in Iraq were so simple! So one way or the other. Iran, al Qaida. al Qaida, Iran. Silly me, I thought Iraq and Iran had a 10 year war against each other tied to ancient tribal hatreds. Maybe you can contact the Pentagon and tell them that the fantasy of Winston Churchill when he created Iraq and tried to impose western democracy on the former Ottoman empire is just about to materialize like magic. And the sectarian violence will just disapear and our troops will no longer be in the middle. Won't that be wonderful?
Let me clue you in Keefer, I don't buy any of your simpleton, misinformed and abjectly false crap. You do not know what you are talking about. You are nothing more than a scared little person who doesn't question anything, does no research and accepts at face value the fear mongering of the administration. Hate my country? No, I hate the mentality of those whose fingers are now being pryed off of the wheel.

tomjeff is an angry man.

tomjeff has his head buried in the sand.

tomjeff suffers from white guilt.

tomjeff hates America.

tomjeff is a moron.

keefer

btw, tomjeff, you, as a top-notch moron, took my comments out of context. I never said that Iran and Iraq were allies, nor did I say that Al Qaeda and Iran were allies. The Iraqi government, save for a few insurgent infiltrators, are at odds with Iran. They are enemies, just as we and Iran are enemies. And don't try and hand me that Sunni vs. Shiite vs. Kurd crap either. Alliances are formed, all the time, against common enemies. Did you realize, that during WWII, we were enemies with Japan, Germany, Italy, and France? And do you realize that these countries are now allies of ours?

tom Al-jeffie, you are a moron. You suffer from BDS, just as the rest of the morons who troll here do. Why don't you go where people agree with you, because, when it comes to this issue, you're not going to change any minds here.

Sorry if I annoy you, tom Al-jeffie, but it's fun messing with lemming parrots...

If true that all Muslims have the wish to live in an Islamist Society, we should help accomodate that wish.

The sooner the better, by all means!

Keefer:
France was invaded by Germany in WWII but France was not our enemy. Our country fought the Germans in France. As did the French underground. Charles DeGaulle ring any bells for you?
Reread your post because you did conflate Iraq, Iran and al Qaida.
It is sad that your vocabulary skills are so rudimentary that when at a loss for an accurate and insightful description you employ the term "moron" which, in effect, more accurately describes the absence of a well developed intellect on your part.
Lastly, quit projecting. I am not white.

Keefer

These kooks come here looking for a fight...a fight they can't win, even at the Daily Hogs. So, my friend, why even engage such moronic behavior?

Just following your lead...LOL!

I kmow...I know, sometimes it's just to hard to resist.

Navy:
Why don't you and Keefer put your two brains together and make one good one. I've seen better lumps in oatmeal.
Spare me your Daily Kos sarcasm. Is that all you can retort with? Make fun of what you don't understand? If you really want to be intimidated, post on Firedoglake or Crooksandliars.
Lets see if you can rise to the challenge.
I dare you.

I wonder if Firedoglake or Crooksandliars will follow Daily Hog's rules and ban ANY conservative from their blog. Ya know, they all LOVE freedom of speech so much. Lefties should be lucky they are allowed to post on this blog.

Like one of the editors on this blog stated when deleting a neorad post ... (similar, but not word for word). These neorads are making a leftwing mess in our conservative house.

Therefore, it is my duty as a conservative guest on this blog to make sure neorads never get the last word on any of the threads. i hope my fellow conservative bloggers will join me in this quest. :-)

Tommmm

The problem we have with you kooks is that you oppose almost every single post with some negative, anti-Bush, anti-American, left-leaning indecipherable crap that typically proves nothing, other than your hatred for those that express views different than yours.

If you'll notice Tom, most conservatives get along quite well here and there are a few indees and libs that post here that can express themselves in a reasonable, rational manner.
Unfortunately, most of you on the far left, hate our President and VP, so vehemently, that the hatred clouds your thinking.

For example: You believe Keefer's Iraq theory is simple-minded. I personally believe that the solution to this war is even more simple than Keefer, in that overwhelming force MUST be applied in order to preserve our identity as the super-power on earth. And if we don't exercise this kind of power, we'll never be feared.
Now, I know this goes against every single grain of rational thinking in your body, but it's fact and history reminds us of those facts.

So, maybe you ought to consider being a little less sensitive and gain a backbone, or is that the part they removed when you decided to become a DemocRAT?

Interesting...why should we be the sole superpower? And more to the point, why do you feel that we must be feared? The only overwhelming force that we have left is nuclear. Do you advocate that we nuke Iraq in order to stop their sectarian war? Is that our moral imperative? To play god to those people?
You mention history. It is sad indeed that Bush et al hasn't learned from it, but no matter. His administration will be gone in 2 years and it is a foregone conclusion that if our presence in Iraq is not diminished or absent by then, that it will be shortly thereafter.
You think of me what you will, but to surround yourself with like minded people does nothing to make you more well rounded, so to speak.
I understand perfectly why you feel the way you do and why your thinking is aligned with a political and social movement that is fundementally maladaptive and sociopathic. But that is a story for another day. I am sure that you enjoy our banter as much as I.
And Kim, feel free to get the last word in, but I cannot comment about those sites I mentioned because this is the only one that I post on, but from what I know about them, their policies are not to censor anyone.They encourage controversy. They do not suppress it.
Another site you might enjoy; at least from a religious standpoint, is Andrew Sullivan. He carries alot of conversation with Ed Harris and Rick Warren. You might enjoy it.

Ya know Tom, if you'd go back and look at your earlier posts vs. today, you'd see that there's a change in your tone....for the better that is.
But to use the words "maladaptive"and "sociopathic" is not only redundant, it shows how little you actually digest from our posts.

If we're not to be the "superpower", who might you recommend? Maybe Russia, or France, or how about Iran or NK? Any of which is an ounce of plutonium away from another Chernobyl and your comment regarding "nuclear is the only thing we have left", well this shows how little you know about power. Sure, in order to instill fear in those that are true sociopaths, such as Hakmodumbojob and the NK midget, we certainly need the biggest stick we can find, however, we didn't need to use overwhelming force to convince Libya or NK to lay down their arms...now did we.

Without the military capital that we've earned over the past few decades (some which was lost during the Clinton era) we would be faced with the unpleasant task of negotiating from a position of weakness....a position any businessman does not relish the thought of.

Assorted lefties,

The point of the quote is to show a few things:

1. Mistakes made in this war aren't the only mistakes we've ever made.

2. In the past, we've made much worse mistakes than mistakes we've made in this war.

3. All life is precious - but we lost 1/3 as many in 32 minutes as we've lost in four years of Iraq.

4. You can't judge a war until the war is over - if we just stopped there in August of 1942, we'd have to wonder just how on earth we were going to defeat these Japanese sailormen, who had proved themselves again and again to be better than us, man for man (Midway, in June of 1942, was the result of extreme courage and an incredible stroke of luck allowing the much more inexperienced American pilots to land a massive punch on the Japanese carrier fleet).

Iraq is not WWII...yeah, no kidding: you lefties figure that out all on your own? But the truths of war are absolute, and they operate in each war (though with different emphasis, relation and proportion depending on circumstance). What you lefties want to say is that we've lost...you desperately want this to be true. But we lost in August of 1942. We lost in the spring of 1862. We lost in November of 1950...and yet we won the war. Defeats happen. Setback occur. Boneheaded mistakes are made...but if you have any belief in the United States of America, you just keep right on at it until the other side has had enough.

navydad,

I think I posted a comment a few threads ago, maybe last week, outlining my feelings and why I do what I do. I'm going to repeat myself for tom Al-jeffie's sake, since he's too dense to remember.

tom Al-jeffie, this is for you. Why should I waste my time with a bunch of trolls who all sound alike, many of whom who have nothing but blame for this great country, several of whom who have nothing but hatred for this great country, and the majority of whom who hate this president? Yes, we call it BDS.

And while there are a few who present a reasoned debate, you are not one of them. You're just another broken record in the big stack. You're a moron, and most probably a big liar. In a battle of wits, you come unarmed.

So, tom Al-jeffie, I do what I do because you, and the other parrots, are colossal wastes of oxygen, as far as I'm concerned. The hatred you have for Bush? Multiply it by ten, chump--that's what I have for you. And I feel the same about your leaders in Washington--Piglosi, Reid-tard, Kennedrunk, et.al.

Now have a nice life, tom Al-jeffie, and go jump in front of a bus...

Why should I waste my time with a bunch of trolls who all sound alike, many of whom who have nothing but blame for this great country, several of whom who have nothing but hatred for this great country, and the majority of whom who hate this president?

Posted by: keefer at April 15, 2007 10:20 AM

Keefer, you do have a great country, or least you did. Sadly, the President you support and admire, the policies you applaud, and the resulting divisiveness have all gone to lessen your country's greatness.

So, go ahead, continue to turn a blind eye, refuse to converse with the 'moron trolls' who post here and keep on patting yourself on the back for being a 'patriotic' American.

I will, CO; I will. You've been peddling the same b/s here for years. You're a smug Canadian lefty, and your opinion means nothing to me. Divisiveness was around long before Bush took over; it'll be here long after he's gone. Now why don't you grab tom Al-jeffie's hand, and join him in jumping in front of a bus...

Divisiveness was around long before Bush took over;

Posted by: keefer at April 15, 2007 12:33 PM

Perhaps, but with the exception of the American Civil War was it really ever this bad? If Bush is such a wonderful, awe-inspiring President, why then, keefer, is he ridiculed and scorned by the majority of Americans and most of the world?

If Bush is such a wonderful, awe-inspiring President, why then, keefer, is he ridiculed and scorned by the majority of Americans and most of the world?

You should know why, dumbass, but you'll make up some b/s reason like you always do.

I can remember when the same treatment was given to Reagan and Thatcher, and I was in England for all of that hatred. So I know why, moron...

Keefer:
Go contract an incurable disease.

Oh, tom Al-Jazeera jeffie, you're so creative and original. You senseless piece of poop, if only you had a mind of your own. Unfortunately, you have to share it with kblack, your Siamese twin moron...