Here's the headline:
U.S. officials exclude car bombs in touting drop in Iraq violence
Oh, that evil Chimpy McSmirk BusHitler! He's LYING again - trying to shore up support for his criminal, imperialist war for oil! Or is he?
Once you get past the breathless MSM opening, you find this in the story:
Bush administration officials have pointed to a dramatic decline in one category of deaths - the bodies dumped daily in Baghdad streets, which officials call sectarian murders - as evidence that the security plan is working. Bush said this week that that number had declined by 50 percent, a number confirmed by statistics compiled by McClatchy Newspapers.
But the number of people killed in explosive attacks is rising, the same statistics show - up from 323 in March, the first full month of the security plan, to 365 through April 24.
Overall, statistics indicate that the number of violent deaths has declined significantly since December, when 1,391 people died in Baghdad, either executed and found dead on the street or killed by bomb blasts. That number was 796 in March and 691 through April 24...
...According to the statistics, which McClatchy reporters in Baghdad compile daily from Iraqi police reports, 1,030 bodies were found in December. In January, that number declined 32 percent, to 699. It declined to 596 February and again to 473 in March.
Deaths from car bombings and improvised explosive devices, however, increased from 361 in December to a peak of 520 in February before dropping to 323 in March.
In that same period, the number of bombings has increased, as well. In December, there were 65 explosive attacks. That number was unchanged in January, but it rose to 72 in February, 74 in March and 81 through April 24.
The part I snipped out there was the part where the MSM went back on message and tried to say that since the decline in deaths is attributable to the decline in execution-style slayings, it just doesn't matter. I guess the people not killed by death sqauds should be upset?
Boiled down, what the headline should say is this:
As deaths in Iraq decline, terrorists increasingly resort to bomb attacks
This is actually us winning - the enemy daren't come out and be seen; he's forced to hide his actions and stay out of sight as much as possible. He's able to kill, but he's not able to intimidate on a day to day basis, which is how he maintained semi-control of parts of Baghdad and Anbar. You fear a bomb in the general sense, but you fear the terrorist squad next door very specifically - and if that terrorist squad has run away to save itself from the surge, then it is no longer there to intimidate you into non-cooperation with Iraqi and Coalition forces. And, of course, it is in the growing confidence of the Iraqi people in their army and police which will relieve us of the necessity of being there at all - but as for bomb attacks: as long as there's even a dozen terrorists in Iraq, they'll be able to set off bombs, and some of them will have high death tolls...as we saw in what McVeigh and just a couple others managed to do in Oklahoma City.
One of the main problems we have with our critics in the war is that they view this war as the War on Terrorists, when it is actually a War on Terrorism. We can't kill every terrorist out there - but we can make terrorism a losing proposition for the States which sponsor it, and thus win the War on Terrorism. Key to this victory is implanting a successful democracy in Iraq - do that, and the balance of power swings decisively away from the tryants and varied Islamo-fascists and it becomes just a matter of time and pressure before we've won, and the terrorists become just the odd criminals committing outrages, slowly and steadily to be rounded up by the local police forces (just as our homegrown terrorists were rounded up back in the 1970s).
HAT TIP: Dean's World's Ali Eteraz, who unfortunately takes the wrong meaning out of the story.
Posted by Mark Noonan at April 26, 2007 06:10 PM
Track
del.icio.us
digg it
IM
Facebook
Comments
Mark,
What color is the sky on your planet?
It's blue here on earth.
Posted by: Max Power at April 26, 2007 06:28 PM
What else the MSM wont tell you is that the sunni tribes are increasingly siding with the government, as they realize they will gain a better deal with the Americans around than they will with shiite Iran pulling the strings.
Reid, you naughty boy, thanks for the kind words. Active duty troops and veterans alike just found a whole new reason to vote against the dems and to convince everyone they know to do the same. You pissed off exactly the wrong crowd.
Posted by: Bacon-I Will Miss Thee at April 26, 2007 06:29 PM
Bacon,
As you can see, this is the 88th time we here at Blogs for Bush have called "foul" on MSM bias - but I've never seen a headline more at odds with the actual story. It must have taken the editor a while to figure out how to cast this story of success into a story of failure.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at April 26, 2007 06:39 PM
Wait just a second Mark...
Lets include the part that you took out
-----------------------------------
Overall, statistics indicate that the number of violent deaths has declined significantly since December, when 1,391 people died in Baghdad, either executed and found dead on the street or killed by bomb blasts. That number was 796 in March and 691 through April 24.
Nearly all of that decline, however, can be attributed to a drop in executions, most of which were blamed on Shiite Muslim militias aligned with the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Much of the decline occurred before the security plan began on Feb. 15, and since then radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has ordered his Mahdi Army militia to stand down.
-------------
Your justification?
"The part I snipped out there was the part where the MSM went back on message and tried to say that since the decline in deaths is attributable to the decline in execution-style slayings, it just doesn't matter. I guess the people not killed by death sqauds should be upset?"
Hmm.. Um dear Mark thats not all you cut you. THE KEY POINT IS
"Much of the decline occurred before the security plan began on Feb. 15, and since then radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has ordered his Mahdi Army militia to stand down."
That is to say - the numbers that the administration are quoting are including things that actually happened BEFORE the surge started...
Your a truly falling to new lows Mark...
Posted by: kblack77 at April 26, 2007 06:48 PM
These are fellow human beings we are talking about, not some cold statistic to be fought over.
Regardless of how high or low, the number of deaths is still totally unacceptable.
People who have perished in this foolish 'war' have left behind countless loved ones who continue to mourn their passing while we sit here, safe & sound, debating the numbers. Shame on us.
Posted by: Canadian Observer at April 26, 2007 06:55 PM
Let's be clear, who is the greater target of car bombs than they were of death squads? Our soldiers and the forces we are training and hoping will lift our burden there.
“This effort may get harder before it gets easier,” Petraeus told a briefing for reporters at the Pentagon."
...
"Greater concentration of U.S. troops among the population, has “led to greater U.S. losses” as well as increased Iraqi military casualties."
Posted by: carsick at April 26, 2007 07:09 PM
CO
Completely Agreed
I just don't like to have they key points of articles cut out and then their contents misrepresented....
Posted by: kblack77 at April 26, 2007 07:17 PM
Ya know carsick, you make it sound like we're placing targets on the backs of our soldiers, which is exactly what you kooks want to hear. But when properly deciphered, the sentence sounds like this: "Greater concentration of U.S. troops among the population, has “led to greater U.S. losses” as well as increased Iraqi military casualties. However, we're killing more bad guys, running the militias out of Baghdad, enabling the Iraqi population to feel more secure, all for a nobel cause in the all-out campaign to win the WOT."
Get it? He wouldn't be in the position he's in if it were your way.
So please don't twist his words, because what you hear is not what he is thinking. Only a fool would try to twist this mans words into spin for political gain.
Posted by: navydad at April 26, 2007 07:26 PM
navydad
I'm not making it sound like anything at all. It is what it is. Your version just adds a whole lot of spin or couching.
Here's how the press portrayed Petraeus' words:
"The general also said, however, that improvements can be seen both in the capital of Baghdad and the volatile Anbar Province in Western Iraq. Still, he said, these achievements “have not come without sacrifice.”
Posted by: carsick at April 26, 2007 08:12 PM
navydad,
Wait a minute, you just said:
"So please don't twist his words, because what you hear is not what he is thinking. Only a fool would try to twist this mans words into spin for political gain."
You realize you are claiming to "know" what he is thinking? What were you saying about "only a fool..."?
I was quoting his words. You are inventing his thoughts. Who's twisting?
Posted by: carsick at April 26, 2007 08:18 PM
Your a truly falling to new lows Mark...
You can't blame this one on phonetics, Dr. Rerun...
Posted by: keefer at April 26, 2007 09:08 PM
yep - i can't spell - sue me..
Posted by: kblack77 at April 26, 2007 09:27 PM
McClatchy: Bush administration officials have pointed to a dramatic decline in one category of deaths - the bodies dumped daily in Baghdad streets, which officials call sectarian murders - as evidence that the security plan is working. Bush said this week that that number had declined by 50 percent...
That number also sounds (a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14801520/"> awfully familiar. I just hope they have it a bit more right this time around. If not, the effect on American morale could be devastating. Nothing saps morale like being lied to.
Posted by: Ricorun at April 26, 2007 09:40 PM
Oopsie, I screwed up the link. That last paragraph should read...
That number also sounds awfully familiar. I just hope they have it a bit more right this time around. If not, the effect on American morale could be devastating. Nothing saps morale like being lied to.
Posted by: Ricorun at April 26, 2007 09:43 PM
Carsick
You don't honestly believe the General would believe in anything but victory, now do you?
My guess is that my continuation of his comments are much closer to reality than yours might be. But only speculation of course...snicker.
Ya see carsick, it's my nature to try to find good in everything and everbody, even those I despise, however, from what I gather, the lefties here at B4B are so miserable with hatred for GW, America and our mighty military that they can't find the good in anything even if it hits them between the eyes.
Take look at the General's words and re-think your negative thoughts because maybe, just maybe, he knows more about this war and his job than you or I.
Posted by: navydad at April 26, 2007 10:17 PM
Navy...
So if say Clinton , or the next Democrat president gets us into a war that you don't agree with. For the fun of it lets say they invade England as part as a liberally biased media driven conspiracy to teach evolution and reduce global warming in England and you disagreed with the war. Would that make you anti-american, pro-defeat,or driven by hate??
Your failure is to distinguish between dissenting with a specific policy and being anti-american and defeatist...
Posted by: kblack77 at April 26, 2007 10:23 PM
navydad
If he is as smart and knowledgeable as people say he is then I think it would be presumptuous to think I or you know what he is thinking.
You sure are comfortable presuming quite a bit. If I hate America then your son in the military is actually Paris Hilton looking at brochures for rehab centers while snorting coke on a beach somewhere.
Posted by: carsick at April 26, 2007 10:24 PM
kblack,
Dissent is not only allowed, it is a vital ingredient in a democracy's successful prosecution of a war. Part of the failure of our actions in WWI and WWII was the lack of any sustained opposition to Administration policy which essentially left the President to work everything out on his own, when he couldn't possibly be in command of enough information to carry such weight. But dissent must be useful and it must have as its goal what is best for America.
What we've got now isn't dissent, but a new Copperheadism: dissent which borders on treason, and sometimes goes all the way over to it.
The reasonable dissent of 2006 was the demand that Rumsfeld be fired, that a new commander be appointed in Iraq, that benchmarks be set up for Iraqi progress, that more troops be sent: all of these had as their goal an American victory in Iraq. The unreasonable dissent is the demand to set a date certain for withdrawal as well as that dissent which tends to condemn America for its treatment of detainees and the way we go about collecting intelligence on the enemy.
You see, it isn't enough for you to demand withdrawal - you have to show, by convincing argument, how withdrawal would serve us better in the pursuit of victory as well as give us assurances that our withdrawal won't lead to something worse than we've already got.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at April 26, 2007 11:07 PM
kblack,
Oh, and the part I excised was not the most vital part of the report...in fact, it doesn't belong in the report at all because it is irrelevant. The report was about the fact of less death in Iraq; what the MSMer editing the report did was fill it in with his editorial comments about what he wanted to be happening.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at April 26, 2007 11:09 PM
For the fun of it lets say they invade England as part as a liberally biased media driven conspiracy to teach evolution and reduce global warming in England and you disagreed with the war. Would that make you anti-american, pro-defeat,or driven by hate??
Geez, black, at least come up with an analogy that remotely plausible. Say, for example, an air war against a Balkan country waged by a Democrat President, unsupported by Congressionally authorized use of force, unsupported by the UN, resulting in massive collateral damage not even tracked by the MSM, even the "accidental"bombing of the Chinese Embassy; all to stop ethnic cleansing that it was later discovered didn't even exist. Now that's at least plausible.
Posted by: Retired Spook at April 26, 2007 11:44 PM
ABSOLUTELY FALSE!
"You see, it isn't enough for you to demand withdrawal - you have to show, by convincing argument, how withdrawal would serve us better in the pursuit of victory as well as give us assurances that our withdrawal won't lead to something worse than we've already got."
Mark - you are of course completely incorrect. IT is the behest of the people who would advocate using military action and violence to justify it- not my job to justify why we shouldn't use it. So its YOU who has to prove to that the current occupation and continued use of military force is justified.. Just because Bush acted in a horrible stupid way - doesn't mean that I have to justify why he shouldn't justify that he couldn't.
None the less - its not so difficult a task.
(1) we have absolutely no justification for being in Iraq - except your imperialistic and condescending approach of "we know best" for the rest of the world
- So we shouldn't have ever been there in the first place
(2) 4 years of this policy have failed to produce a satisfactory state - it is completely unrealistic to expect that somehow miraculously everything will change - for absolutely no reason
(3) the idea that you can put troops on the ground to solve a complex social situation between the shia, sunni, and kurds - as well as the rest of the complicated issues regarding separatists - is simply horribly naive - which the past 4 years have shown
And no - the part you cut out - was clearly because you didn't want to post something that projected negatively on the Bush administration.
Sorry Mark - wrong on all counts as always
Posted by: kblack77 at April 27, 2007 12:10 AM
Sure spook - so if you disagreed with the war in Serbia - by your logic you were for defeat and anti-american...
I didn't agree with that war either...
Posted by: kblack77 at April 27, 2007 12:15 AM
kblack,
I have - as have all of us on our side - continuously and at length explained why we think we should stay; it is up to you to defend your position, not just attack ours.
It is no good saying we shouldn't be there - we're there: where do you want to go from here, and why? If you can't come up with a sound policy, then please understand that you are being unsound in your views.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at April 27, 2007 02:21 AM
Mark says, to Dr. Rerun:
I have - as have all of us on our side - continuously and at length explained why we think we should stay; it is up to you to defend your position, not just attack ours.
Dr. Rerun says: Sorry Mark - wrong on all counts as always.
Now Mark, Dr. Rerun has a PhD. Who cares if she got it from an ad on a matchbook? She doesn't have to defend her position, being that she's smarter than you. Isn't that the libgressive way?
Posted by: keefer at April 27, 2007 05:27 AM
Mark Noonan,
When your position is in the minority I think the responsibility lies with you to convince the majority. So far, according to every poll taken, your explanations have failed to achieve that goal.
Posted by: carsick at April 27, 2007 08:32 AM
Mark ..
And I have continuously said why we should leave. you can look at the other post in the more recent post by Leo to see what I would do but briefly
(1) abide by the Iraqi people's will - the vast majority of which favor withdrawl within the time scale of a year or so. And stop this imperialistic attitude that we know what is best for them - despite what all the protests and polls say (for example the wall that we are building although the Iraqi prime minister opposes it - as do most Iraqi's).
(2) Pay massive reparations - unfortunately this
won't be cheap - all of the iraqi infrastructure which has been destroyed - the lives that have been lost - and the damage which has been done must be repaid. (Note I am not saying things were good with Saddam - but there not good now either). This will involve cash, infusion of infrastructure, food, etc..
(3) Bring in the UN. If there should be peace keeping troops - they should be from the UN.
Of course - this has to be decided by the Iraqi people.
Now - given that Bush completely ignored the UN in regards to the invasion - we will have to bear the brunt of this both financially and possibly in terms of having the a short term peace keeping force run by the UN and the Iraqis as the reconstruction and reparations take place
(4) Bring this to the world court - and have a investigation into the reasons for the war, the execution of the war , and go from there. Most likely many members of the Bush administration will face serious charges from this...
Is this pretty? Clearly not. But the Bush administration has given us two choices - ugly and uglier. There simply is no graceful wonderful way out. Its all about limiting further damage and this point
Posted by: kblack77 at April 27, 2007 08:47 AM
carsick,
I believe we scored 51% of the vote in November of 2004 and that majority is valid in the matter of Executive policy until January 20th, 2009.
We don't govern by public opinion polls.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at April 27, 2007 05:55 PM
Order Matt and Mark's book on Amazon or Barnes and Noble
Mark,
What color is the sky on your planet?
It's blue here on earth.
What else the MSM wont tell you is that the sunni tribes are increasingly siding with the government, as they realize they will gain a better deal with the Americans around than they will with shiite Iran pulling the strings.
Reid, you naughty boy, thanks for the kind words. Active duty troops and veterans alike just found a whole new reason to vote against the dems and to convince everyone they know to do the same. You pissed off exactly the wrong crowd.
Bacon,
As you can see, this is the 88th time we here at Blogs for Bush have called "foul" on MSM bias - but I've never seen a headline more at odds with the actual story. It must have taken the editor a while to figure out how to cast this story of success into a story of failure.
Wait just a second Mark...
Lets include the part that you took out
-----------------------------------
Overall, statistics indicate that the number of violent deaths has declined significantly since December, when 1,391 people died in Baghdad, either executed and found dead on the street or killed by bomb blasts. That number was 796 in March and 691 through April 24.
Nearly all of that decline, however, can be attributed to a drop in executions, most of which were blamed on Shiite Muslim militias aligned with the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Much of the decline occurred before the security plan began on Feb. 15, and since then radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has ordered his Mahdi Army militia to stand down.
-------------
Your justification?
"The part I snipped out there was the part where the MSM went back on message and tried to say that since the decline in deaths is attributable to the decline in execution-style slayings, it just doesn't matter. I guess the people not killed by death sqauds should be upset?"
Hmm.. Um dear Mark thats not all you cut you. THE KEY POINT IS
"Much of the decline occurred before the security plan began on Feb. 15, and since then radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has ordered his Mahdi Army militia to stand down."
That is to say - the numbers that the administration are quoting are including things that actually happened BEFORE the surge started...
Your a truly falling to new lows Mark...
These are fellow human beings we are talking about, not some cold statistic to be fought over.
Regardless of how high or low, the number of deaths is still totally unacceptable.
People who have perished in this foolish 'war' have left behind countless loved ones who continue to mourn their passing while we sit here, safe & sound, debating the numbers. Shame on us.
Let's be clear, who is the greater target of car bombs than they were of death squads? Our soldiers and the forces we are training and hoping will lift our burden there.
“This effort may get harder before it gets easier,” Petraeus told a briefing for reporters at the Pentagon."
...
"Greater concentration of U.S. troops among the population, has “led to greater U.S. losses” as well as increased Iraqi military casualties."
CO
Completely Agreed
I just don't like to have they key points of articles cut out and then their contents misrepresented....
Ya know carsick, you make it sound like we're placing targets on the backs of our soldiers, which is exactly what you kooks want to hear. But when properly deciphered, the sentence sounds like this: "Greater concentration of U.S. troops among the population, has “led to greater U.S. losses” as well as increased Iraqi military casualties. However, we're killing more bad guys, running the militias out of Baghdad, enabling the Iraqi population to feel more secure, all for a nobel cause in the all-out campaign to win the WOT."
Get it? He wouldn't be in the position he's in if it were your way.
So please don't twist his words, because what you hear is not what he is thinking. Only a fool would try to twist this mans words into spin for political gain.
navydad
I'm not making it sound like anything at all. It is what it is. Your version just adds a whole lot of spin or couching.
Here's how the press portrayed Petraeus' words:
"The general also said, however, that improvements can be seen both in the capital of Baghdad and the volatile Anbar Province in Western Iraq. Still, he said, these achievements “have not come without sacrifice.”
navydad,
Wait a minute, you just said:
"So please don't twist his words, because what you hear is not what he is thinking. Only a fool would try to twist this mans words into spin for political gain."
You realize you are claiming to "know" what he is thinking? What were you saying about "only a fool..."?
I was quoting his words. You are inventing his thoughts. Who's twisting?
Your a truly falling to new lows Mark...
You can't blame this one on phonetics, Dr. Rerun...
yep - i can't spell - sue me..
McClatchy: Bush administration officials have pointed to a dramatic decline in one category of deaths - the bodies dumped daily in Baghdad streets, which officials call sectarian murders - as evidence that the security plan is working. Bush said this week that that number had declined by 50 percent...
That number also sounds (a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14801520/"> awfully familiar. I just hope they have it a bit more right this time around. If not, the effect on American morale could be devastating. Nothing saps morale like being lied to.
Oopsie, I screwed up the link. That last paragraph should read...
That number also sounds awfully familiar. I just hope they have it a bit more right this time around. If not, the effect on American morale could be devastating. Nothing saps morale like being lied to.
Carsick
You don't honestly believe the General would believe in anything but victory, now do you?
My guess is that my continuation of his comments are much closer to reality than yours might be. But only speculation of course...snicker.
Ya see carsick, it's my nature to try to find good in everything and everbody, even those I despise, however, from what I gather, the lefties here at B4B are so miserable with hatred for GW, America and our mighty military that they can't find the good in anything even if it hits them between the eyes.
Take look at the General's words and re-think your negative thoughts because maybe, just maybe, he knows more about this war and his job than you or I.
Navy...
So if say Clinton , or the next Democrat president gets us into a war that you don't agree with. For the fun of it lets say they invade England as part as a liberally biased media driven conspiracy to teach evolution and reduce global warming in England and you disagreed with the war. Would that make you anti-american, pro-defeat,or driven by hate??
Your failure is to distinguish between dissenting with a specific policy and being anti-american and defeatist...
navydad
If he is as smart and knowledgeable as people say he is then I think it would be presumptuous to think I or you know what he is thinking.
You sure are comfortable presuming quite a bit. If I hate America then your son in the military is actually Paris Hilton looking at brochures for rehab centers while snorting coke on a beach somewhere.
kblack,
Dissent is not only allowed, it is a vital ingredient in a democracy's successful prosecution of a war. Part of the failure of our actions in WWI and WWII was the lack of any sustained opposition to Administration policy which essentially left the President to work everything out on his own, when he couldn't possibly be in command of enough information to carry such weight. But dissent must be useful and it must have as its goal what is best for America.
What we've got now isn't dissent, but a new Copperheadism: dissent which borders on treason, and sometimes goes all the way over to it.
The reasonable dissent of 2006 was the demand that Rumsfeld be fired, that a new commander be appointed in Iraq, that benchmarks be set up for Iraqi progress, that more troops be sent: all of these had as their goal an American victory in Iraq. The unreasonable dissent is the demand to set a date certain for withdrawal as well as that dissent which tends to condemn America for its treatment of detainees and the way we go about collecting intelligence on the enemy.
You see, it isn't enough for you to demand withdrawal - you have to show, by convincing argument, how withdrawal would serve us better in the pursuit of victory as well as give us assurances that our withdrawal won't lead to something worse than we've already got.
kblack,
Oh, and the part I excised was not the most vital part of the report...in fact, it doesn't belong in the report at all because it is irrelevant. The report was about the fact of less death in Iraq; what the MSMer editing the report did was fill it in with his editorial comments about what he wanted to be happening.
For the fun of it lets say they invade England as part as a liberally biased media driven conspiracy to teach evolution and reduce global warming in England and you disagreed with the war. Would that make you anti-american, pro-defeat,or driven by hate??
Geez, black, at least come up with an analogy that remotely plausible. Say, for example, an air war against a Balkan country waged by a Democrat President, unsupported by Congressionally authorized use of force, unsupported by the UN, resulting in massive collateral damage not even tracked by the MSM, even the "accidental"bombing of the Chinese Embassy; all to stop ethnic cleansing that it was later discovered didn't even exist. Now that's at least plausible.
ABSOLUTELY FALSE!
"You see, it isn't enough for you to demand withdrawal - you have to show, by convincing argument, how withdrawal would serve us better in the pursuit of victory as well as give us assurances that our withdrawal won't lead to something worse than we've already got."
Mark - you are of course completely incorrect. IT is the behest of the people who would advocate using military action and violence to justify it- not my job to justify why we shouldn't use it. So its YOU who has to prove to that the current occupation and continued use of military force is justified.. Just because Bush acted in a horrible stupid way - doesn't mean that I have to justify why he shouldn't justify that he couldn't.
None the less - its not so difficult a task.
(1) we have absolutely no justification for being in Iraq - except your imperialistic and condescending approach of "we know best" for the rest of the world
- So we shouldn't have ever been there in the first place
(2) 4 years of this policy have failed to produce a satisfactory state - it is completely unrealistic to expect that somehow miraculously everything will change - for absolutely no reason
(3) the idea that you can put troops on the ground to solve a complex social situation between the shia, sunni, and kurds - as well as the rest of the complicated issues regarding separatists - is simply horribly naive - which the past 4 years have shown
And no - the part you cut out - was clearly because you didn't want to post something that projected negatively on the Bush administration.
Sorry Mark - wrong on all counts as always
Sure spook - so if you disagreed with the war in Serbia - by your logic you were for defeat and anti-american...
I didn't agree with that war either...
kblack,
I have - as have all of us on our side - continuously and at length explained why we think we should stay; it is up to you to defend your position, not just attack ours.
It is no good saying we shouldn't be there - we're there: where do you want to go from here, and why? If you can't come up with a sound policy, then please understand that you are being unsound in your views.
Mark says, to Dr. Rerun:
I have - as have all of us on our side - continuously and at length explained why we think we should stay; it is up to you to defend your position, not just attack ours.
Dr. Rerun says: Sorry Mark - wrong on all counts as always.
Now Mark, Dr. Rerun has a PhD. Who cares if she got it from an ad on a matchbook? She doesn't have to defend her position, being that she's smarter than you. Isn't that the libgressive way?
Mark Noonan,
When your position is in the minority I think the responsibility lies with you to convince the majority. So far, according to every poll taken, your explanations have failed to achieve that goal.
Mark ..
And I have continuously said why we should leave. you can look at the other post in the more recent post by Leo to see what I would do but briefly
(1) abide by the Iraqi people's will - the vast majority of which favor withdrawl within the time scale of a year or so. And stop this imperialistic attitude that we know what is best for them - despite what all the protests and polls say (for example the wall that we are building although the Iraqi prime minister opposes it - as do most Iraqi's).
(2) Pay massive reparations - unfortunately this
won't be cheap - all of the iraqi infrastructure which has been destroyed - the lives that have been lost - and the damage which has been done must be repaid. (Note I am not saying things were good with Saddam - but there not good now either). This will involve cash, infusion of infrastructure, food, etc..
(3) Bring in the UN. If there should be peace keeping troops - they should be from the UN.
Of course - this has to be decided by the Iraqi people.
Now - given that Bush completely ignored the UN in regards to the invasion - we will have to bear the brunt of this both financially and possibly in terms of having the a short term peace keeping force run by the UN and the Iraqis as the reconstruction and reparations take place
(4) Bring this to the world court - and have a investigation into the reasons for the war, the execution of the war , and go from there. Most likely many members of the Bush administration will face serious charges from this...
Is this pretty? Clearly not. But the Bush administration has given us two choices - ugly and uglier. There simply is no graceful wonderful way out. Its all about limiting further damage and this point
carsick,
I believe we scored 51% of the vote in November of 2004 and that majority is valid in the matter of Executive policy until January 20th, 2009.
We don't govern by public opinion polls.