The silence from the oM and the MsM LEFTIES regarding this cumulative victory isn’t surprising. But it does reveal their gross hypocrisy and dishonesty regarding any claims of integrity. Iraq is on the verge of tasting true freedom. They are on the verge of being free from internal terrorism (Saddam type tyrants and murderers) and external terrorism (Al Qaeda and like minded murderous terrorists) that has besieged these people for 3 decades and the oM and MsM can’t stand it because they ultimately will be forced to recognized it is due to the intervention by George W. Bush. Who cares? These people are gaining freedom from decades of terrorism internally and externally, and that is cause for reporting it and celebrating it. Shame on these LEFTY LACKEYS!

I think you are correct, everyone will agree that ousting Al Qaeda in Iraq is a good thing. But Al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq before we got there, so this is really a return to the previous status quo.
Haven’t the growing influence of Iran and the sectarian tensions been the real issues all along? While the surge reduced violence it doesn’t seem like there’s a solution to the political problems.

If Al Queada in Iraq is finally leaving, that’s wonderful, but the important point to remember is that the biggest winner in this war appears to have been Iran. It’s a bit like when we armed and aided Bin Laden- those unintended consequences can be very nasty, and last a long time.
Michele, I hate to be the one to break the news to you. Senator Reid is not running for commander in chief.
It appears to be two people , named Obama and McCain.
And thank you , Mr. Thomas, for your wonderful satire- it is satire, isn’t it? So hard to tell these days.

I think you are correct, everyone will agree that ousting Al Qaeda in Iraq is a good thing. But Al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq before we got there, so this is really a return to the previous status quo.
Posted by: MH | July 6, 2008 1:22 PM
_____________________________________________________
Your historical claim is bizzare to say the least. The previous “status quo” was Saddam systematically MURDERING thousands of people at a time until it reached in an estimated 500,000 citizens murdered, millions tortured (meaning beaten, women raped, men raped, limbs cut off, castration, electrocution, and the most atrocious forms of psychological torture imaginable) and so on) and millions having their lives essential decimated.
Historically there were tensions but often resolvable tensions and certainly not anything even remotely close to the brutality and tyrany of Saddam and his sons.
Iraq’s government is very young. The benefits and by-products of the kind of freedom people need to advance and stabilize as a nation are JUST NOW being experienced. When a majority begin to experience this benefit unlike anytime in their history, we will see a very different Iraq as even now we are seeing and the oM and MsM refuse to visit in their reports.
But to say it is the “previous status quo” is mind boggling. My guess is you really have not exposed yourself to the reality of the conditions during Saddam’s regime or such claims of “previous status quo” would be abandoned with embarrassment.

what is the real truth? righties want it both ways.
iraq had no al qaeda before bush destabilized the country and created a breeding ground for terrorism in the most fertile area for it. what RIGHTIES are willing to admit that?
there was no immediate threat of a mushroom cloud! shame on the warmongering righties for pushing that fantasy in the past and still today.
while they like to use the excuse of saddam’s murderous ways today as the reason for our invasion, they were sadly silent for the TWO DECADES after rumsfeld shook hands with saddam while reagan armed him and partnered with him to wage our proxy war against iran, just as they are sadly silent on what is happening in africa today. yes, let’s talk about “hypocrisy and dishonesty.”
no way will we take lectures from sanctimonious syncophants like you.
if it weren’t for the media that you criticize (even in the shadow of this report), you would have little to no knowledge of what’s going on over there. and your preconceived notion that the media has a liberal bias and that liberals are pro-terrorist reveals what an ideological idiot truly you are.
“We need someone like Bush who will withstand the pressure to retreat until he has obtained victory by defeating our enemies.”
don’t forget that it was bush who retreated from tora bora. where’s your outrage for our president who cut and run from the true enemy only to be distracted by his personal interests in iraq? don’t forget that it was bush who dropped the ball on terrorism in 2000 and 2001 that led to the worst terrorist attack on our country. don’t forget that it was bush who destroyed iraq and destabilized it and allowed insurgents to sack the country, kill tens of thousands of civilians, and pillage their artifacts and treasures. righties silence there and the constant finger-pointing elsewhere is not surprising.
forgive us if we’re dubious to become cheerleaders for the war in iraq, but we’ve been misled many times before. weeks turned into months, months were extended to years, then a decade, and mccain is now talking centuries. the war was supposed to pay for itself with iraqi oil. now, the infrastructure is gutted. the government is weak and not trusted by its own people (they think it’s a puppet government of the united states). how many of the political goals have they realistically met during this “quiet” time? it’s time for us to get out of the way so that they can step up and fill the role. but wait, what’s this? this is awesome news from the times:

Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq’s prime minister, who has also led a crackdown on the Shi’ite Mahdi Army in Basra and Baghdad in recent months, claimed yesterday that his government had “defeated” terrorism. “They were intending to besiege Baghdad and control it,” Maliki said. “But thanks to the will of the tribes, security forces, army and all Iraqis, we defeated them.”

perfect. al maliki has things under control. his army and security forces have defeated terrorism. time to pack up and come home. oh, but not too hasty! if we leave now, the mighty iraqi army will collapse and our axis of evil enemy du jour will fill the void. warmongers, cheerleaders and profiteers want it both ways.

And thank you , Mr. Thomas, for your wonderful satire- it is satire, isn’t it? So hard to tell these days.
Posted by: RG | July 6, 2008 1:59 PM
____________________________________________________
Well, with The Obamanation as your candidate I can understand your inability to distinguish satire from reality.

what is the real truth? righties want it both ways.
iraq had no al qaeda before bush destabilized the country and created a breeding ground for terrorism in the most fertile area for it. what RIGHTIES are willing to admit that?
Posted by: anonymous reincarnate | July 6, 2008 2:17 PM
______________________________________________________________
WRONG…as usual. While war always results in a temporary period of destabilization, those adhering to and sympathetic to Al Qaeda’s doctrine WERE present in Iraq. Saddam’s ability to squelch such opposition was successful as a terrorist himself. Even terrorist can be rule by other terrorist. However, these allegiants and sympathizers that eventually enlisted with AQ are now decimated as have been reported. So claiming the ground became fertile and that is why suddenly and magically AQ appears is not just naive but historically ignorant. To their credit the terrorist did recognize a possible opportunity but so do looters when there is a conflict such as LA. But the AUTHORITIES have shown up and once again established stability, this time a far different stability with roots in democracy. I know, you LEFTY crybabies want PERFECTION and so any slight flaw or difficulty you cry foul and say it isn’t working…typical.

Oh- I was mistaken. Mr. Thomas’ post is not satire. He is just an idiot. A verbose one.
Thank you for the correction.

____________________________________________________________________________
Post #1
http://blog.beliefnet.com/reformedchicksblabbing/2008/07/obamai-was-a-little-puzzled-by.html#preview
Fine, Mr. Thomas. All you said was that Obama won’t win, and that the media will be as surprised as I will be. I guess we’ll all know in November. But can you try talking like a grown-up?
Post #2
http://blog.beliefnet.com/reformedchicksblabbing/2008/07/ap-and-they-wonder-who-or-what.html#comments
Posted by: RG | July 6, 2008 2:36 PM
Oh- I was mistaken. Mr. Thomas’ post is not satire. He is just an idiot. A verbose one.
Thank you for the correction.
Posted by: RG | July 6, 2008 2:52 PM
______________________________________________________________________________
For those of you new to the world of social, political and religious debate, please feel welcomed to my class, Libspeak 101.
Here we have a poster who uses the name RG. RG is a LEFTY or as some say LIB. RG the Lefty Lib (redundant but fitting) in post #1 is complaining that I am not talking like a “grown-up” when he asks if I can “try” talking like a grown-up. Of course this would mean by default that RG considers himself a grown-up and he is above this and expects everyone else to be.
Now let’s look at post #2. Ah yes, even my newest students have already caught on no doubt. RG speaks, of course, quite contrary to the very standard he expects from me and obviously others. In post #2. he refers to me with the name calling label of “idiot” while, as we have seen, in post #1 he pretends to be offended by non-adult talk.
You see class, a LIB and a LEFTY are not just prone to this contradiction in what they say and do but it is inherent in their philosophy. Hence it is something they cannot help or hide no matter how hard they try. Their’s is, “do as I say not as I do”.
Just think of the “eco-nazis” who are perpetrating the myth of Anthropocentric Global Warmingism. They live lives not just contrary but extraordinarily contrary to the sermons they preach to the masses. And this is but one example of LEFTY LIB hypocrisy.
However, most often you will encounter it on a smaller scale such as in a debate, like here. And so now class, you see RG, the LEFTY LIB insisting someone else try and talk like a grown-up while RG himself engages in juvenile name calling.
Okay class, your homework will be to practice identifying 5 small scale and 5 large scale occurrences of typical libspeak. Class dismissed.

RG, name calling is the last refuge of somebody with no ideas. The fact is that you can’t refute even a single one of Guy’s arguments.

Guy Arthur Thomas, the previous status quo was with respect to Al Queda’s presence in Iraq.
Yes Sadam was bad, but the claimed reasons for the war were weapons of mass destruction and the war on terror in which Al Queda was the identified enemy. The claim was the safety and security of the US was threatened which justified US military force. If the war was for humanitarian reasons, then President Bush should have asked Congress for the authorization of force on that basis. Frankly I don’t think he would have gotten it, but at least that as a justification would be discussed and it wouldn’t feel like it was added later when the other reasons proved incorrect.
Also, I don’t really know if Iraq is getting better. The recent Pentagon report was glass half full while the GAO report was glass half empty, so who knows what Iraq will be like in a year or two. Who knows how the situation with Iran will play out.

“I think you are correct, everyone will agree that ousting Al Qaeda in Iraq is a good thing. But Al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq before we got there, so this is really a return to the previous status quo.”
If that’s the case, aren’t you glad they went there to fight us then? That way we could demonstrate that they could be defeated which is pretty big in a shame based society.
“Haven’t the growing influence of Iran and the sectarian tensions been the real issues all along? While the surge reduced violence it doesn’t seem like there’s a solution to the political problems.”
Sorry but you are behind in your talking points, they have met most of the political benchmarks. Who do you think is leading the attacks against not only al Qaeda but the Mahdi army.

Michele, I don’t think you quite are getting the point.
Al Qaeda was in Iraq BECAUSE we were there. They didn’t go to Iraq UNTIL we were there. We didn’t go there to fight Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda went there to fight US.
If the point was to shame them, wouldn’t it have worked better if we went where THEY were, so that we could show A. That we can can FIND them, B. that we can beat them, and C. That we don’t need to blow the heck out of a third party nation in order to do it?
What we taught them was how to bankrupt us. You do know that Bin Laden actually put out a tape to that effect. That he was yanking our chain, pulling our strings. Just send a few people over here, and we’ll go there and fight, move them somewhere else, and we follow, and he’d economically bleed us dry in the process.

It is funny that Thomas and ZZ accuse others of name calling. Look at their posts,and their tone.
I would answer the arguments, but it’s hard to find them amidst the verbosity in the best Limbaugh-Coulter style. I don’t read those parts carefully, I confess. They are boring and we’ve all heard them from others for years now.
The fact is that nobody answered my argument either. Which was that Iran is the real winner of this war, thanks to the completely inept running of the occupation. the Bush administration has shown itself to be completely unable to govern competently, which is why Obama will win in November. Is Obama perfect? I don’t believe so, be will be willing to look at facts and govern in a pragmatic fashion, which is a lot more than the Bush administration has done.
Flame away, if it makes you feel better. I do not care for the approval of people who support an openly corrupt and incompetant administration.

“WRONG…as usual. While war always results in a temporary period of destabilization, those adhering to and sympathetic to Al Qaeda’s doctrine WERE present in Iraq. Saddam’s ability to squelch such opposition was successful as a terrorist himself. Even terrorist can be rule by other terrorist. However, these allegiants and sympathizers that eventually enlisted with AQ are now decimated as have been reported. So claiming the ground became fertile and that is why suddenly and magically AQ appears is not just naive but historically ignorant.”
yes, wrong you are. i hate to break it to you, but the guy that made the same claims that you desperately cling to has long been gone from the bush administration. yes, your buddy rummy made these claims and had no evidence of al qaeda in iraq prior to the u.s. invasion. now, if you’re referring to al-tawhid led by al-zarqawi, yes he was in northern iraq for about a year before we invaded, but his group was not tied to al qaeda and even competed against al qaeda before we gave them a common purpose. intelligence groups from several countries have confirmed this, along with the fact that saddam himself was trying to capture al-zarqawi.
mr. thomas needs to be schooled before his next preschool class resumes. i suggest that he reads up here before spreading debunked rumors and neocon propaganda. they’ve done a lot of legwork for you (complete with references), so you only need to be able to read. good luck, guy.
“Sorry but you are behind in your talking points, they have met most of the political benchmarks.”
check your facts, michele. more than half have been put into legislation, but less than a third have been enacted in real practice. for the white house to say that 15 of 18 benchmarks are “satisfactory” is just a little too good to be true. after all, it’s the constant overly optimistic assessment of iraq from the white house that causes people to ignore him now. if you’re still taking your talking points from the white house (or their propaganda outlets like fox news), then you’re sadly misinformed!

Michele McGinty : “If that’s the case, aren’t you glad they went there to fight us then? That way we could demonstrate that they could be defeated which is pretty big in a shame based society.”
Here I have to agree with you. The Suni Arabs turning against Al Qeuda is a win since it dimishes Al Queda in the eyes of other Muslims. That might happend in Afganistan too, but since it happend in Iraq first I’ll concede this point.
Michele McGinty : “Sorry but you are behind in your talking points, they have met most of the political benchmarks. Who do you think is leading the attacks against not only al Qaeda but the Mahdi army.”
The progress against the political benchmarks is up for debate. The Pentagon says one thing while the GAO says another. Knowing how large bureaucracies work I’d be less willing to trust the Pentagon report because no one likes to give his boss bad news.

“That might happend in Afganistan too, but since it happend in Iraq first I’ll concede this point.”
The fact that the Taliban along with al Qaeda was ousted from power in days not months and years as everyone thought and they were forced into hiding shows that we did do it in Afghanistan.

“The fact that the Taliban along with al Qaeda was ousted from power in days not months and years as everyone thought and they were forced into hiding shows that we did do it in Afghanistan.”
We had a quick military victory in Iraq too, but Al Queda took root afterwards. So I think it is more complicated then that. It seems like it is a question of how much support they have in the local population.
I think the bombing outside the Indian embassy in Afghanistan today shows there is still support for Al Qaeda there. Which is pretty unfortunate.