MSNBC, NY Post, Drudge falsely claimed Clinton said "surge" is "working"
SUMMARY: In articles on Sen. Hillary Clinton's speech
to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, several media outlets reported that Clinton said the Bush
administration's so-called "surge" policy is
"working." Clinton actually said:
"We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas --
particularly in Al Anbar Province -- it's working. We're just years
too late changing our tactics."
During an August 20 speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) said, according to The New York Times in an August 21 article, "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it's working. ... We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again." The Times also reported that "[a]ides to Mrs. Clinton said her remarks that military tactics in Iraq are 'working' referred specifically to reports of increased cooperation from Sunnis leading to greater success against insurgents in Al Anbar Province." Several other media outlets, however, have claimed that Clinton said the Bush administration's so-called "surge" policy is "working":
- During an August 21 report on Democrats' positions on Iraq, an MSNBC Live on-air graphic read: "Hillary Clinton: Surge is Working, But Years Too Late For Change" -- even though the video clip of Clinton MSNBC aired during the segment itself showed her saying: "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some places -- particularly in Al Anbar Province -- it's working."
- In an August 21 article -- headlined, "Iraq Surge Working, But Too Late: Hillary Clinton" -- the New York Post reported: " 'It's working. We're just years too late in our tactics,' [Clinton] said, referring to the beefed-up U.S. troop presence battling insurgents in Iraq, including war-torn Anbar province." The Post further asserted that "Clinton's positive assessment of the troop surge puts her in agreement with some high-ranking military officials and scholars, but in direct opposition to many fellow Democrats." But Clinton did not give a "positive assessment of the troop surge," and her statement was not in reference to "Iraq, including the war-torn Anbar province"; rather, she cited Al Anbar as one place where the "change [of] tactics" has brought positive results.
- On August 21, a banner headline on the Drudge Report read: "Hillary on Surge? 'It's Working' ..."
- A headline on the website JustHillary.com read: "At veterans' convention, HRC says surge working but bring troops home..."
- The Associated Press paraphrased Clinton's statement in an August 21 report on her speech, reporting: "New military tactics in Iraq are working but the best way to honor U.S. soldiers is 'by beginning to bring them home,' Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told war veterans Monday." Clinton, however, did not refer specifically to the "surge" policy, and the AP story cropped Clinton's quote to suggest that she was speaking more broadly.
- On August 21, The Washington Times reported: " 'It's working,' Mrs. Clinton said of the troop surge yesterday in a speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention in Kansas City, Mo., a group at odds with her votes for a pullout and against emergency troop funding."
- As Tim Grieve noted on Salon's War Room blog, even The New York Times, which, as Grieve wrote, "quotes Clinton more fairly than the Washington Times does" reported that Clinton's remarks were "notable because Mrs. Clinton has been a consistent critic of the Bush administration's troop escalation in Iraq, and Republican presidential candidates have been seizing on signs of progress in Al Anbar Province in arguing against a troop withdrawal."
From the 11 a.m. ET hour of the August 21 edition of MSNBC Live:
CONTESSA BREWER (anchor): You know, I know that Hillary Clinton echoed some of Senator Levin's comments in her speech to veterans. Let me play part of what she said.
CLINTON [video clip]: We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas -- particularly in Al Anbar Province -- it's working. We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again. We can't be fighting the last war; we have to be preparing to fight the new war.
BREWER: Is there a sense in Iraq that the surge is successful, but it just -- it comes too late?
ASPELL: Well, I don't think it's any secret that there were mistakes made over the past four years or so, but certainly among the U.S. military here, there is a feeling that the surge -- particularly in Baghdad itself -- is successful in that the number of daily attacks have gone down, the number of dead bodies found around the capital has decreased over the past couple of months.
Ever since those extra 30,000 troops began pouring into the country in January, violence in and around the capital has subsided. But at the same time, there have been more attacks in the provinces and other outlying areas. But many people do agree it is enough, but it may be just a little bit too late, Contessa.
BREWER: Tom, thanks for the update.
Sounds to me like she thinks the surge worked but its too late. I do not see anything wrong with that , it shows she is open minded.
OK. WHAT’S GOING ON HERE?
Bush sez: “Of the 18 benchmarks Congress asked us to measure, we can report …”
AH-HA. THERE ARE ‘BENCHMARKS’ … 18 OF THEM … WHICH ARE BEING MEASURED. HOW MANY HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED?
Bush continues, “... satisfactory progress is being made in eight areas."
OH, MY. SEEMS NONE HAVE BEEN REACHED. ‘PROGRESS’ IN ONLY EIGHT, NO PROGRESS AT ALL ON THE OTHER TEN. NONE ACHIEVED AT ALL. SO WHAT’S THE PLAN?
Bush sez: “Precisely the reason why I sent more troops into Baghdad (the “surge”) is to provide some breathing space for this democratically elected government to succeed. Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace -- and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.”
OK, SO THE ‘SURGE’ IS TO CREATE THE MORE SECURE ATMOSPHERE NECESSARY FOR HEALING AND GOVERNING TO TAKE PLACE, FOR THE ‘BENCHMARKS’ TO BE MET, LAWS TO BE PASSED, RECONCILIATIONS TO TAKE PLACE. HOW’S THAT GOING?
Bush sez, "Our strategy is built on the premise that progress in security will pave the way for political progress …an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself — is more than a military mission.”
WE GET IT … THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT IS THE KEY, THE SACRIFICES OF OUR SOLDIER’S LIVES AND OUR TREASURE FOR THIS ‘SURGE’ IS TO BUY TIME FOR THIS ‘CRUCIAL’ WORK TO TAKE PLACE. HOW’S THAT GOING?
BAGHDAD -- Iraq's parliament went into summer recess for the month of August on Monday after political leaders failed to agree on a series of laws that Washington sees as crucial to stabilizing the country. Lawmakers said the government had yet to present them with any of the laws.”
OK. 18 ‘BENCHMARKS’, NONE MET, A ‘SURGE’ TO GIVE ‘BREATHING SPACE’ FOR LEGISLATION TO BE PERFORMED BY THE IRAQI PARLIAMENT, WHICH IS OUT OF BUSINESS FOR THE MONTH. WHERE IS ANY HINT OF HOPE?
"We do not have anything to discuss in the parliament, no laws or constitutional amendments, nothing from the government,“ says Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman.
BY BUSH’S OWN STANDARDS, THE ‘SURGE’ IS AN ABSOLUTE AND UTTER FAILURE, NO HOPE WHATSOEVER OF ACHIEVING ITS STATED GOALS. WHEN CAN WE DECLARE BUSH'S FAILURE?
"The president has implored his critics to wait until September, when Petraeus is scheduled to deliver his much-anticipated assessment of the U.S. mission in Iraq."
WE ALREADY KNOW WHAT HE CAN HONESTLY SAY.
Bush sez: “Of the 18 benchmarks Congress asked us to measure, we can report …”
AH-HA. THERE ARE ‘BENCHMARKS’ … 18 OF THEM … WHICH ARE BEING MEASURED. HOW MANY HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED?
Bush continues, “... satisfactory progress is being made in eight areas."
OH, MY. SEEMS NONE HAVE BEEN REACHED. ‘PROGRESS’ IN ONLY EIGHT, NO PROGRESS AT ALL ON THE OTHER TEN. NONE ACHIEVED AT ALL. SO WHAT’S THE PLAN?
According to my calculator, 8 out of 18 equals a grade of 44% - well below failure at most schools. And typical for George W. Bush.
Actually lower than that. The 8 only get partial credit.
It shows that she's a triangulating BS artist who wants to be president.
She must not succeed.
I saw that headline on drudge earlier today. I didn't click to read the article and just figured it was true. That ought to learn me! Thanks MMFA. I am glad you are here.
Well, Drudge, by the best info I can find, still has at least one more month of military service eligibility. If he's so quick to jump on and misinterpret Hillary's assessment, maybe he can put that excitement to better use for his country.
Not in direct reply to you, Open, but in IMO, the reason it's "too late" is because of the state of our military.
Our all-volunteer military was designed for seeking out and destroying a known enemy. It was not designed as a long-term police force to secure a large-scale civil war zone.
Our soldiers are serving longer tours with less time at home. They're being backdoor drafted. They've been ill equipped. The military is lowering its recruitment goals and resorting to bigger payouts for those that do join. We've invested hundreds of billions of dollars.
It IS too late for a broken, fatigued all-volunteer force to secure a nation of 26 million people that want to kill each other.
If the force, however, was not all-volunteer, Bush could have a much larger force with which to continue to his madness.
I guess the phrase "years too late" doesn't mean anything to some people.
So, wait... In some areas, the surge is working. But, because we started the surge too late, we should stop the surge now and go home? Brilliant!
Who is saying that?
Wagner's strawman is arguing that from the looks of it.
That was what I figured .
Nope. Just Hillary Clinton's own words.
No. Nice try. She didn't say this. Still stirring things up, huh Rino--just like to throw any nonsense out there?
That's what Hillary said. "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas -- particularly in Al Anbar Province -- it's working." Then she went on to say that the best way to honor our troops was "by beginning to bring them home". That's what she believes. Isn't that what you believe too? There's no reason to be ashamed of it or deny it really. But what Hillary said is right there in plain English. She said the change in tactics is working, but we started the change too late, and we should begin to bring our troops home.
Where did Hillary say the "tactics" in question were related to more troops or the "surge"?
Her aides specifically stated her remarks were referring "specifically to reports of increased cooperation from Sunnis leading to greater success against insurgents in Al Anbar Province."
What does that have to do with the "surge"? You are merely speculating here without a real basis.
Well if Hill really meant something other than the surge (which is the change in tactics that has been/is in the news) then she should have supplied some specificity. But really, we know the tactics she was referring to are what has been labeled "the surge". It's ridiculous to deny this and it's also utterly pointless. It's okay that the surge is working. You don't have to be afraid of it. the closest HRC gets to any specifics is mentioning Anbar. Anbar province has been specifically mentioned in the media of late as an example of the surge working. Remember that NYT article by the Brookings Inst. Guys that stirred everyone up over here? I'm pretty sure that Anbar was one of their prime examples of the surge's success. Don't worry though. That doesn't mean that Democrats can't still win the White House in '08.
You're pretty sure that Al Anbar was mentioned--that is the best you can do? You can't even look it up?
The surge refers to more troops. And it is not working. Period.
I don't need to look it up because i have a photographic memory. O'Hanlon and Pollack of the Brookings Institution pointed directly to Anbar Province to demonstrate the success of the surge. You lose funnymanpants. I'm outty 5000.
In other words, I don't know what I'm talking about.
The US military has suggested the bombers are operating more ruthlessly in northern Iraq because they can no longer operate in Baghdad because of the success of the American "surge". In reality, the number of car bombings in Baghdad in July was 5 per cent higher than last December and civilian casualties in explosions have increased by about the same percentage.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2866788.ece
ng pos...uk.shopping.com
Funnymanpants, this information has been out there for awhile. The fact that you don't already know it is just annoying. It's not my job to babysit you. Do I need to send you a link proving that 2+2 = 4? If you're going to post comments in this forum, do everyone a favor and try to maintain a modicum of knowledge about world affairs. Try reading a newspaper everyday. You simply won't be knowledgeable if your only news source is the Daily Show. You need to supplement it with some actual research. I'm really not trying to be mean, but it's infuriating to discuss anything with someone who refuses to keep himself informed. I mean, I think you gave Lostlogic an ulcer.
You obviously feel like you can substitute insult for reason.
I'm not fooled.
I just think you need to work on your reading comprehension. you seem to have a very difficult time with it.
Yes, it's always easier to insult when you don't have an argument.
I'm trying to help you. I'm not the only one who has brought your lack of reading comprehension to your attention. I'm really not insulting you, I'm just trying to get you to concentrate when you read, as I think it will help you understand what you are reading.
Yes, you are obviously a moron with no argument.
I, Lostlogic, and RINO have all alerted you to the fact that you have little to no reading comprehension. It's not my fault that no one thinks you're smart.
so we can go home now, right? mission accomplished? no, here is the answer to that question: "we cannot withdraw because we do not want to give up the hard won progress that we have achieved...we must stay...give it a few more months..." in other words, what we have heard for the last four and a half years.
Hillary stated in the last debate that it will probably take a couple years to get completely out of Iraq? Is that what you want? You should realize that having Hillary Clinton as President won't get us out of Iraq. Our taxes will certainly be higher, but the situation in Iraq will remain the same, because she doesn't want to end up taking the blame for our defeat in Iraq.
Defeat in Iraq, we achieved all military goals in Iraq its just stupid to continue to refer to leaving Iraq as any sort of defeat. The political goals in Iraq are not in our hands. That is why we ough to leave, there isnt anything left we can contribute to in Iraq toward the political goals there. We are occupiers thus have zero credibility among the Iraqis and cannot influence the political context there. This probably is the reason Bush wont leave Iraq he is willing to let Americans continue to die until his term is over so no matter WHEN we leave Iraq he can use your favorite worthless tactic and baselessly assert that we were just about to win in Iraq and the Dems cut and ran.
"That is why we ough to leave, there isnt anything left we can contribute to in Iraq toward the political goals there"
What we can contribute is helping to stabalize Iraq and finish training the Iraqi troops. If we left all at once Al-Quaeda would have free reign in Iraq, and we'd simply have to come back later to finish them off. Such a hasty withdrawel would only postpone the war. That's probably why Hillary doesn't want to completely withdraw until a couple years from now.
We cannot stabilize Iraq.
The US, the most powerful military the world, couldn't control Iraq, and you think Al Quaida will? I remember watching an expert scoff how silly that claim was, and how Al Quaia is tolerated now, but the moment they become inconvenient, they won't be tolerated.
Saddam Hussein stabilized Iraq. Are you saying that the U.S. military is less capable than Saddam Hussein?
Yes, the situation today is vastly different than when Saddam usurped power decades ago.
Go study some history, and then come back here. If you don't understand that the way that Saddam retained power is not something we can do as an outside force after the way we allowed the country to fall into virtual anarchy in our initial invasion, there's no hope for you.
WE can't stabalize Iraq that is a political not a military goal. Until the Sunnis and Shiites decide to stop killing each other over the power vacuum there is no way to stabalize Iraq we can only continue to play whackamole. The military is a broadsword not a scalpel, it is not designed for policework, as long as we are there we only add to the equation of violence.
As for your I Ching inspired prognostication about what MIGHT not will happen WHEN not IF we leave Iraq I am sorry but you rightwingers have been 100% wrong on every single prediction you have ever made concerning Iraq it would be foolishness bordering on insanity to accept another one of your predictions as a basis for another policy decision.
the key is "completely" withdraw. by that i take it that we can substantially withdraw. and all that training of iraqi troops hasn't turned out too well in the last four years. in fact, some of those "trained" troops have ended up attacking our soldiers.
Sorry, the first sentence wasn't supposed to be a question.
Wagner, I would believe 7 of our soldiers over a couple of suits from Brookings who spent exactly 8 days being escorted around to sites picked out by military brass. www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-rieckhoff/the-82nd-airborne-vs-the_b_61201.html
Well, I would wonder then why our soldiers vote in overwhelming numbers for Bush specifically and Republicans in general. Do you only trust soldiers who are against Bush's policies? Do you pick and choose which soldiers are reputable and which aren't?
It would be really nice if you could site some recent statistics to back that up.
In the last election, several soldiers ran for office as Democrats, which would seem to weaken your point substantially as well.
This is what Hillary said:
"We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas -- particularly in Al Anbar Province -- it's working. We're just years too late changing our tactics"
Hillary stated that the increased troops in the Al Anbar Province region is working. The change in tactics was increasing troops. In the last line she said that we were years too late in changing our tactics. She's obviously saying that we should have had more troops in Iraq several years ago. And yes, her point was that the surge is working and that it should've been implemented long ago. But for some reason she believes that it's too late for the surge now and that we have to withdraw all our troops from Iraq.
Oh, you are too funny, Rino. You just love to stir things up in your own words and basically lie:
>>Hillary stated that the increased troops in the Al Anbar Province region is working.
Notice how this is not in quotes. She did not say this.
Again, this is what she said:
"We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it's working. ... We're just years too late changing our tactics"
Do you not know that the tactics that we've changed are INCREASING THE NUMBER OF TROOPS THERE? Clinton stated that the surge is working in Al Anbar Province.
Really? First, show me the proof that we have increased the troops in Al Anbar. Give me a link.
Second, explain why Hillary's aids contradicted what you said. Do you know more than Hillary's aids? Do you have super duper mind reading power?
I didn't contradict Hillary's aides at all. They validated my point.
The Times also reported that "[a]ides to Mrs. Clinton said her remarks that military tactics in Iraq are 'working' referred specifically to reports of increased cooperation from Sunnis leading to greater success against insurgents in Al Anbar Province"
Her aides said that the new military tactics in Al Anbar Province are working. And yes, there is a surge going on in Iraq. Anbar Province is one of the many places where we have more troops. I'm not going to take the time to link to something that you should already know. If you don't know that you're simply misinformed. The media reported that Hillary claimed the surge is working because the situation in Anbar Province is getting better, and we've sent more troops there.
In other words, you have nothing. You try to spin your way out by quoting Hillary's aids and then asserting that they said something they clearly did not.
And of course you have no link.
Nice try.
You're either incredibly misinformed or just intentionally being stupid. Here's the link which you should've already known.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Anbar
From the link:
Part of the Iraq "surge" plan of 2007 was to send 4,000 United States Marines to the Al Anbar province to counter the insurgency there. Recently it was reported that a group of tribal chiefs led by Sheikh Sittar of the Abu Resha Tribe (Iraq) had formed Sahawat Al-Anbar or the National Awakening Council to fight Al Qaeda in Al Anbar and elsewhere had met with Nouri al-Maliki on March 13 in Ramadi for talks on closer cooperation to try and bring peace to Iraq.
A recent New York Times article describes Anbar as, "undergoing a surprising transformation. Violence is ebbing in many areas, shops and schools are reopening, police forces are growing and the insurgency appears to be in retreat."
Nice try, but I don't read minds. I should have known what link you meant? You are completely full of bull.
But unfortunately, I have some links of my own.
The US military is not defeating al-Qaida in Iraq -- locals with torches and pitchforks are. What's ironic is that the two biggest neoconservative mouthpieces in the country, The Weekly Standard and The National Review, have acknowledged the role of Sattar and locals in destroying al-Qaida. From the Weekly Standard:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/014125.html
Woops! My link shows what Hilary meant.
And:
To support his view, General Gaskin said there were 98 violent incidents in al-Anbar Province during the past week, compared to more than 400 during the same week a year ago. He showed a chart, indicating that is part of a new trend in the province, and he credited local leaders for making decisions and taking actions to oppose terrorists and support the Iraqi government and coalition forces. "This is a stark departure from historic norms. Something significant has changed from previous years. We have broken the cycle of violence," he said.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Vyan/215
Woops again!
Or should I quote you:
"You're either incredibly misinformed or just intentionally being stupid. Here's the link which you should've already known. "
You still haven't explained how you can read Hillary's mind, and how you know more than what the aids said.
Fine. You think that the surge isn't working. Hillary Clinton disagrees. She said that "the new strategy" is working. The new strategy that we have implemented is the surge. I don't have to read her mind to know what the new strategy is. The new strategy has been in place for several months, and everybody knows what it is.
Wrong. Hillary didn't say that the surge is working. Stop making things up.
Further:
Everyone knows what that strategy is except Hillary's aides. Except them, you know. But of course, you know what Hillary meant more than they do, because you have some super duper hearing or some inside source to Hillary.
In case the meaning of the second quote isn't clear, let me quote the relevant part:
"he credited local leaders for making decisions and taking actions to oppose terrorists and support the Iraqi government and coalition forces."
And here's the quote from Hilary's aides:
"[a]ides to Mrs. Clinton said her remarks that military tactics in Iraq are 'working' referred specifically to reports of increased cooperation from Sunnis leading to greater success against insurgents in Al Anbar Province."
It is the cooperation that has quelled the violence--albeit, in one region only. And this trend started in the Fall, long before the surge.
Where were you when our military leaders were saying that we needed an initial surge of more than several hundred thousand troops to occupy Iraq after the initial fighting subsided?
Did you ridicule the administration, the civilian leaders at the Pentagon, the media and the right wing screech monkeys who proposed fighting this thing on the cheap?
When you write "you", are you referring to me or Hillary Clinton? If Obama had been there, you can bet he would have voted differently than HC.
I'm referring to you.
Uh... I was in New York? Did you want to like, visit or something?
Good answer.
Are you hitting on me?
I might be easy but I'm not cheap.
Read the article, please. Clinton said that "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq," but her aids said that these tactics meant more cooperation from the Sunnis. That is not the surge.
I see no proof of the surge working. I can't believe its effectiveness is even being debated. How many chances do we give the Bush admin to try the same exact policies and to say "really trust us this time?"
FP...How would you feel if the surge did work in Iraq?
I think the point is the surge may be working in the areas where the troops are concentrated to bring down the violence. However, this effect is only taking place where they are concentrated and whether it will hold if they move onto new territory is certainly in question. Furthermore the reason why it is years to late is because of the political situation. The surge is doing little to change that and perhaps if we had established control in the early days the political situation would not have become so hopeless. So when discussing if the surge is working we must also discuss if the gains can be maintained, and if ultimatley the end result of political resolution can be achieved.
The surge is not working, period! McClatchy newspapers actually crunched the numbers and determined that the number of car bombings is up 5 percent from December.
It's like the WMD debate all over, wher the media repeats Bush's ludicrous claims.
We had better be ready in September when Bush lies about the success of the surge. The lies will come, and the media will fall for them.
The surge and the adjustment in counterinsurgency tactics have had some success from what I have read. However in the overall strategy and goal it is not working because it is doing nothing to further the political progress. I think the fact that we are not talking in temrs of tactics, strategies, and goals may be adding to the confusion. As a tactic is the increased troops and counter-insurgency doing what they are supposed to be doing...according to reports yes. Is the increased troops and counter-insurgency efforts working as a strategy to achieve political peace...according to reports no. If the political peace can not be won then there is no amount of military tactics that will work as a strategy to win that peace.
No, I don't think the tactics are working. I think we are getting spun:
The US military has suggested the bombers are operating more ruthlessly in northern Iraq because they can no longer operate in Baghdad because of the success of the American "surge". In reality, the number of car bombings in Baghdad in July was 5 per cent higher than last December and civilian casualties in explosions have increased by about the same percentage.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2866788.ece
I can't say whether we are being spun or not. I can only speak to what I have read and what people on both sides of the issue are saying. And it appears that the tactic has had some success. In the end it makes little difference to me because whether the tactic works or not it is not a strategy to win political peace so it doesn't change my postion with respect to the fact we can not achieve the ultimate goal of political peace.
Both sides of the aisle? Oh, c'mon. If this isn't the WMD debate all over again.
What hard proof is there that the surge is working? I haven't seen any. But I have seen the same type of hype which passes for proof that we saw before the war itself. And I am seeing the same lack of skepticism as well.
Why would anyone believe the surge would have any chance of working, considering what has happened the past 3 years?
You need to work on your reading comprehension. Please do not attempt to change what I have said. I said nothing about the aisle...I said on both sides of the issue...not everything is divided into democrat and republican views. I think you need to clarify what you mean by "working". I have clearly stated there is a difference between a tactic working and a strategy working or a goal being reached. To be clear I do not think we can have a positive outcome in iraq through military means. The only shot is a political solution. You may want to base your opinion solely on that one quote you keep posting but I don't think that one quote definitivly means what you think it does. I stand by what I said, listening to military and civilians on both sides of the issue I think they have had some success with certain tactics but it is not a winning strategy. So if by "working" you mean working to achieve peace and a democratic government then I agree with you it is not working...I will even go so far as to say I do not believe it will ever work to that end.
Okay, why don't you cool it on the tone about my reading comprehension? Unless you want this to turn into an insult fest.
On second thought..
>>You may want to base your opinion solely on that one quote you keep posting but I don't think that one quote definitivly means what you think it does. I stand by what I said, listening to military and civilians on both sides of the issue I think they have had some success with certain tactics but it is not a winning strategy.
What a nasty little post. Yes, one quote doesn't mean what i think it does? You might want to get your snark correct. Usually one says a *word* doesn't mean what you think it does. Not a whole quote, because that construction doesn't make sense.
I may have one quote, but that is one more than you. Where is all this good news you claim you have? Please post it so we can debate it. My feeling is it doesn't exist, just like the WMDs didn't exist.
We essentially agree, so can we lay off the snark, now?
I just haven't seen one ounce of proof that the violence is down in Iraq.
I didn't find my post all that snarky...perhaps you are a wee bit sensitive...or simply overreacting. First off whatever "one" usually says and leaving aside proper construction the point I was making about your quote was I didn't agree with the conclusion you were drawing from it. I did not feel that one quote was proof the tactic wasn't haveing some success. I am not saying it is not an accurate quote, I am not saying "one" can't leap to the conclusion you did based on that quote. I simply said I don't. You ask me for proof of my claim...I rarely post thing nor do I click on links as a general rule for security reasons...I'm a wee bit paranoid about computer viruses. Not to mnention that there are numerous sources out there so it is not like this is hard to find. However, as I stated many on both sides of the issue and those with first hand knowledge have acknowledged some success with the tactics being used as far as military security goes that is what I am basing my opinion on. if you are interested a google search will satisfy your curiosity but I am surprised that you would think these reports don't exist since you are basically compalining about these claims being made. So if you are compaling about them you know they exist so why go through the charade of demanding I prove they exist? Again to me it is not entirely relavant because the solution must be political and the military and their tactics can do nothing to advance that cause--especially while the political part decided to go on vacation.. I am not sure why you are having such an issue with my position--agree or not about the success of a tactic--at the end of the day I agree with you we are not making progress where it matters. The surge will not succeed at winning the political solution no matter the small successes it realizes militarily.
See my post at the end.
I think we essentially agree.
I don't think the reports exist. Bill Kristol, on the Jon Stuart show, was asked point blank to prove that the surge is working. He could only cite the bogus O'Hanlon report, and then had to fall back to a naked assertion "Look, the surge is working." Bill Kristol would know of any pro-surge reports for sure.
Hey Wagner,
I was cooking dinner last night - don't do it often, so you can imagine why I might be a little rusty. Anyway, I put the burgers on, then settled in to watching Wheel of Fortune. About a half-hour later, my wife hollers at me from the back yard "Neon! The burgers are on fire!". So I go running out there with the squirt bottle, and start spraying away to put the fire out. The wife goes "I don't know why you're bothering, it's too late. They're already burned to cinders". So I says to her as I'm scraping them off the grill, I says "oh, so now since it's 'too late' we should just go running out to dinner? Brilliant.". I gently placed the parts that didn't fall through the grate on a couple buns and with a little extra ketchup and a couple extra beers, they went down okay.
So I know what you're sayin'. We gotta keep a tight rein on the broads, or they'll have us quittin' everything because "it's too late". Whiny ol' hags.
You put burgers on the grill and then sat and watched Pat and Vanna for the WHOLE half hour?
Serves you right to eat charred meat.
"We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it's working. ... We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again."
Well that's hardly a blanket The Surge Is Working statement.
Too bad Drudge & others can't just report what is actually being said.
I hate being misquoted or having something I've said misinterpreted on this forum. It must get infuriating to be running for political office & have that happen.
Given that the "surge" was a single tactic among many, including political reforms, it doesn't really matter if the surge is working anyway if the government falls apart.
I think this thing is gonna get way worse before it improves -- particularly when the Kurds declare independence in about four years.
I think this thing is gonna get way worse before it improves -- particularly when the Kurds declare independence in about four years.
Marv, I agree it's bound to get worse, but I think the Kurds deserve their independence. Granted this will piss Turkey off...geopolitics is fun ain't it?
I'd still like to see them divide Iraq into 2 regions [Shia & Sunnis], & give the Kurds their own independent sovereign nation. Probably too complicated an idea to implement I know, but one I think would be the best solution for all concerned.
Jeter,
Oddly enough, I think the "surge" is part of the success Hillary was mentioning. I don't think she should be taken out of context and I do believe she should clarify her remarks a little better. I don't know what the situation is over there and I am open to an honest assessment of the situation that does not meet with my assumptions.
That said, NPR reported yesterday that the increased number of troops has allowed bases to send out troops into neighborhoods much more. The increased contact has improved the situation. I believe that is what Hillary was referring to in regards to "tactics".
Now increasing the number of troops or the "surge" was likely the underlying strategy that is allowing those tactics to succeed.
I think Drudge was essentially correct here, but it is pretty sloppy reporting to put words in people's mouths, so he is wrong for doing that.
Since this was so widely reported, Hillary should come out and clarify her remarks.
I don't know what to believe anymore.
As a rule of thumb Bruce...I don't believe any politician. We're basically on our own.
"...The Surge Is Working ..."
"...Drudge & others ...just report what is actually being said."
"I hate being ... on this forum... infuriating..."- jeter2
I have to disagree with you , Jeter, and go away if you're just going to kvetch..Did you stay up for the game last night ? ;0)
Very clever Beach. And for the 365th day in a row I am presenting you with the Funniest Poster In The World Award ;-)
I listened to the game on the radio. Did I mention my favorite number is not 3, or 4...it's now 5.
Ah well a minor setback :-/
She said that it was working then was an idiot and said it was years too late. IT IS NEVER TOO LATE FOR VICTORY, EVER.
Looks like Col. Bill Kilgore is off his meds again.
Why does it seem that these Democrats have to "explain" everything they say? There always seems to be so much wiggle room, which opens the door to countless interpretations by the media. Whether the surge is too late or not, is Hillary saying that it is working in certain areas, or not?
Help.
Why does it seem that these Republicans never have to "explain" anything they say?
If they are misquoted negatively, I doubt it would be here for us to analyze.
King, because Republicans receive their "talking points"memo daily and independent thoughts are not allowed.
Tommy, this is Hillary Clinton that we're talking about. Wiggle room is her bread and butter. Every statement she makes is open to all sorts of different interpretations. That way, she can never be wrong, just misunderstood.
Tommy, I think they have to explain because their comments are often taken out of context and then reported on in a way that doesn't neccessarily match the context but rather tittilates and makes good sound bytes. I think if you do not understand her statement and want clarification I would read the text of her speech and then form your own conclusion of what she is saying. If you are still confused at least the questions you ask will reflect an honest need for clarity and not the result of false reporting and summarizing. I think if you follow the reporting on this issue and don't just go by headlines and sound bytes you would undersatnd her comments. What she is saying is similar to what many military are reporting they are having some success but victory lies in a political resolution that does not seem to be progressing and troops will not change that--no matter how many.
That is exactly the relevant point well stated LL
Communication isn't always easy. There's quite a few reasons beyond someone trying to put something over on you. Experience and some work studying ones own motives/actions help. We're complex creatures. We fool ourselves with great regularity. Knowing yourself is not a static item. I'll quit here before I start doing Kung Fu puns.
See, what did I tell you? And you laughed!
Deck chairs are MUCH more pleasantly arranged.
I honestly do not see anything at all wrong with the way Drudge (et al) have written their headlines.
HRC is basically conceding that the new strategy is working. Her words are clear: "...it's working"
The idea that the new strategy is "too late" is just an argument for pulling the plug.
No. Read the article. She said the cooperation with the Sunis is working, not the surge.
No! You read the article! Hillary's AIDES said that, not Hillary herself. "[a]ides to Mrs. Clinton said her remarks that military tactics in Iraq are 'working' referred specifically to reports of increased cooperation from Sunnis leading to greater success against insurgents in Al Anbar Province."
Um, I think that's what I said. Cooperation, right--not just a troop increase, which is what the surge is.
But the surge is not working, period.
God, you're awful. H-I-L-L-A-R-Y did note say that, HER AIDES said it.
I'm awful. I meant not, not note.
I can't even follow your ranting. You are not a very serious poster, obviously.
Humorous male bloomers your more annoying than I am. All of you people need the get the word "surge" out of you heads....Hillery did not mention "the surge" she used the word "tactics" in reference to the success in which she was talking about.....watch the damn video.
Again, reading comprehension. You wrote: "She [you are referring to Hilldog here] said the cooperation with the Sunis (sic) is working, not the surge." Hillary said no such thing. Hillary's AIDES said that after Hilldog gave her speech. I've highlited the relevant parts in bold to make it easier for you.
Hillary did say that.
Her remarks were misinterpreted. Her aides corrected that interpretation by reinforcing what she was saying. Her aides did not change the meaning of what she said in the least. Her aides only corrected the mistaken impression of some people after Hillary spoke.
Are you and funnymanpants in cahoots to see who can be more wrong? Hillary said the following: "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas -- particularly in Al Anbar Province -- it's working." That's what she said. She didn't say anything about cooperation with Sunnis. HER AIDES said that. Not Hillary. Please, I know you understand the difference between Hilldog and her aides.
She didnt specifically mention WHICH change of tactic she was talking about so there is no reason to believe that was NOT the tactical change she WAS talking about like her aides SAID.
Fine, but you're talking about what she MEANT and I'm talking about what she SAID. Funnymanpants wrote that Hillary SAID a certain thing, when in fact she did not SAY it.
A reasonable argument. I can only stomach so much of supporting Hillary anyway. I dont disagree with the most part of what you have posted today. I will say Funnypants is right as to this being what Hillary was referring to but it all misses the important point. That all military objectives are long achieved its the political objectives we should be talking about and whether or not we CAN help them and why we ought to stay in a country where more than 80% of the people want us gone.
Look, I agree with you on that. Fact is, I can't stomach any more of Hillary. I'd much much much rather have Obama. At least he is willing to TRY to approach things a different way. Hillary is way too old guard, politics as usual for my taste.
I agree as well. Nicely put.
Jeter insists it's working too. He also finds this forum infuriating.
A little recreational cherry picking HB?
I couldn't resist, after Jeter mentioned how much he hated being taken out of context.
Although I don't think my edits were any more ridiculous than RinoHunters.
Point taken. AA's been a bit provocative also, though on one of the later threads he seemed amazingly normal. :)
HRC gets to please her corporate and other right-wing supporters by essentially saying: "Bush's tactics are working." Media Matters then defends her from attacks from the left by clouding the issue and insinuating that HRC didn't say "Bush's tactics are working." Ah, the best of both worlds.
HRC is pro-Iraq War, pro-Big Business, pro-AIPAC, pro-nepotism. HRC=GWB.
Apparently, troglodytes have a one-sentence attention span. They seem unable or unwilling to see the qualifier "in some places" which precedes their one sentence. If the surge is only working in some places, that means it's NOT working in other places. Therefore, to characterize Clinton's statement as "The Surge is working" is, essentially, misleading. At best, she is saying that results are mixed. It's the classic propaganda tactic perfected by Rush Limbaugh...tell only that part of the story which supports your position and ignore the rest. Pretty much the same way they cherrypicked the WMD intelligence. I guess its a skill they teach at GOP Hack School.
Nerzog, not only do they have short attention spans, they're lazy too.I will back that up with an earlier post from this thread, edited for clarity and due to time and space considerations;
"I hate ...running..."- jeter2
This is really silly. Hillary Clinton said the surge is working. Hillary just doesn't say "surge" she says "change in tactics". Come on Media Matters. Are you just angry because you can't stand to see one of your own say something good about Iraq?
IN SOME PLACES.
This isn't difficult...really.
If you put 4,000 marines in a small village, guess what? The violence goes down. DUH. The problem is, we don't have enough troops to pacify the whole country. One of the retired military talking heads said last night that making the current strategy work would take several more years and several hundred thousand more troops.
Can you say "draft", boys and girls? Sure you can.
“We’ve begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it’s working,” said Mrs. Clinton.
MMFA do you think we're all too stupid to read the article ourselves.
"Change tactics" - referring to the surge.
"It's working." - Meaning its working.
Wrong.
There is nothing else to add. You are simply inserting words to suit your meaning.
1. "MMFA do you think we're all too stupid to read the article ourselves."- copiousdissent.blogspot
Apparently not, that's why they post articles,transcripts and links.
2."Change tactics" - referring to the surge.- copiousdissent.blogspot
In your mind.You should have written "inferring about" not "referring to".
3. "It's working." - Meaning its working.
This part is based entirely on your assumption in #2, and so is only meaningful between your ears.
Other than that, you're a pretty good Mini-Me for Rush Limbaugh if he needs one.
The Surge is NOT working
I think one of the disturbing thins to see about the posts here is how many liberals and leftists are accepting the propaganda of the Bush Admin, by arguing that the surge is working (the violence is down). They argue that we need a political solution as well, which is no where in sight.
But I argue the surge is not working on any level, and as both the McClatchy newspapers and Partick Cockburn have argued, the violence is actually up:
"The US military has suggested the bombers are operating more ruthlessly in northern Iraq because they can no longer operate in Baghdad because of the success of the American "surge". In reality, the number of car bombings in Baghdad in July was 5 per cent higher than last December and civilian casualties in explosions have increased by about the same percentage. "
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2866788.ece
I don't have a link to the McClatchy newspaper article. But here is another statistic from crooksandliars.com
une-July-August 2003: 113 Americans killed June-July-August 2004: 162 Americans killed June-July-August 2005: 217 Americans killed June-July-August 2006: 169 Americans killed June-July-August 2007: 229 Americans killed (August not over yet)
They pulled these numbers from page 18 of the Brookings report itself.
Here's the quote from the McClatchy newspapers:
"U.S. officials say the number of civilian casualties in the Iraqi capital is down 50 percent. But U.S. officials declined to provide specific numbers, and statistics gathered by McClatchy Newspapers don’t support the claim.
"The number of car bombings in July actually was 5 percent higher than the number recorded last December, according to the McClatchy statistics, and the number of civilians killed in explosions is about the same."
[link to www.reachm.com] how the American officials refuse to even show how they got their claims. Boy, do I smell the WMD hoax all over.
The statistics from crooks and liars should look like this:
June-July-August 2003: 113 Americans killed
June-July-August 2004: 162 Americans killed
June-July-August 2005: 217 Americans killed
June-July-August 2006: 169 Americans killed
June-July-August 2007: 229 Americans killed (August not over yet)
Being a retired Army Sergeant I have more faith in what these "boots on the ground"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?pagewanted=1&ref=todayspaper
are saying than any politician, any Brookings Institute report,
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/research/2007august_iraqreport.htm
and just possibly what Gen. Petraeus will report to congress.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/08/250_die_the_surge_is_working.html#more
Will it be his report or will it be the report the President wants us to hear?
I think HRC, and all of the candidates need to sit down with those "who've been there done that" and really try to understand if the Surge is working or are we just pi**ing in the wind like we have been for the last four years plus. Just one old soldiers opinion.
Thanks for those links. Here is what the soldiers said in the first link:
A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.
As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.
Indeed, the surge is not working.
The problem with the O'Hanlan report, as you hint at, is that it is written by neo conservatives who cheered on the war to begin with, hardly anti-war critics. Worse, they were in Iraq only 8 days. Worse still, they went only where the army wanted them to go, and saw only what the army wanted them to see. Greenwald, a journalist/blogger, found this out when he interviewed both writers of the report. When O'Hanlon was confronted about his limited access, he said something like "Greenwald is a bad reporter and already has too much exposure." In other words, he attacked the messenger and wouldn't answer a fundemental flaw in the report.
Other than the success in Al Anbar (which started before the surge), and this bogus report, I haven't seen anything proof that the surge is working.
Yes, Hillary needs to listen to who has been there, but my feeling is she will did what she did before the war, and try to look tough for political reasons. She won't want to look like a dove, so she will continue bad policy. She should not be spouting off any nonsense about Al Anbar, anyway.
Surge is not working, part 2
This is from an aticle in Salon by Juan Cole, one of the foremost experts of the Middle East, whose testimony has been sought by congress, and has been right about Iraq all along:
Meanwhile, the statistics for the hapless Iraqis themselves are no less discouraging. According to icasualties.org, the Iraqi civilian and military death toll from political violence in July 2007 was 1,690, a 25 percent increase from the July 2006 number, 1,280. (There was also a 25 percent increase in Iraqi casualties in July 2007 over June 2007, meaning the trend was going in the wrong direction any way you look at it.) These statistics -- bad enough as they are -- are typically understated by a substantial margin because passive tallying by media outlets misses many deaths.
...
Surely if the troop escalation has been working, then the number of guerrilla attacks must be declining, right? But as recently as June, according to a report by Reuters, daily attacks by guerrillas that month hit an astounding all-time high of 177.8 per day on average. That is, not since May 1, 2003, have there been as many attacks per day as in June 2007, with a total of 5,334.
...
What has surged is not calm or political compromise, but rather the number of guerrilla attacks, the number of U.S. troop deaths compared to the same months in previous years, and the number of Iraqi casualties. That some of the U.S. media and the U.S. public have allowed themselves to be manipulated into thinking the "numbers" from Iraq are a cause for optimism echoes the sloppy and wishful thinking that got U.S. into this mess in the first place.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/08/07/surge/
Funnymanpants, you are just ridiculous. Get your head out of the sand. From today's WaPo:[link to www.washingtonpost.com] begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Anbar province, it's working," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Monday.
"My assessment is that if we put an additional 30,000 of our troops into Baghdad, that's going to quell some of the violence in the short term," Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) echoed in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. "I don't think there's any doubt that as long as U.S. troops are present that they are going to be doing outstanding work."
Advisers to both said theirs were political as well as substantive statements, part of a broader Democratic effort to frame Petraeus's report before it is released next month by preemptively acknowledging some military success in the region. Aides to several Senate Democrats said they expect that to be a recurring theme in the coming weeks, as lawmakers return to hear Petraeus's testimony and to possibly take up a defense authorization bill and related amendments on the war.
Wrong, as usual. First, you link is broken.
Second, you are substituting political spin, what the WA Post thinks these candidates are saying, for what they are saying. Our main stream press loves to read minds. The Wa Post is wrong about Hillary, as has already been shown my MMFA and other posters.
Most importantly, though, you didn't address any of the statistics I posted above. The violence in all areas has *increased.* Is that your idea of the surge beginning to work? How are there more guerilla attack than ever and more deaths, and yet somehow the surge is working?
Firstly, I have not been wrong yet. Secondly son, again you must work on your reading comprehension. I even highlited the relevant parts in bold for you! The WaPo reported that ADVISERS to Clinton and Obama said it was part of a broader Democrat effort to preemptively acknowledge some military success in Iraq. Are you really this obtuse or are you purposefully feigning stupidity? The Democratic leaders in the house agree that the surge has improved security: "House Democratic leaders held an early morning conference call yesterday with House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), honing a new message: Of course an influx of U.S. troops has improved security in Iraq, but without any progress on political reconciliation, the sweat and blood of American forces has been for naught." So, and make sure you read this carefully, it is not I who is saying that the surge is working to improve security in Iraq, it is Clinton, Obama, and Democratic Congressmen. Now, please read that again. Maybe even go over it a third time. I'm growing tired of educating you.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082102025_pf.html
I'm not your son. So you are wrong once again.
The advisors say that the surge has *some* military success, or at least according to the Wa Post, which got Hillary's quote completely wrong, so there is reason to doubt their assessment.
If the advisors really think the surge is working, they are outright wrong. Look at the statistics.
Please tell me how the violence has increased in all ways, the political situation has worsened, and yet the surge is working.
As soon as you are able to provide statistics from reliable sources, I'd be glad to look at them. Quoting Juan Cole (an Ahmadinejad apologist and wholly biased source) is just plain ridiculous. That'd be like some right winger using Rush Limbaugh as a source. That dog just ain't gonna hunt Unfunnywomanknickers.
In other words, you can't refute the statistics, which Juan links to. Statistics don't lie. He provided sources for his statistics. Name calling is not an argument, by the way, though you seem to think it is. Because Juan Cole has been right about *everything* in the war so far and you have been wrong, doesn't mean you can dismiss him.
Also, I provided statistics from McClatchy newspapers and Patrick Cockburn.
You are so wrong here it is funny. Please explain to me how the violence is increased in all areas and yet the surge is working.
Yes, but who provided those statistics to McClatchy and Cockburn (ouch!)? Please provide me with links or I can't believe what you're claiming. Maybe this is just a repeat of the discredited Lancet survey.
Violence is down in Al Anbar province. Hillary said so herself.
And in Iraq altogether it is up so why is it unreasonable for Funnypants to say he sees that as evidence the surge is NOT working?
Of course he can say that. But one could just as easily point to the provinces (like Al Anbar) that have seen reductions in violence as proof that the surge IS working. At some point, one either has to give "the surge" a legitmate chance, or just call it quits (in my opinion).
Fine I have no problem with saying it can be argued either way, I see the whole argument as irrelevant anyway for the reason I already posted
I dont think you are feigning stupidity I think you are stupid and the only education you are giving is on the subject OF your stupidity. I could explain this to you once again but multiple posters have already done that multiple times. The FACT you are too ignorant to see the sky is blue is no reason for you to become annoyed at those far more capable of understanding the written word. Adult education. Look into it.
Are you really defending Funnymanpants' comprehension level? You've really lost it. You are stupider than he his and you probably have really smelly farts.
Yes I am. It really isnt my fault you are too dumb to get what he is saying. My goldfish knows more about quantum mechanics than you do about this and he died this morning. I may be stupid but compared to YOU I am Sir Isaac Newton, houseplants make more sense than you
House plants have a better understanding of comma use than you. You're farts are still really smelly too. Perhaps it's time to change the ol' pantaloons?
Ok now that is a fair criticizm. My punctuation is attrocious, however in my defense my typing is even worse. The point is I dont think you are stupid but isnt the ad hominem insult easy and worthless? Childish? So why dont we both just leave them out of what CAN be a reasoned discussion. By the way I actually KNOW how to use commas, in pairs actually, one of the most misused of punctuation. I just can seem to get my fingers to keep up with my brain so I am typing a few lines behind and often read my post later and say WOW. That was really bad. Considering there is a preview function that is even sadder than it first seems.
I agree that it's silly, worthless, and childish (hence the "your farts are smelly" line). But, in my defense, Funnymanpants was really having a terrible time and I felt that I could shame him into reading others' posts a bit more carefully before jumping down their throats (as he did with Lostlogic). Though my methods may have been ridiculous, my heart was in the right place.
By the way, who needs to get their head out of the sand and read the newspaper?
Fourteen U.S. soldiers died Wednesday when their helicopter crashed in northern Iraq, the U.S. military said.
Separately, at least 37 people were killed and 81 wounded when a suicide car bomb detonated outside a police building in the Iraqi town of Baiji, north of Baghdad, in Salaheddin province, police said.
Also Wednesday, a U.S. soldier was killed and three others wounded in combat west of Baghdad, the military said.
cnn
The proletariat will sweep Hillary Godham Clinton into office! Workers unite! We will not let events on the ground in Iraq change our talking points! Band together for the defeat of capitalism and the American military! Thank you Media Myrmidons for your cooperation in these efforts! In the words of Hillary, "I'm going to take those profits!"
And thank YOU moronic Boooore bedwetter, love the comic relief. Its good to be reminded there are those idiotic brainwashed fools out there that take such stupidity seriously.
According to icasualties.org, the Iraqi civilian and military death toll from political violence in July 2007 was 1,690, a 25 percent increase from the July 2006
Oh, yes, let us not let real facts get in the way of our right wing nut idealogy.
Shoes for industry!
Shoes for the Dead!
Say what chance does a returned and deceased war veteran have for that good paying job, more sugar and that free mule you've been dreaming of.
Well joe take off your shoes. Now you can see that increased production means more goods for everyone, and more of IT too.
So take off your shoes! For industry!
So Chico, Alvarado did you find the enemy? Yeah leutenant there are millions of them on all three sides of us, they have chickens and pigs and goats... They LIVE here leutenant