Harry Reid: Iraq War Is Lost

video, two year ago

It's a good thing we didn't have Dem's in charge back then...

Blooming Iraq to stage first flower festival

Just thought you might want to read a story showing what happens when you have convictions and actually DO something.
I know other people might have cared about Iraq more, but Bush actually DID it, and you see the benefits.
Now think what would have happened if we would have listened to all the Dems who said the war was lost, that America lost.

Obama flies to Iraq, tells cheering US troops it's time for Iraqis to run their own country

See, I can agree with this...
As long as there are goals and objectives that are met and not simply a timetable and deadline than this is fine.
Hum...I think I remember the exact same language and plan from someone else...give me a minute and it will come to me...

ABC, CBS, NBC SKIP REPORT OF BENCHMARKS MET IN IRAQ

We already know the media and Dems see issues the same way.
They are not excited about a story regarding Iraq unless it is negative.

Good news for our military and country, bad news for liberals and their media

Only ABC Airs Full Story on Good Iraq News, NBC Can't Resist Caveat

The Pentagon on Monday released a quarterly report showing dramatic reductions in violence in Iraq compared to a year earlier, but only ABC aired a full story Monday evening while NBC gave it short-shrift as anchor Brian Williams cited the reduction in violence “by as much as 80 percent” since “before the so-called troop surge.” He then added a caveat about how the report “also warns the positive trend here remains, quote, 'fragile, reversible and uneven.'” CBS didn't mention the Department of Defense report, but gave a few seconds to a front page USA Today story on how the number of Americans killed by roadside bombs has plummeted 88 percent from a year ago.

BUSH'S AMERICA: 100 PERCENT AL-QAIDA FREE SINCE 2001

so so perfect:

In a conversation recently, I mentioned as an aside what a great president George Bush has been and my friend was surprised. I was surprised that he was surprised. I generally don't write columns about the manifestly obvious, but, yes, the man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents. Produce one person who believed, on Sept. 12, 2001, that there would not be another attack for seven years, and I'll consider downgrading Bush from "Great" to "Really Good." Merely taking out Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons Uday and Qusay (Hussein family slogan: "We're the Rape Room People!") constitutes a greater humanitarian accomplishment than anything Bill Clinton ever did -- and I'm including remembering Monica's name on the sixth sexual encounter. But unlike liberals, who are so anxious to send American troops to Rwanda or Darfur, Republicans oppose deploying U.S. troops for purely humanitarian purposes. We invaded Iraq to protect America. It is unquestionable that Bush has made this country safe by keeping Islamic lunatics pinned down fighting our troops in Iraq. In the past few years, our brave troops have killed more than 20,000 al-Qaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq alone. That's 20,000 terrorists who will never board a plane headed for JFK -- or a landmark building, for that matter. We are, in fact, fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them at, say, the corner of 72nd and Columbus in Manhattan -- the mere mention of which never fails to enrage liberals, which is why you should say it as often as possible. The Iraq war has been a stunning success. The Iraqi army is "standing up" (as they say), fat Muqtada al-Sadr --the Dr. Phil of Islamofascist radicalism -- has waddled off in retreat to Iran, and Sadr City and Basra are no longer war zones. Our servicemen must be baffled by the constant nay-saying coming from their own country. The Iraqis have a democracy -- a miracle on the order of flush toilets in that godforsaken region of the world. Despite its newness, Iraq's democracy appears to be no more dysfunctional than one that would condemn a man who has kept the nation safe for seven years while deifying a man who has accomplished absolutely nothing in his entire life except to give speeches about "change." (Guess what Bill Clinton's campaign theme was in 1992? You are wrong if you guessed: "bringing dignity back to the White House." It was "change." In January 1992, James Carville told Steve Daley of The Chicago Tribune that it had gotten to the point that the press was complaining about Clinton's "constant talk of change.") Monthly casualties in Iraq now come in slightly lower than a weekend with Anna Nicole Smith. According to a CNN report last week, for the entire month of May, there were only 19 troop deaths in Iraq. (Last year, five people on average were shot every day in Chicago.) With Iraqi deaths at an all-time low, Iraq is safer than Detroit -- although the Middle Eastern food is still better in Detroit. Al-Qaida is virtually destroyed, surprising even the CIA. Two weeks ago, The Washington Post reported: "Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaida, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border." It's almost as if there's been some sort of "surge" going on, as strange as that sounds. Just this week, The New York Times reported that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups in Southeast Asia have all but disappeared, starved of money and support. The U.S. and Australia have been working closely with the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, sending them counterterrorism equipment and personnel. But no one notices when 9/11 doesn't happen. Indeed, if we had somehow stopped the 9/11 attack, we'd all be watching Mohammed Atta being interviewed on MSNBC, explaining his lawsuit against the Bush administration. Maureen Dowd would be writing columns describing Khalid Sheik Mohammed as a "wannabe" terrorist being treated like Genghis Khan by an excitable Bush administration. We begin to forget what it was like to turn on the TV, see a tornado, a car chase or another Pamela Anderson marriage and think: Good -- another day without a terrorist attack. But liberals have only blind hatred for Bush -- and for those brute American interrogators who do not supply extra helpings of béarnaise sauce to the little darlings at Guantanamo with sufficient alacrity. The sheer repetition of lies about Bush is wearing people down. There is not a liberal in this country worthy of kissing Bush's rear end, but the weakest members of the herd run from Bush. Compared to the lickspittles denying and attacking him, Bush is a moral giant -- if that's not damning with faint praise. John McCain should be so lucky as to be running for Bush's third term. Then he might have a chance.

Liberals WANT the American people to think the war in Iraq is a failure, when it is clear to anyone actually associated with the Iraq war that it is now a huge, huge success. I am open to the fact that the USA can do good in the middle east as opposed to libeals, who want and need us to lose in Iraq.
Sorry liberals, things are going GREAT there...thanks to GWB.

Fewer U.S. Dead = Less TV Coverage of Iraq

One year ago, liberal journalists depicted the surge of U.S. troops to Iraq as a certain failure. “A lot of people are going to go to bed tonight terrified,” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews opined just minutes after President Bush announced the policy on January 10, 2007. Other journalists were only slightly more subtle. “Many experts warn, it’s too little, too late,” NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski argued on the January 8, 2007 Nightly News. The next morning on NBC’s Today, the network’s graphic describing Iraq was “Lost Cause?”
At the same time, leading Democrats left themselves no wiggle room as they, too, denounced the surge. Senator Barack Obama called it “wrong-headed” and countered with a proposal to pull nearly all U.S. troops out of Iraq by March 2008. Senator Hillary Clinton came back from a quick trip to Iraq to declare: “I am opposed to this escalation,” while another Democratic candidate, Senator Joe Biden, blasted the troop surge as “a tragic mistake.”

That right there should make you question Dems ability to understand and make correct decisions when it comes to the war on terror. They simply don't get it...we do not need them to turn Iraq into Vietnam

In a safer Baghdad, Iraqis party for 2008

I'm sure the Iraqis are very, very happy that GWB is in charge and not someone like Harry Reid.
Iraqis should make campaign ads for whomever the Republican is, otherwise they are going to get someone who will abandon them.

As Democrats See Iraq Gains, a Shift in Tone

As violence declines in Baghdad, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are undertaking a new and challenging balancing act on Iraq: acknowledging that success, trying to shift the focus to the lack of political progress there, and highlighting more domestic concerns like health care and the economy.

Dems are having a problem because the US military is doing well.
They took the hard line that Iraq was a failure ran with it.
Now they have to "change their stance."
Doesn't it seem to be interesting when the candidates on one side have to change a fundamental policy.
Dems...stick to what you believe in. Iraq is a failure and we need to get out. Don't change because you are wrong, don't change because you know the polls are going to start changing.

US reports ‘phenomenal’ drop in Iraq violence

Here is something EVERY American SHOULD be thankful for...
Actually, the entire free world should be thankful and thanking US

Progress in Iraq

New York Times Reporting: People moving with freedom around much of Baghdad; Commerce returning, even liquor stores are reopening... Developing...

See, sometimes hard work can pay off. Sticking to something, believing in something and doing what it takes to succeed.
Yes, it is hard.
Yes, it might not always look good.
Yes, you can't be discouraged when you have a set back.
Yes, you can't give into special interest groups and changing poll data.

With Dems in charge, you get troops out and chaos in the middle east. You get terrorist safe and able to plan another attack like they were able to do over and over in the 1990's and early 2000's.
Things have changed, and they have changed for the better.
In November 2008, I guess you can vote for the easy way out, to give up with things get hard, to declare defeat quickly, to hope terrorist like us, to take tax payer money the throw it at the problem because that is easier than actually admitting what the problems are...

Christians, Muslims erect cross in Baghdad

"I photographed men and women, both Christians and Muslims, placing a cross atop the St. John's Church in Baghdad. They had taken the cross from storage and a man washed it before carrying it up to the dome. A Muslim man had invited the American soldiers from 'Chosen' Company 2-12 Cavalry to the church, where I videotaped as Muslims and Christians worked and rejoiced at the reopening of St John's, an occasion all viewed as a sign of hope. The Iraqis asked me to convey a message of thanks to the American people. 'Thank you, thank you,' the people were saying. One man said, 'Thank you for peace.' Another man, a Muslim, said 'All the people, all the people in Iraq, Muslim and Christian, is brother.' The men and women were holding bells, and for the first time in memory freedom rang over the ravaged land between two rivers.

And the Dem response to the war in Iraq:

"We have lost the war"

"We have failed"

"It is too hard"

"Lets give up"

"No one wants us there"

Why in the hell would you want these type of thinkers running the military?

Libs, stick to your religion...global warming.

Violence in Iraq drops sharply: Ministry

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Violence in Iraq has dropped by 70 percent since the end of June, when U.S. forces completed their build-up of 30,000 extra troops to stabilize the war-torn country, the Interior Ministry said on Monday.

I know that it is very important to Dems that the war in Iraq is a failure, no matter what the actual facts are...
So for the people who are happy and excited to hear good news about our country, here ya go.
For those who need us to fail to gain more power, sorry for the bad news.

I know you guys are trying to create trouble...Nanci has to try and pass resolutions about things that happened 90 years ago, getting Turkey upset...
So, while Bush's plans cause a 70% reduction in violence, Democrat leadership causes this:
Turkish Troops, Weapons Head Toward Iraq

Dem's think the world would be a better place if we lost in Iraq

A fox news poll says that 38% of Democrats either think the if the US lost the war the world would be a better place or they "don't know."
Well, its nice to see that only 13% of conservatives think that or "don't know."

As my friend Kevin pointed out:
"We are not supposed to question their patriotism"
"How about their sanity"

HT Kevin Fisher

Dem's promises on the war

I heard a sound bite this morning from Obama saying he would get the troops out.......by 2013 (which is what all politicians do, promise something one year after their term). What do you think about that liberals? You should be soooooooooooo mad at Obama.

FROM THE HALLS OF MALIBU TO THE SHORES OF KENNEDY

Democrats claim Gen. David Petraeus' report to Congress on the surge was a put-up job with a pre-ordained conclusion. As if their response wasn't.

Democrats yearn for America to be defeated on the battlefield and oppose any use of the military -- except when they can find individual malcontents in the military willing to denounce the war and call for a humiliating retreat. It's been the same naysaying from these people since before we even invaded Iraq -- despite the fact that their representatives in Congress voted in favor of that war.

Mark Bowden, author of "Black Hawk Down," warned Americans in the Aug. 30, 2002, Los Angeles Times of 60,000 to 100,000 dead American troops if we invaded Iraq -- comparing an Iraq war to Vietnam and a Russian battle in Chechnya. He said Iraqis would fight the Americans "tenaciously" and raised the prospect of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction against our troops, an attack on Israel "and possibly in the United States."

On Sept. 14, 2002, The New York Times' Frank Rich warned of another al-Qaida attack in the U.S. if we invaded Iraq, noting that since "major al-Qaida attacks are planned well in advance and have historically been separated by intervals of 12 to 24 months, we will find out how much we've been distracted soon enough." This week makes it six years since a major al-Qaida attack. I guess we weren't distracted. But it looks like al-Qaida has been.

We took Baghdad in about 17 days flat with amazingly few casualties. There were no al-Qaida attacks in America, no attacks on Israel, no invasion by Turkey, no attacks on our troops with chemical weapons, no ayatollahs running Iraq. We didn't turn our back on the Kurds. There were certainly not 100,000 dead American troops.

But liberals soon began raising yet more pointless quibbles. For most of 2003, they said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Saddam Hussein. Then we captured Saddam, and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean complained that "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer."

The Democrats' current talking point is that "there can be no military solution in Iraq without a political solution." But back when we were imposing a political solution, Democrats' talking point was that there could be no political solution without a military solution.

They said the first Iraqi election, scheduled for January 2005, wouldn't happen because there was no "security."

And then, as scheduled, in January 2005, millions of citizens in a country that has never had a free election risked their lives to cast ballots in a free democratic election. They've voted twice more since then.

Now our forces are killing lots of al-Qaida jihadists, preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and giving democracy in Iraq a chance -- and Democrats say we are "losing" this war. I think that's a direct quote from their leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, but it may have been the Osama bin Laden tape released this week. I always get those two confused.

OK, they knew what Petraeus was going to say. But we knew what the Democrats were going to say. If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid.

PERFECT!!! The left is the party of the defeatists, the party that can not and will not be happy with anything that happens in Iraq. They set one standard for success, we meet it. Then the bar changes again and again. Liberal arguments about the war are pathetic and ever changing. This column is a grand slam.

Petraeus speaks

I'll give the links and the liberal response:
Petraeus Talks of Troop Withdrawal
Well, liberals want troop withdrawal, but since Patraeus is a puppet for Bush, a troop withdrawal must be bad.

Iran fighting 'proxy war in Iraq'...
How can that be? I thought the Iraqis were fighting us? Why would Iran fight us?
Military objectives of surge 'are in large measure being met'...
Premature drawdown would be 'devastating'...
Believes U.S. can reduce forces to pre-surge levels by next summer -- to about 130,000 troops... MORE...
PETRAEUS TESTIMONY...
CROCKER TESTIMONY...
SLIDES [PDF]...
Surge to peak at 172,000 in mid-October...
Hearing starts with Democratic criticism...
CINDY SHEEHAN ARRESTED AT HEARING...
VIDEO: CODE PINK PROTESTERS ESCORTED OUT...

Actually we can sum this up....The surge and Bush are doing a good job, the only thing that can defeat us is the Democratic Party. Let the people who know what they are talking about run this, you stick to gay marriage and ID cards for illegals. All the people on the ground say the surge is working, I know Democrats are sad to see us doing well, but facts are facts.
They also say getting out early will be a disaster. That doesn't bother Democrats since they killed millions in Vietnam and didn't care about that.
Why are these crazy women protesting?
What are they protesting?
That someone who has a clue is giving a report?
Once again, Bush and the Right are Right, liberals and Democrats ideas, destructive for the whole world.
Now, these are facts given by Petraeus and others who have a clue...the liberals here can type sentences that SAY Republicans destroy things, but they can never back it up with anything.
Here are 12 links of facts.

Dems already dismissing Iraq war report

It is not hard to figure the Dem's out.
They will say whatever it takes to gain power.
They vote in someone to write a report, they fund it, then they don't like what he might say, so they trash it. They don't want anyone to know the good things that are happening in Iraq...that is GOOD for the United States. Obviously Democrats are not interested in anything good being said about our military or President. They are invested in us loosing, I told you they would do this, and once again, I was right.

I predicted it weeks ago

Couric: 'Real Progress' In Iraq

link
So, when can the liberals here at least have the intellectual honesty to admit the surge has done some good. You have liberal news anchors saying it is working. Republican congressmen who have been to Iraq, Democrats who have been to Iraq, anyone who has been to Iraq lately.
The only ones still trashing it are:
1. Democrats who have not been there and are so partisan they will NEVER say anything Bush does is successful.
2. Moonbat liberal bloggers who can't know how things are going in Iraq sitting in their mothhers basements.
3. People who lie about who they are and what they have done in Iraq and make up stories to sell the liberal agenda.

You can still say the war was unjust, you can still say we will never meet the objective of making Iraq a secure Democratic country. However, if you want to be seen as having integrity, as having some honestly, you have to admit when something has worked. Otherwise you are simply a partisan hack.

Only liberals can beat us in the war on terror.

Don't let the liberal hippies kill like they did in Vietnam. The only ones who can defeat the US are the liberals and the liberal media.

Way to go Bush:

"One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people', 're-education camps' and 'killing fields'."