So We’re Back To That One Again, Are We?
Hey, guess what, we’re winning in Iraq.
That’s what Blog of the Week–rapidly turning into Blog of the Spring–Jules Crittenden says, anyway:
By The Way, It’s Official …
… we can win in Iraq, we are winning in Iraq, and George Bush’s surge strategy is responsible for it. Not even the AP can ignore it* anymore:
Al Qaeda’s Waterloo?
—AcePetraeus’ recent request of 3000 additional troops is apparently impelled precisely by his desire — or rather his believed need — to deal with this terrorist stronghold decisively.
Worst Nightmare
Filed under: Politics, War — Gaius at 10:13 am on Tuesday, March 27, 2007After Nancy Pelosi and John “Unindicted Co-Conspirator” Murtha led a slim majority of the House Democrats (plus two Republicans) one pork chop too far with their supplementary spending bill, about the worst thing that could happen is for the surge to begin working in Iraq. Which it appears to be doing. Reports are coming in that the Iraqis are turning on al Qaeda. The progress is such that the media can’t even ignore it.
Check in next week to watch them reappear in the previous reality — in which civilization hangs by a thread as we lose in Iraq, thanks to the terror-emboldening leftist liberals and their lapdogs in the biased, liberal-leftist MSM.
How much would it cost to get a faked video of Reagan saying “Real Americans can fly. Just by jumping off tall objects and letting their patriotic, Godly, purity lift them up. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a commie and a islamogayofemaleolibruloterrorist and a nazi”?
I want to named the blog referee. I would give these good people red cards and send them off.
On MSNBC right now:
At least 63 killed in Iraq market attacks
Dozens wounded; bloodshed is the worst seen in a day across the nation
In the eyes of conservatives we are always winning. More bloodshed? See they are desperate! Less bloodshed? See we’ve stopped them!
On Salon letters I argued with a guy who posted some thing saying we were winning, about how the old insurgents were well trained and the new ones were younger, had poor training and poor equipment.
The date on that report? 2005!
Have these guys never heard the story of the boy who cried wolf?
I *hope* we win, I hope this surge works out, but there isn’t much reason to believe it is going to.
I would give these good people red cards and send them off.
To Iraq, I hope, where they can put their money where their trust-fund baby spoon-fed mouths are.
Incidentally, I notice that the preview button has not returned yet. In the tradition of right-wing pundits everywhere, I blame Teh Left (and Clinton’s Almighty Penis).
The defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq would actually strengthen the resistance against the US occupation by removing a force that discredits opposition by attacks on civilians. Something like 90 % of all bomb attacks are aimed at US occupation troops or their proxies anyway. But I guess the pro-war activists will have to find out the hard way that the resistance is an indigenous Iraqi phenomenon and not staged-managed directly from a cave in Pakistan by Usama bin Laden.
A pet rock could be taught how to fetch in less time.
They think fucking what?!?
RandomObserver: You hope we “win?” You hope “the surge works out?”
What exactly does “winning” mean? The US is at war with the Iraqi people. US victory means the destruction of any independent Iraqi polity. It means a puppet government ruling over a nation of the dead.
True success, in a human sense, can only mean the end of bloodshed. There is no plausible method by which American military force can achieve that end. Victory means something completely different, and it’s something that all decent people should fervently oppose.