Liberals Will Now Have to Change Their Tune on Iraq
June 2nd, 2008 at 06:13am Mark Noonan
Because now even the French see the success:
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said on Sunday that the security situation in Iraq was improving and reaffirmed France’s willingness to help rebuild the war-ravaged country.
“I have the feeling that things are better. Statistics show a drop in security incidents,” Kouchner told AFP after a working lunch with his Iraqi counterpart Hoshyar Zebari on the last day of his two-day visit to Iraq.
There is “an improvement in the situation in Iraq,” he said.
Kouchner also voiced satisfaction at efforts by the Iraqis to take charge of their own country, saying they were making “progress.”
“The Iraqis themselves, with their army, their administration, are taking charge of their own problems,” Kouchner said.
At the end of the day, it might be that the only people who think we are losing in Iraq are liberal Democrats…
Entry Filed under: War on Terror
25 Comments
1. Pain | June 2nd, 2008 at 7:47 am
The conflict in Iraq for some time has not been about winning or losing but about Truth versus Fiction. Conservatives in America will cling to anyone who supports their view that the illegal invasion of Iraq was done for the good of Terra and thereby is just and should be supported. Now even those whom you denigrated in the past you gleefully hug because they make your support for the war in Iraq seem justified.
Even today these words come from Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in Parliament, “Have further terrorist attacks been prevented? No, they have not been, as the victims of the Madrid train bombing will attest. Has any evidence of a link between weapons of mass destruction and the former Iraqi regime and terrorists been found? No. Have the actions of rogue states like Iran been moderated? No … Iran’s nuclear ambitions remain a fundamental challenge. After five years, has the humanitarian crisis in Iraq been removed? No it has not.”
John Howard, the former Australian PM was thunderstruck at the words of one of his senior ministers who said to the Sydney Morning Herald, But interviews with his highest advisers in the departments of Defence, Foreign Affairs and Prime Minister and Cabinet, and with officials in intelligence agencies reveal the government was fully briefed on the adverse long-term consequences of invading Iraq.
The government was warned of the destabilisation of the Middle East, the requirement for a long-term troop presence in Iraq, the country becoming a focus for extremists, the damage to US prestige and the generation of anti-Western sentiment.
“All that was predictable and I don’t think the benefits of the West going in were worth the cost,” said one senior official, who would not be named. “That was my judgment at the time and that hasn’t changed.”
2. DM | June 2nd, 2008 at 8:25 am
Pain, must really suck to live in such negative untruth all the time.
3. neocon | June 2nd, 2008 at 9:58 am
>>The conflict in Iraq for some time has not been about winning or losing - Pain<<
um…….yes it has. From the onset. Only a liberal would think that a war was not about winning.
Sheesh. Smarter liberals please.
4. Pain | June 2nd, 2008 at 10:25 am
3. neocon | June 2nd, 2008 at 9:58 am
The partial quote was nice but you left out the words, ” . . . but between Truth and Fiction.” Meaning between the Truth of the conditions on the ground and the Fiction of those who see this as a simple Group A v Group B conflict whose outcome will make America a safer nation.
We emphasize that the political necessity to appear to be “winning” is exactly what led to the tactical failures that mires America in Iraq today. Just as some writer at this blog will soon enough seize on the fact that May was the lowest casualty month for American troops in Iraq since 2004 they will fail to mention that most of that was due to an Iranian mandated stand down of the Medhi Army.
More is at stake here than the pride of Americans neocon, much more.
5. Tractatus | June 2nd, 2008 at 11:15 am
Just as some writer at this blog will soon enough seize on the fact that May was the lowest casualty month for American troops in Iraq since 2004 they will fail to mention that most of that was due to an Iranian mandated stand down of the Medhi Army.
And they also repeatedly fail to note, for example, the not-so-minor role the displacement of millions of Iraqis, along with the unfortunate success of ethnic cleansing in many neighborhoods.
None of that matters to these folks; all that counts is that they can point to some stat and say, “See, we’re winning!” (And it’s rather odd to say that you’re “winning” when you’ve already repeatedly declared, “we’ve won,” but I guess they have troubles with verb tense, much like their guy McCain.)
6. SEW | June 2nd, 2008 at 1:29 pm
“Sheesh. Smarter liberals please.”
LOL. See #4 & #5.
7. Magnum Serpentine | June 2nd, 2008 at 2:38 pm
It doesn’t matter what any republican thinks, the will of the citizens of this nation, time and time again as seen in various Gallup Polls, is to get all troops out, no matter what.
The Will of the Citizens comes first and the Citizens want out, and they want out now, not when some imaginary victory is achieved.
The Government is about the will of the people, not what is in the so-called best interest of the people.
Thats all that matters.
8. neocon | June 2nd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
“The Will of the Citizens comes first and the Citizens want out, and they want out now, not when some imaginary victory is achieved.” - Magnum
I thought they wanted out in 2006? What happened?
Don’t tell me Reid and Pelosi played all of you like fools.
9. LiberalNitemare | June 2nd, 2008 at 4:23 pm
The first sign that the war in Iraq is over and The US is victorious, will be when a democrat stands up and tries to take credit for it.
Im putting my money on Joe Biden, I just think he’s that big of an %$#!. However, I think Hillary could be a spoiler.
10. Rich | June 2nd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Wow you libs are pathetic. Suddenly the war is not about winning or losing. Gee why have you been saying the war is lost then? As far as the Mahdi militia standing down, we never stopped attacking them. The real term is called surrendering. Why won’t Obama go to Iraq with McCain?
11. Casper | June 2nd, 2008 at 6:07 pm
I’ll tell you what. When the troops are home, you can declare victory. As long as our men and women are still over there fighting and dying, we have neither won or lost.
12. Some Assembly Required | June 2nd, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Rich, we won the conventional war. We went in, we Clobbered, and that is that. Whats going on now I think can best be equated to resistance fighting against an occupying force and a civil war that were caught up in. Theres no easy solution to this and regardless of who gets elected it will take 4 - 8 years to completely withdrawal regardless. I think what the public wants to see is a strategy aside from ‘but were winning’ in Iraq.
As for Obama going into Iraq, what purpose will that serve? He goes there for a photo op, shakes the hands of some locals, sees the streets which are very well protected my special forces gets back on a jet and flies home. The only real way for anyone to get a feel for it is to bunk with a platoon of marines for a week or so. Since thats not gonna happen for either Obama or McCain, then a visit is really just a political stunt.
Sure McCain served in Vietnam valiantly from which the country can never fully repay him. Saying that, military experience is not required to be the President. Personally I’d rather have a man that has a knowledge of other cultures and the ways of the world, then a military man (no offense to anyone who has served) who has intimate knowledge of the ways of war.
The reason being, the man with knowledge of cultures has this, but he also has generals for war. He can for see possible scenarios as a result of conflict and using this knowledge hopefully come to a diplomatic solution. The military man has the experience but may not contain the same intimate knowledge of cultures. So he has his experience and his generals. Which leads to kind of a one sided argument IMO.
This is proven with Iraq. Bush, had no knowledge of anything outside of the US prior to taking office, but he did serve in the Military. I think if we had a better understanding of their way of life and culture we wouldn’t be in half the mess we are right now.
13. Rich | June 2nd, 2008 at 6:35 pm
And here is an interesting article on Afghanistan.
*******
Missions by special forces and air strikes by unmanned drones have “decapitated” the Taliban and brought the war in Afghanistan to a “tipping point”, the commander of British forces has said.
CHRISTOPHER PLEDGER
The new “precise, surgical” tactics have killed scores of insurgent leaders and made it extremely difficult for Pakistan-based Taliban leaders to prosecute the campaign, according to Brig Mark Carleton-Smith.
In the past two years an estimated 7,000 Taliban have been killed, the majority in southern and eastern Afghanistan. But it is the “very effective targeted decapitation operations” that have removed “several echelons of commanders”.
This in turn has left the insurgents on the brink of defeat, the head of Task Force Helmand said.
14. Rich | June 2nd, 2008 at 6:41 pm
SAR, it would be nice for Obama to see the progress on the ground. Maybe he would learn something that might benefit him and our nation if he wins the Presidency. As far as military service being important to be president, Libs felt it wasn’t important with Clinton, was important with Kerry, and now is not important once again with Obama. Please pick a side and stick to it. lets face the facts libs, you have used the attacks on and casualties of Americans and civilians in Iraq as a metric of success this entire time. When attacks were high, you claimed defeat, so now you must observe the downward trend in both as progress. Also, I would like to know why global terrorist attacks are down? Libs used the high number of ttacks in previous years to say we were fostering hatred and global violence, if the trend is going the other way what does that mean by your own definitions?
15. FmrMarine | June 2nd, 2008 at 7:25 pm
pain….from…
Editorials from Hell’s leading daily newspaper….
porno, ANTI Christian hate site.
>>>>The conflict in Iraq for some time has not been about winning or losing but about Truth versus Fiction.<<<<
TRUTH…….the war is against islamo-fascism.
FICTION…..” illegal war”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i87cZ3Og6ts
16. Some Assembly Required | June 2nd, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Rich, thats just my point. How could Obama measure the progress on the ground when surrounded by such an awesome force like McCain was. It does not give him an accurate picture of what is actually happening. He would get a better idea from intelligence briefings in Washington then actually going there. Also, McCain and Obama in a place that is known for AQ in a presidential election year, wouldn’t that be one of the biggest targets you could offer AQ?
I’ve never seen military experience as a requirement for office. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the American people select who the nominee is, not the party. Except of course with this primary. Though if the party elects Clinton after Obama has won the clear number of pledged delegates they will have quite the mess on their hands.
I’ve said before and I’ll say again, I am no liberal, nor am I conservative. I’m am not opposed to any good ideas from either side. For example, I think we need to get out of Iraq, but I also think what the Judges did in the polygamy case today is atrocious. Off topic I know, but I had to say something about it, it’s just to much IMO.
17. FmrMarine | June 2nd, 2008 at 7:44 pm
MORE donk BS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVZlLBchVE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn3tDudHDPY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnjcofMFHsA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwDJRBOsj78&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fqCS7Y_kME&feature=related
18. William Teach | June 2nd, 2008 at 8:04 pm
SAR, I don’t think you will find many conservatives who disagree about wanting to get out of Iraq. I’m sure most of us do. But, the difference between us and the Democrats is that we want to do it with honor, and a completed mission, which means an Iraq that has less violence then Camden, NJ.
Were there mistakes made? You betcha. But, to arbitrarily say “we’re out!” without completion would be a disaster.
19. Danish Artist | June 2nd, 2008 at 8:19 pm
MS repeats over and over and over…..
“It doesn’t matter what any republican thinks, the will of the citizens of this nation, time and time again as seen in various Gallup Polls, is to get all troops out, no matter what.
The Will of the Citizens comes first and the Citizens want out, and they want out now, not when some imaginary victory is achieved.
The Government is about the will of the people, not what is in the so-called best interest of the people.
Thats all that matters.”
Well, MS, did you hold the Democrats to their promises in 2006?
Listening to you repeat your rant, apparently not.
You, my friend (HA!), are the biggest hypocrite on this site.
Polls only matter to you if they apply to what you want and only if it can be used against non-liberal types.
You do not try to even hide it….Amazing.
MS a true lemming.
20. Rich | June 2nd, 2008 at 9:01 pm
SAR- Obama could talk to the leadership and our soldiers that are actually over there doing the fighting. He could see what is going on first hand. Why is that a bad thing?
21. Some Assembly Required | June 2nd, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Teach, I agree. Pulling out of Iraq immediately is a pipe dream. Anyone who thinks different, well they’re extremely gullible to say the least. A phased withdrawal is the only way I see it happening, but this could only happen with a fair amount of stabilization in Iraq. I think a start would be to decrease funding. Nothing huge at first, just enough to warp this limitless budget that we seem to have there now.
I don’t think Iraq will become anything like NJ anytime soon. The first years after we pulled out of Vietnam were rough, but thats just one of those hard truths that need to be faced at some point. The lesser evil for the greater good.
Rich, point taken. But Obama could learn the same things by flying those leaders to the white house, or talking to troops upon arrival home. Most of which I’m assuming would be more concerned about furthering their education, but they could still give him quite the idea of what is going on over there.
22. neocon | June 2nd, 2008 at 10:59 pm
SAR,
Nice back door slam on the perceived education levels of the military:
“I’m assuming would be more concerned about furthering their education,…….” - SAR
Truth is the average educational achievement is higher amongst military than civilians. Also, many are highly trained. Your bias is inherent.
23. Some Assembly Required | June 3rd, 2008 at 6:29 am
Neocon, most of the young recruits join the military because they can get a free education after service. There are ads geared specifically at these people. Not to mention highschool recruiters. This is the last time I will respond to a post that misrepresents what I said.
24. Pain | June 3rd, 2008 at 6:34 am
15. FmrMarine | June 2nd, 2008 at 7:25 pm
So taking theocrats and religious hypocrites to task is anti-religion? Hmm We find this curious since you are so Pro-Islam in your comments. Every religion has it flaws and it is only when you feel you are the Almighty does your hypocrisy become so massive that you are destroyed by it.
We guarantee you get more varied opinions where We write than anywhere you comment!
Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil!
25. Danish Artist | June 4th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Pain,
those who exploit Islam for their purposes are hypocrites. But, I have yet to see you “take them to task”.
What’s the matter? Don’t want to piss them off?