Waving the White Flag

[spare_change]

By Michael Reagan
Thursday, November 15, 2007

It has been said that there are none so blind as those who will not see. The quote is attributed by some to Jesus (Matthew 13:13): “Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand”

That’s a perfect description of Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid, both of whom disingenuously state that that there has been no sign of progress in Iraq and that we are losing the war there and must pull up stakes and run as fast as we can with our tails between our legs.

Just what kind of blinders and ear plugs are these people wearing? Don’t they realize that some of the most vehement foes of the war in Iraq such as The New York Times and the Washington Post are reporting that the surge is working and we are winning the war against al Qaeda and the other insurgents?

According to the Associated Press: "Twilight brings traffic jams to the main shopping district of this once-affluent corner of Baghdad, and hundreds of people stroll past well-stocked vegetable stands, bakeries and butcher shops. To many in America, it seems little short of a miracle."

Wrote the Washington Post: "The number of attacks against U.S. Soldiers has fallen to levels not seen since before the February 2006 bombing of a Shi'ite shrine in Samarra that touched off waves of sectarian killing...The death toll for American troops in October fell to 39, the lowest level since March 2006."

Finally, The New York Times, of all newspapers, noted: "American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood in Baghdad, a top American general said today, allowing American troops involved in the 'surge' to depart as planned."

Could it be that Pelosi and Reid can’t see the progress because they don’t want to see it? Or, even worse, are they committed to doing what they can to stop their country from winning the war in Iraq?

Senator Joe Lieberman thinks it’s the latter. Noting that since the Democrats won control of Congress last year "the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party... Has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush... Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving."

As Sen. Lieberman showed, it is no longer possible to deny that the Democrat leadership wants the United States to suffer a humiliating defeat in Iraq. That this would mean that if 3000-plus American soldiers and Marines who died fighting to defeat al Qaeda and their allies in Iraq have died in vain, it doesn’t seem to bother Pelosi and the Reid one little bit.

Pelosi’s reaction to coalition success was to announce what The Washington Times rightly called “her newest legislative strategy to damage the war effort.” Her House Democrats will “try to enact a bill calling for immediately beginning to withdraw U.S. Troops from Iraq, with a goal of completing the pullout in one year,” according to the Times.

That this public waving the surrender flag would signal to the al Qaeda jihadists that there would be a date certain for what amounts to a surrender to a foes now losing bothered the Democrat House leader one little bit.

If Madame Pelosi and the surrender monkeys now running the Democrat Party on Capitol Hill have their way, the jihadists in Iraq need only wait for the Democrats’ planned withdrawal to move in and take over Iraq. They call this strategy, I call it treason.

[p.a]

By Michael Reagan
Thursday, November 15, 2007

It has been said that there are none so blind as those who will not see. The quote is attributed by some to Jesus (Matthew 13:13): “Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand”

That’s a perfect description of Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid, both of whom disingenuously state that that there has been no sign of progress in Iraq and that we are losing the war there and must pull up stakes and run as fast as we can with our tails between our legs.

Just what kind of blinders and ear plugs are these people wearing? Don’t they realize that some of the most vehement foes of the war in Iraq such as The New York Times and the Washington Post are reporting that the surge is working and we are winning the war against al Qaeda and the other insurgents?

According to the Associated Press: "Twilight brings traffic jams to the main shopping district of this once-affluent corner of Baghdad, and hundreds of people stroll past well-stocked vegetable stands, bakeries and butcher shops. To many in America, it seems little short of a miracle."

Wrote the Washington Post: "The number of attacks against U.S. Soldiers has fallen to levels not seen since before the February 2006 bombing of a Shi'ite shrine in Samarra that touched off waves of sectarian killing...The death toll for American troops in October fell to 39, the lowest level since March 2006."

Finally, The New York Times, of all newspapers, noted: "American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood in Baghdad, a top American general said today, allowing American troops involved in the 'surge' to depart as planned."

Could it be that Pelosi and Reid can’t see the progress because they don’t want to see it? Or, even worse, are they committed to doing what they can to stop their country from winning the war in Iraq?

Senator Joe Lieberman thinks it’s the latter. Noting that since the Democrats won control of Congress last year "the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party... Has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush... Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving."

As Sen. Lieberman showed, it is no longer possible to deny that the Democrat leadership wants the United States to suffer a humiliating defeat in Iraq. That this would mean that if 3000-plus American soldiers and Marines who died fighting to defeat al Qaeda and their allies in Iraq have died in vain, it doesn’t seem to bother Pelosi and the Reid one little bit.

Pelosi’s reaction to coalition success was to announce what The Washington Times rightly called “her newest legislative strategy to damage the war effort.” Her House Democrats will “try to enact a bill calling for immediately beginning to withdraw U.S. Troops from Iraq, with a goal of completing the pullout in one year,” according to the Times.

That this public waving the surrender flag would signal to the al Qaeda jihadists that there would be a date certain for what amounts to a surrender to a foes now losing bothered the Democrat House leader one little bit.

If Madame Pelosi and the surrender monkeys now running the Democrat
Party on Capitol Hill have their way, the jihadists in Iraq need only wait for the Democrats’ planned withdrawal to move in and take over Iraq. They call this strategy, I call it treason.

Wouldn't that be a good thing? Instead of them hiding out in the Mountains of Afghanistan where it's hard to find them, they will all congregate in Iraq where we can blow them all up at one time......Sound like a great plan to me. They might even bring Bin Laden in for the party.

[oldandnaked]

I think it's important to consider all the possible reasons the violence has subsided in Iraq. Our troops certainly deserve their share of credit but perhaps we also have to give credit to Iran and Syria for making more of an effort as selfish as it may be to reduce the numbers of arms and combatants crossing their borders. Another factor that may be lessening the death and destruction is that ethnic cleansing and/or segregation is on it's way to being accomplished. The Shites, Sunnis and Kurds have established their own somewhat safe havens and have taken it upon themselves to protect those areas not only from each other but Al Qaeda as well. Many of the Iraqis that envisioned a unified and democratic Iraq, (professionals, intellectuals, etc.), have either been killed or have escaped to neighboring countries.

I also contend that having elections and establishing a government does not make a democracy. A democracy is more than "majority rules", it requires tolerance and acceptance of all it's citizens and their views, religous beliefs, etc. I don't see that in this region where these different factions have been warring off and on for a couple thousand years. You only have to look as far as the Gaza Strip to see how well elections worked for the Hamas and Fatahs. To quote Thomas Friedman, "until these people start loving their children more than they hate their enemies" I see little hope for peace and stability in Iraq. Successful democracies aren't created from outside influences, they are created from within.

I think it's quite unfair of Mr. Reagan to suggest Ms. Pelosi and other dems aren't "bothered" by the sacrifice of our troops in this war. One could argue that they are bothered so much that they want to stop the death and maiming. The 3000 plus troop casualties doesn't include the thousands of suicide deaths attributed to the mental anguish resulting from being placed in combat situations during one or more tours. The cost of the war in dollars should also be of concern to everyone who cares about this and future generations of Americans.

Mr. Reagan also contends that the dems want our "defeat" in Iraq in order to make Mr. Bush look like a failure. I contend Mr. Bush has been doing quite a good job of that for the last seven years without their help. Just perhaps, they want to remove our troops in a timely fashion because that's what the American people elected them to do.

[p.a]

I think it's important to consider all the possible reasons the violence has subsided in Iraq. Our troops certainly deserve their share of credit but perhaps we also have to give credit to Iran and Syria for making more of an effort as selfish as it may be to reduce the numbers of arms and combatants crossing their borders. Another factor that may be lessening the death and destruction is that ethnic cleansing and/or segregation is on it's way to being accomplished. The Shites, Sunnis and Kurds have established their own somewhat safe havens and have taken it upon themselves to protect those areas not only from each other but Al Qaeda as well. Many of the Iraqis that envisioned a unified and democratic Iraq, (professionals, intellectuals, etc.), have either been killed or have escaped to neighboring countries.

I also contend that having elections and establishing a government does not make a democracy. A democracy is more than "majority rules", it requires tolerance and acceptance of all it's citizens and their views, religous beliefs, etc. I don't see that in this region where these different factions have been warring off and on for a couple thousand years. You only have to look as far as the Gaza Strip to see how well elections worked for the Hamas and Fatahs. To quote Thomas Friedman, "until these people start loving their children more than they hate their enemies" I see little hope for peace and stability in Iraq. Successful democracies aren't created from outside influences, they are created from within.

I think it's quite unfair of Mr. Reagan to suggest Ms. Pelosi and other dems aren't "bothered" by the sacrifice of our troops in this war. One could argue that they are bothered so much that they want to stop the death and maiming. The 3000 plus troop casualties doesn't include the thousands of suicide deaths attributed to the mental anguish resulting from being placed in combat situations during one or more tours. The cost of the war in dollars should also be of concern to everyone who cares about this and future generations of Americans.

Mr. Reagan also contends that the dems want our "defeat" in Iraq in order to make Mr. Bush look like a failure. I contend Mr. Bush has been doing quite a good job of that for the last seven years without their help. Just perhaps, they want to remove our troops in a timely fashion because that's what the American people elected them to do.:55 :55 :55

[p.a]

Another reason for the lull in violence could be that the terrorist and insurgents can't match our economic and logistic capacity. After all they are not backed by a super power. They may have to ration there efforts. Pick there battles and replenish there ranks from time to time. This still does not solve the issue of Sunnis, Shites, Kurds and other factions excepting each others as equals. The basic issue still stands. An Iraqi government that can govern an all inclusive Iraq, and an Iraq that can defend itself without intervention from outside influences. Winning in Iraq may be possible but it will take decades, thousands of lives, and billions if not trillions of dollars.

[Iwantutowantme]

Another reason for the lull in violence could be that the terrorist and insurgents can't match our economic and logistic capacity. After all they are not backed by a super power. They may have to ration there efforts. Pick there battles and replenish there ranks from time to time. This still does not solve the issue of Sunnis, Shites, Kurds and other factions excepting each others as equals. The basic issue still stands. An Iraqi government that can govern an all inclusive Iraq, and an Iraq that can defend itself without intervention from outside influences. Winning in Iraq may be possible but it will take decades, thousands of lives, and billions if not trillions of dollars.


***************
The war in Iraq was being prepared for before 911. It was a policy that Bush II had in place, and created propaganda, etc, to get his (and the global corporate elite's ) war for permanet bases in Iraq as well as control of their oil flow, at the same time using a major credit card for financing it. China, Japan and Europe are flipping the major part of the financing for the wars. The US taxpayers simply have to pay the final tab that they are running up.. In the meantime the scandalous corporations are taking their profits to the 'bank'. Democracy was never an issue. Terrorism was never an issue. They were simply a blanket covering up what is really going on. Bush II has been walking all over the constitution and could care less about the US taxpayers. Democracy is this administrations least concern. Their loyalty is with the wealthy corporate elite and themselves.

It is nice to help other countries, but if your own economy sputters in the process because of it, then something is seriously wrong. Do the US citizens really think it is a good idea to help other countries become democratic when our own democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece and our economy on the ropes?

There was NO intention of leaving Iraq on the part of this administration. The small progress that has been acheived in Bagdad is a pittance of what really could have been accomplished if this administration and those that control it really wanted to have a so called VICTORY in Iraq from the beginning. The plan started with Bremer, dismatling the buisnesses in Iraq, and disbanding the standing Iraqi Army so there would be no possiblity of a stable Iraq. Keeping electricity and other necessities as a minimum, this administration could keep a thumb on the Iraqis. Allowing terrorist training camps to continue in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and elsewhere will allow this 'war' to continue forever. You can take that to the bank.... However if China, Japan and Europe desides not to buy our worthless Tbills and no longer help finance this 'corporate' war in Iraq and Afganistan, then we will HAVE to bring our troops back because the corporate elite will not have their oil for blood money coming in anymore. The US is not only on the brink of a 'recession' it is going to be much worse than that if things continue as they have been.

[p.a]

You get no argument from me

[oldandnaked]

***************
The war in Iraq was being prepared for before 911. It was a policy that Bush II had in place, and created propaganda, etc, to get his (and the global corporate elite's ) war for permanet bases in Iraq as well as control of their oil flow, at the same time using a major credit card for financing it. China, Japan and Europe are flipping the major part of the financing for the wars. The US taxpayers simply have to pay the final tab that they are running up.. In the meantime the scandalous corporations are taking their profits to the 'bank'. Democracy was never an issue. Terrorism was never an issue. They were simply a blanket covering up what is really going on. Bush II has been walking all over the constitution and could care less about the US taxpayers. Democracy is this administrations least concern. Their loyalty is with the wealthy corporate elite and themselves.

It is nice to help other countries, but if your own economy sputters in the process because of it, then something is seriously wrong. Do the US citizens really think it is a good idea to help other countries become democratic when our own democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece and our economy on the ropes?

There was NO intention of leaving Iraq on the part of this administration. The small progress that has been acheived in Bagdad is a pittance of what really could have been accomplished if this administration and those that control it really wanted to have a so called VICTORY in Iraq from the beginning. The plan started with Bremer, dismatling the buisnesses in Iraq, and disbanding the standing Iraqi Army so there would be no possiblity of a stable Iraq. Keeping electricity and other necessities as a minimum, this administration could keep a thumb on the Iraqis. Allowing terrorist training camps to continue in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and elsewhere will allow this 'war' to continue forever. You can take that to the bank.... However if China, Japan and Europe desides not to buy our worthless Tbills and no longer help finance this 'corporate' war in Iraq and Afganistan, then we will HAVE to bring our troops back because the corporate elite will not have their oil for blood money coming in anymore. The US is not only on the brink of a 'recession' it is going to be much worse than that if things continue as they have been.

I consider much of what you say to be true. Although I agree with your assessment of the Bush administrations methods and motivation for starting this war, I think that you're giving them way too much credit when you imply that things are going as they anticipated. I think the civil unrest and lack of oil production due to sabatoge, theft and corruption is not something they designed or even expected. I also believe the dismantling of the Iraqi army and allowing the destruction of the country's infrastructure was done more out of ignorance and incompetence than being some part of a master plan.

It really doesn't really matter if either of us is right on how or why the events that have occurred there unfolded, what's important is that they have and I unfortunately have to agree with you on how this major mess is going to effect our economy and our way of life.