... and out of each hole juts a little white flag.

The closer we get to some kind of solution in Iraq the harder the democrats will fight. They want another viet nam ending. Doesn't matter how many end up dead.

Don't know where else to post this, as I don't see any blogs addressing this issue:
the NYT's Michael Gordon, the same Michael Gordon who was complicit with Judith Miller in spreading administration lies about WMDs, is at it again. He has a major article, reprinted in news services word-for-word, both in the U.S. and internationally, saying what a great job Bush's surge is doing. This is the same man (again, along with the infamous Judy Miller) who has been a mouthpiece for the administration forever.
It is a shame, that "news" services would bother to reprint an article, without comment, from a man who has discredited himself so many times.
How does that saying go, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice,........
A question; why would the NYT allow a "reporter" to use their forum to spread propaganda, and why have so many other "news" services repeated the propaganda without comment? Doesn't anyone do investigative reporting anymore? What about the facts, don't they count anymore? How far down the road to control of the press, as opposed to freedom of the press, have we gone?
In the face of such a blatant partisan piece, presented as news, the NYT could have at least given equal time to an opposing point of view. Better yet, the piece should have gone on the op/ed pages, and not presented as fact.

The good general has turned this conflict in Iraq around. That has the pants scared off the DNC and the left wing.

The left is invested in Defeat. If this continues to look more and more like a reasonably ending in Iraq that does not wind up in defeat...the left could lose the elections.

YOu folks need to move now, move hard, and move fast if you are going to use congress to defeat the US in Iraq.

New High Tech Weapon to be used in Iraq! (microwave gun boils blood)
Washington fears a barrage of adverse publicity in the suspicious Muslim world and is concerned that critics will claim the invisible beam weapons were being used for torture.
Posted Nov 23, 2007 08:09 AM PST
Category: IRAQ

This is the same device claimed to be "harmless" but which in a recent demonstration inflicted $17,000 worth of injuries on one of the test subjects.

This is a torture device by any definition of the word. It is built to do one thing; inflict pain. It is no different in intent than the iron maiden or the rack.

The Constitution grants the right to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances. This device is specifically designed to disperse assembled crowds by a government intending to ignore the will of the people as they plunge us into unending wars of conquest across the globe.

Brother Torquemada would have loved this thing! So would have Hitler.

How many holes does Swiss Cheese have?

"Ending combat by December 2008," - more than
a year away. The Democrats really are a
disgrace, and pathetic, and that's not easy
for a fellow Democrat to say. Now when I see
Harry Reid, on C-SPAN, I race for the remote,
he is the weakest, most pathetic, of the
pathetic. Like millions of others, I am sick
of begging, hoping, demanding and screaming for
Democratic leaders with spines, they aren't
going to grow them, find them, or even
recognize them, when they see them. So what
are we angry, outraged Democrats going to do,
we are told not enough time for a Third Party,
then we need to throw out - Pelosi, Reid and
all these spineless wimps, and replace them
with more Jim Webb's and Chuck Hagel's.
And we should demand that Hillary NOT be the
candidate, because if she is - this will be
the end of the Democratic Party. She is the
Republican's Dream and our Nightmare!

"One more time the Demos don't want the troops out before the 2008 elections."

Researcher,just how do you arrive at a conclusion like this?If anybody,regardless of political affiliation,wanted the troups out,just how in hell do you think they could accomplish it?

Your statement is such hypothical nonsense it borders on childishness!

Yet there are people totaly ignorant of fact,yet,overstuffed with zeal,who actualy preach and believe such nonsense.
The truth is I,and many like me ,saw this premptive madness as what it was long before the invasion and occupation.And many many others came to the same conclusion after the fact,the trouble was it was too late to prevent the ensuing collasal blunders!

would the fact that the us military has divided baghdad into ethnic based ghettos via large concrete fencing, ghettos that can only be exited at specific security points, contribute to a drop in violence. Well, if the two major ethnic groups are largely isolated from each other violence will decrease, albeit not permanently.

would an increase presence of Americana troops discourage opposition militia attacks. Of course they would. We have found time and time again whenever we claimed a surge was working in the past that violence would drop for the period in time where a higher concentration of american troops existed. If you have a high concentration of highly trained American troops in one location, obviously the opposition groups, of inferior weapons and skill, would either take their carnage to another part of iraq or simply wait out the surge as they are doing now and have before.

What this all leads to is, is this drop in violence, this "success" in the loosest meaning of the word success, is it sustainable, is it permanent, and the answer to that is a resounding no. If it takes an increase of 20,000 combat troops in a single city, aided with the construction of concrete walls that isolate the city into ethnic based boundaries to lower violence any, with zero focus on forming a national unity government and healing animosity on either side of teh conflict, then this decrease in violence will only last as long as the surge does. No logical reason exist for why this would bring lasting peace. The Dam has cracked and we covered the hole with bubblegum, nothing more.

Alas, this is so typical American. barbaric focus on military strength above all else. The military isnt the supreme measure of a nations power/worth nor the single tool of international affairs. Realize please that now is the time to focus on bringing the warring factions in iraq together, forming a unifying government whom all the people can be happy with, finding the political solutions that will bring about a more permanent peace. Get smart

Well it doesn't have as many holes as a seive. That's the policy the bush administration has in Iraq. Or maybe we should say a spigot...with our money pouring out of one end and into the pockets of the contractors. And we know who is getting all that money back from the contractors. Course if there is any left the military in Iraq do get some equipment....not much.

I wish someone on the right could give some meaningful definition to the word"Victory"!
A definition that would answer questions like;Once victory was made official(apparantly "Mission Accomplished"was really not an official declaration of victory),what would the country of Iraq be like?.
After generations of Ottoman,British,and American Colonialist rule,would all Iraqis march down the street on Iraqi 4th of July waving Iraqi Flags,and feast on Apple Pie?
Would Iraq's neighbors like Iran,Syria,etal,join in this gala event?
Would Iraq,Iran,Egypt,Syria,Lebanon,all face toward their former foe,Israel and salute their former blood enemy,and forgive Israel's practice of nuclear armament, Palestinian genocide and aparthide?
The jury is out on any percieved let up in violence,secular,tribal,insurgance, or whatever.
Is any reference made to the likelyhood being,the large exoduses from Iraq by victims of its occupational and secular turbulance,contributing to this alleged let up.
Ignored is the strong likelyhood of violence erupting in a much greater degree when the occupiers leave.
But most important of all,what has this alleged lull done to minimize the suffering of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed,wounded,destroyed families,destroyed infrastructures ,and starvation brought on by Our phoney preemptive attack?

The Democrats control the aganda, so why does ANY war spending bill even make to the House floor? Because the Democrats want it there? Peace

why is it when their is success all libdumb nation can come up with is name calling and Haliburton? Because they can never let fact get in the way of defeatism and being surrendermonkeys

Please stop letting the republican spin machine set the agenda. Right now "everyone" knows that the democrats are the weak ineffectual liberals, the b squad, they can't possibly know anything about national defense, we have to leave that to the real men. Ergo the republican spin machine has once again set the agenda, which has democrats tearing down their leadership. Do you think they aren't laughing?!?

They must be like, fuck, Murtha and Webb and Pelosi and Reid have us over the barrel, damn we're going to be their whipping boy. We've either got to end the war or appear to be cutting off funds for the troops by refusing to sign a damn fine bill.

Oh hell no, don't you know, this is Washington, you just lie lie lie with a smile on your face and laugh all the way to the bank. All we need to do is get your average Joe democrat to start yelling at the democratic leadership. Hell no, we're not going down without a fight, let it play out for a few weeks, let the ol' boys network have time to spin it, it'll play out right, no worries boys.

The reality is even though the democrats won a sweeping majority in the house they can't get anything through the senate. So now the reason congress is rated so low is because it appears to the anti-war faction of the democratic party like nothing is getting done, so they blame them all. They cry that Harry Reid is ineffectual and doesn't have balls like a Trent Lott. But come on, he's not going to bring the building down or thunder like a Kennedy, that ain't his style. He's soft spoken and works behind the scenes. Take it or leave it.

So, the "surge" ISN'T working. The reduced level of violence against US soldiers has reduced because of voluntary actions by Iran and largely untrustworthy tribal leaders.

First we armed the Sunnis by decommissioning the Iraqi Army without collecting their weapons. Then we allowed the Iraqi Army's weapons depots go unguarded and get completely looted. So, we armed the Shi'ites by reconstituting the Iraqi Army and setting up a Shi'ite government to defend themselves against Sunni insurgents. Then the Shi'ites militias started shooting at us with the weapons we gave them, so we turned on them.

Then Saidi Arabia told Bush they do not want a Shi'ite-led Iraq as their neighbor, so we bribed Sunni tribal leaders with money and weapons to fight the Shi'ite militias.

Now we've armed both sides with tons of weapons paid for with American taxpayers' money and have accomplished NOTHING in the ongoing centuries year old sectarian hatred and killing or a political settlement.

The big lie about the political settlement is that the Bush Crime Family says they want to see a revenue-sharing deal for oil profit distribution among the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds. The truth is that the US doesn't really care how the profits are distributed, they're ONLY interested in making sure US oil companies are awarded the largest and most lucrative contracts. That's complicated by the FACT that the Shi'ite Iraqis are perfectly willing to sell their oil exploration and drilling rights to Chinese companies and the US is upset. To make matters worse, the Kurds have already cut their deals with non-US companies and have said they're not sharing their profits with Sunnis OR Shi'ites.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE STILL THERE!