posted on July 30, 2007 10:47:01 PM new
How absolutely hysterical. As we were driving to another town today, Rush Limbaugh was reporting on a VERY ODD NYT op-ed.
Guess what it discussed? That some liberals are now expressing a REVERSE position on the war...saying there MIGHT be a chance the US could actually win the war in Iraq.
Can you believe it? An op-ed in the NYT starting to CHANGE THEIR TUNE?????? Sure sounds like it to me.
HOW funny.
The radical progressives must be going NUTS over that article. LOL LOL LOL
----------------
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Moving on now to the war in Iraq and the column in the New York Times today that everybody who pays attention to this particular issue is talking about.
It's called, "[b]A War We Just Might Win[b]." It's by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack. O'Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution which is a left-leaning think tank. Kenneth Pollack, director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings. So they're both from the Brookings Institution.
"Viewed from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place."
Oh, no, they're not. They are fully and totally aware. That's why they've been pushing to get this report done in July, to believe the interim report rather than wait for the full scheduled report in September. They know what's going on. They know full well what's going on, and they're invested in the opposite. They're invested in defeat. As we've discussed countless times on this award-winning program. They can't allow this, folks.
------------
And then he continues to joke about how he's SURE pelosi's FACE must have cracked a time or two after listening to the new UK PM.
What COULD those liberals be up to? Have they flipped out? Maybe the comments about the facts on the ground are getting harder and harder for the anti=war left to deny.....so now, maybe, they're changing their agenda in order to not be seen as TOTAL IDIOTS by continuing to deny the FACTS - by continuing to SAY the 'surge' is NOT working - when it IS. lol lol lol
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 30, 2007 11:05 PM ]
posted on July 30, 2007 10:52:07 PM new
I'm telling you, Nancy Pelosi face cracked twice today when Gordon Brown praised America as a great leader in defending the rights of free people against terrorism, and now this.
[Same NYT op-ed]
Here's what they say, second paragraph. "Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily 'victory' but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with. After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated -- many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work," and they were no doubt demoralized by the debate going on back here.
"Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference. But for now, things look much better than before.
" American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq). In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. ... How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission?"
" These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008."
========================
Soon the wacko left will be calling these reporters/journalists neo-cons....for also telling the American voters the TRUTH of the situation on the ground in Iraq.....
Truth ALWAYS wins out.
Now, this did not appear in the Washington Times. This did not appear in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. This didn't appear in the Orange County Register. This appeared today in the New York Times. Something puzzling about this, the fact that the Times would run it, I think part of the reason for that is this is something they just aren't going to be able to hide anymore. The idea here that we should not make any plans of getting out of there before the end of 2008, the presidential elections, oh that is going to send chills up and down the spines of Democrats. By the way, there was a story in the Washington Post on Saturday, "US push for Iraq recruits widens." Among the interesting things in the story was this. "The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, called the development of the grass-roots forces the most significant trend in Iraq 'of the last four months or so' and one that could help propel slow-moving efforts at national reconciliation among Iraq's main religious sects and ethnic groups. 'This is a very, very important component of reconciliation because it's happening from the bottom up,' he said in an interview Friday. 'The bottom-up piece is much farther along than any of us would have anticipated a few months back. It's become the focus of a great deal of effort, as there is a sense that this can bear a lot of fruit.'"So on Saturday the Washington Post has a story quoting Petraeus, "The integration of Iraqis into the security force is working from the bottom up." We told you this was happening all of the past two weeks and now this column in the New York Times today which basically says this thing can be won and that the progress is undeniable. This is going to provide a real challenge for the Democrats on Capitol Hill. I'm sure they're up to it. But, by the way, this isn't the only barrage against them in the media. It happened on Chris Matthews' Sunday show yesterday. Wait 'til you hear the audio I have coming up.
==============
And it appears that the Washington POST is also beginning to report the FACTS....rather than their ususal anti-war position.
In addition:
"Then yesterday we had three Drive-By journalists, Kelly O'Donnell of NBC, TIME Magazine's Mike Duffy, and CBS' Gloria Borger on Chris Matthews' Show saying that we can't leave Iraq. We just can't leave. It would be silly. Also, David Ignatius of the Washington Post. There are four Drive-Byers here. We have a montage of their comments regarding leaving Iraq."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gosh, where WILL all this support for CONTINUING in Iraq continue to come from?
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 30, 2007 11:09 PM ]
posted on July 30, 2007 10:59:56 PM new
The full NYT op-ed piece.....for those who can't understand WHY Limbaugh is having such a GREAT time with this....
===
July 30, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
A War We Just Might Win
By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK
Washington
VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.
Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.
Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.
Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.
In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.
In Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.
We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.
But for now, things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).
In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.
In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few “jundis” (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.
The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave.
In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.
These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor.
Another surprise was how well the coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. Although much more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on microloans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.
In some places where we have failed to provide the civilian manpower to fill out the reconstruction teams, the surge has still allowed the military to fashion its own advisory groups from battalion, brigade and division staffs. We talked to dozens of military officers who before the war had known little about governance or business but were now ably immersing themselves in projects to provide the average Iraqi with a decent life.
Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces beyond their control.
In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.
How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.
Michael E. O’Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kenneth M. Pollack is the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings.
================
Their 'mark' of APPROVAL for the war continuing. LOL LOL LOL Along with a few others from the left. FINALLY acknowledging what ALL PRO-American's have been saying for quite a while now.
Maybe REALITY is FINALLY beginning to SINK in.....or maybe, as Limbaugh says, the left KNOW they won't be elected if they continue taking an ANIT/UN-American position in the war....like calling for our surrender/retreat/waving the white flag.
posted on July 31, 2007 12:46:59 AM new
While their so called 'leader' said, when only 1/2 our additional troops were even IN Iraq.....'this war is lost'.
Well.... others are NOW beginning to see that with the FULL number of 'surge' troops in place....it IS impoving.
Such defeatists, such scared leaders from the left....should NEVER be allowed to be CIC of our Nation.
REID was WRONG again. And certainly not willing to give our troops a chance. Nope. They don't have it in them. And they CERTAINLY AREN'T leaders
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Surge IS Working - Much to the dismay of SOME who were hoping WE'D FAIL - who didn't want to even give it a CHANCE. tsk tsk
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 31, 2007 01:56 AM ]
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on July 31, 2007 09:39:12 AM new
just so you don't feel like you're talking to yourself:
This is not 'proof' ~ aside for failing to interpreting the COMPLETE article, you also apparently skipped over this part:
The No. 2 commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, expressed cautious optimism about the downturn last week. He said casualties had increased as U.S. forces expanded operations into militant strongholds as part of a five-month-old security crackdown aimed at clamping off violence in Baghdad, but were going down as Americans gained control of the areas.
"It's an initial positive sign, but I would argue we need a bit more time to make an assessment whether it's a true trend," he said. NOT PROOF, unless of course you claim to has information that the number 2 commander in Iraq does not???
Not to mention this part, which is utterly disgusting:
Critics have questioned how Iraqi legislators could take a summer break while U.S. forces are fighting and dying to create conditions under which important laws could be passed in the service of ending sectarian political divisions and bloodshed. UNACCEPTABLE
