09/09/2007 05:54:32 PM EST

Disgraceful Democrat

posted by KenTX

Here is what Chuck Schumer said on the floor of the Senate last week:

“Let me be clear. The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al-Qaeda said to these tribes, "We have to fight al-Qaeda ourselves."

"It wasn't that the surge brought peace here, it was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here and that was because there was no one else there protecting.”

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
So Democrats finally accept clear evidence that the violence in Iraq is dropping dramatically, and that al Qaeda terrorists are being dispatched to Allah at a rate of 1500 per month.

But Schumer says the U.S. Military has nothing to do with this success. And the fact that we’re working closely with the Sunni Tribes in Anbar is not an important strategic victory.

Let’s do some math. If 19 al Qaeda terrorists were able to inflict greater than one trillion dollars worth of damage to the American economy back in 2001, then the War in Iraq is probably saving us about $80 trillion per month. Over time, this could add up to real money.

< $ for Americans, Tax Cuts for Iraqis | Enough - Ann Arbor, MI >
 Display:
Disgraceful Democrat | 32 comments (32 topical, 0 hidden)
Not THESE Democrats (none / 0)
Lets do a reality check

MR. EDWARDS: I'm absolutely in favor of America leaving Iraq. What I'm concerned about, about the Petraeus report, is that it will be basically a sales job by the White House, that it'll be a PR document -- (applause) -- because that's what we've continually gotten from this administration, throughout the course of the war.

SEN. CLINTON: I was against the surge when it was first proposed. And I believe that nothing which General Petraeus or Ambassador Crocker or anyone else coming before the Congress will say next week will in any way undermine the basic problem: There is no military solution. That has been said for years now. And that is why I believe we should start bringing our troops home.

GOV. RICHARDSON: What I would do with the troops is I would bring them all home -- every one of them.
You can't bring reconciliation to Iraq, or an all-Muslim peacekeeping force or a partition, without getting all our troops out. Our kids are becoming targets. They are dying -- the last three months, the highest total. Iraqis are dying.

An FYI since you seem to be totally ignorant of the  fact s ."Terrorism is a tactic, not a country -- there always were terrorists and will always be. This is not a war that can be "won" in the conventional sense -- that is clearly an impossibility. Recent events have shown that good police work can do more than an ill-conceived war that has become a recruiting tool for terrorists."



 

by Bill Ding on 09/10/2007 07:57:36 AM EST

Disgraceful Ken (none / 0)

There were NO al Qaeda members in Iraq before Bush's Operation Iraqi Liberation, OIL, war. Al Qaeda came in later. They may as well be working for Bush.

Local leaders in Anbar took it on themselves to get rid of the outsiders--al Qaeda. The US military is helping the Sunnis get rid of Shiites, and vice versa. Al Qaeda terrorists are Sunni, but they're not Iraqi. 

Perhaps you should be there to understand the society. Have you ever been to the Middle East? I have. Do you know any Iraqis?

And General Petraeus will lie in his report about the "success" of the surge, uh, troop escalation. George Orwell was right. This is straight out of 1984.

by zenie on 09/10/2007 09:54:23 AM EST

It gets even worse than that (none / 0)

"There were NO al Qaeda members in Iraq before Bush's Operation Iraqi Liberation, OIL, war. Al Qaeda came in later. They may as well be working for Bush."

This is true but I think it's even a little worse than that.  The "Al Qaeda" that "came in" to Iraq probably wasn't originally "Al Qaeda" at all, but like-minded and admiring foreigners who wanted to get in on the Jihad against the Americans.  They proclaimed an afiliation with Al Qaeda because they admired its notoriety (much of it generated by the neocon fear-mongering) and wanted to borrow some of that mojo.  Those Al Qaeda leaders who had fled to Pakistan gladly accepted these new-comers into the fold because it was the only card they had to play at the time.  Although they didn't have any strict control over these new recruits (much to their aggravation, you can see it in their communications) they could now claim a presence in Iraq where they had virtually none before.  Voila, instant Al Qaeda in Iraq!

Bush CREATED Al Qaeda in Iraq out of thin air at the exact same time as he began to ignore the established or "old" Al Qaeda.  Now the "new" Al Qaeda has become a source of funding and training for the resurgent organization in Pakistan.

These guys rail about "not surrendering" to Al Qaeda in Iraq when they are the very people who sowed the seeds for its expansion and growth there.  

Want to know the worst part about it?  They don't, won't, never will see it.  There's only one thing you can do with such people and that is to send them on their way and never allow them to hold the reigns again.

by bfaul on 09/10/2007 12:27:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Show you really care (none / 0)
When American troops leave Iraq Al qaeda  there will evaporate. If the conservatives are so concerned about al qaeda in Iraq they should be pushing to get the troops out.

by Bill Ding on 09/10/2007 02:13:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
OOH analyzing Ken again (none / 0)
First off I would like to say that Shumer is an uber liberal and not always correct but he is an American citizen who was elected to an office as a Democrat which allows him to have an opinion. Unlike the Neo Con run Republican party who are nothing but a bunch of lemmings.

But lets focus on Ken the Libertarian.

Ken claims that "the violence in Iraq is dropping dramatically" but the Iraqi citizen body count is up in August. Now how can that be?

Ken also claims that "al Qaeda terrorists are being dispatched to Allah at a rate of 1500 per month", but the best estimate for foreign fighters (not even al Qaeda) in Iraq Ken could find is 16,000. Ken is trying to tell us that 130,000 American troops and 8 billion dollars a month can not hunt down this giant 16,000 "foreign fighter force" with the aid of this vicious Sunni force that we have just aquired. Or is there more to this story? We should have been done 3 years ago or another 7 months at best according to Ken's numbers.

Back to the Libertarian thing.

Libertarians have already published their opinion about "surrendering to al Qaeda in Iraq".

Libertarians have published about what they think about the "invation of Iraq".

Libertarians have defended Ron Paul (Ken's own Libertarian congressman).

I read these regularly so do I need to find more?

So my only question left to KenTX is when he puts on his official golden EIB knee pads, puts his head into his favorite Neo Con man crushes lap (Rush or Rove) and starts bobbing up and down, does he spit or swallow?

They put you in heels so you can defend your tax breaks, didn't they Ken?

zippy the hippy.

by z1p101 on 09/10/2007 02:48:03 PM EST

500 (none / 0)
Ken claims that "the violence in Iraq is dropping dramatically" but the Iraqi citizen body count is up in August. Now how can that be?

A coordinated series of attacks on Yazidis in northern Iraq killed about 500 people in one day. Could that massacre that occurred outside the reach of the surge have obscured the downward statistical trend?

by Twba on 09/10/2007 03:42:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Read the article. (none / 0)


"Nearly a quarter of the August total comprised 411 people killed in massive truck bombings against the minority Yazidi community in northern Iraq on August 14th.

Without the Yazidi attack, the death toll would still be higher than the June number of 1,227, which had been the lowest monthly total since a US-backed crackdown began in February."

 

by z1p101 on 09/10/2007 03:51:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Those people weren't counted (none / 0)
I believe the counts exclude such events.

by bfaul on 09/10/2007 03:51:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wanna try that one again? (none / 0)

"Ken claims that "the violence in Iraq is dropping dramatically" but the Iraqi citizen body count is up in August. Now how can that be?"
 
A coordinated series of attacks on Yazidis in northern Iraq killed about 500 people in one day. Could that massacre that occurred outside the reach of the surge have obscured the downward statistical trend?

I'll be happy to let you clarify/correct that before reminding you that the surge and even the pre-surge troops invaded Iraq - We didn't invade and occupy only certain areas of the country and accept the consequences of our presence only in specific sections.

Whether a particular "finger" of the escalation was pointed directly at that particular event is irrelevant. The violence and number of deaths cannot be separated out for political convenience. We are the invaders/occupiers and responsible for the ENTIRE country.

Until we get the hell out and let them work out their own destiny.

...uh...I guess you don't have to clarify since I already did my remindin'...

by MedfordTim on 09/11/2007 06:12:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
compare and contrast (none / 0)
"Until we get the hell out and let them work out their own destiny."

That's exactly what I kept saying about places like Bosnia, Kosovo, Darfur, but the Democrats kept dragging us back in!

Republicans want to fight over strategic interests, like oil and terrorism and nuclear weapons.

Democrats want to fight over ethnic cleansing.

by KenTX on 09/11/2007 08:18:35 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Libertarians are so clueless (none / 0)

Republicans want to fight over corporate interests. They lost their credibility in having concern for anything other than corporations a long time ago. They totally lost any credibility about morality.

Democrats care about people: American people--"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". They care about people around the world. We are only as safe and prosperous as our world neighbors--but we need to make sure Americans have successful jobs, businesses and investments, good health, first.

Libertarians are conservative Republicans who don't want to pay taxes and are totally in line with the corporate government, but refuse to admit it. I like the part about legalizing drugs, though. Privatize everything! Duh, sounds like covernment. Corporations love the libertarians to do their propaganda.

The UN was asked to go into Bosnia, Kosovo, Darfur. In Croatia and Bosnia [we were there last year], although they still hate/love each other, there are few people who aren't grateful that the Serbs aren't there any more. 

KenTX--when was the last time you were in Bosnia to talk to Bosnians? And BTW, there are plenty of people there who speak English. They're REALLY glad that the UN fought over ethnic cleansing. So are their neighbors.

People vs. corporations. Corporations vs. people. Corporations sent American jobs overseas and import poison toys and food. That's not strategic. Strategic is keeping steel and aircraft industries in the US, not offshoring them.

by zenie on 09/11/2007 09:20:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Memo to Twba. (none / 0)
Re: zenie

You first.

by KenTX on 09/11/2007 11:56:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
KenTX reponds (none / 0)
I was going to yield to Twba, since free market globalization is more his dig than mine. However, I think he might be on foreign assignment, negotiating a big trade deal for the Departments of State and Commerce, so I will respond to zenie.
 
First off, we need to work on the name “zenie”. It’s kind of androgynous, and that bugs me a little. When I see a baby, I want the child to be wearing a Dallas Cowboy t-shirt it’s a boy, or a pink outfit with a bow in her hair if it’s a girl. I don’t like guess work. So if you’re a guy, how about zorro? And if you’re a gal, how about ladyzenie or misszenie?


Next, I have been trying to support your participation in this forum because you seem reasonably logical for a liberal. There is no need for you to get offended or angry at conservative points of view. We’re having a party here, so have fun.
 
"Republicans want to fight over corporate interests. They lost their credibility in having concern for anything other than corporations a long time ago. They totally lost any credibility about morality.”
I can’t disagree with much in this paragraph, but I might replace the word “corporate” with the word “business”. Corporate sounds like we only care about big business, when in fact, Republicans care about businesses of all sizes. Business is what makes America great.


“Democrats care about people: American people--"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". They care about people around the world. We are only as safe and prosperous as our world neighbors--but we need to make sure Americans have successful jobs, businesses and investments, good health, first.”
See there, you’re already catching on! If we take care of business first, then jobs and investments and health care and quality of life and liberty and happiness are sure to follow. It sounds like you’ve travelled extensively around the globe, so you’ve had a chance to experience firsthand what makes America a great country. The reason we are different is our obsession with all things related to business.


“KenTX--when was the last time you were in Bosnia to talk to Bosnians? And BTW, there are plenty of people there who speak English. They're REALLY glad that the UN fought over ethnic cleansing. So are their neighbors.”
Zenie--When was the last time you were in Kurdistan to talk to Kurds? And BTW, there are plenty of people there who speak English. They're REALLY glad that America ended ethnic cleansing. So are their neighbors.


So, if America should use military might to defeat a bad guy like Slobidan Milosevic, shouldn’t we use military might to defeat a bad guy like Saddam Hussein?

“People vs. corporations. Corporations vs. people. Corporations sent American jobs overseas and import poison toys and food. That's not strategic. Strategic is keeping steel and aircraft industries in the US, not offshoring them.”
This is where Twba comes in. I will say that whenever zenie goes to WalMart, and 90% of the merchandise in the store comes from China, I don’t know if I should blame corporations, or if I should blame zenie for shopping there every week.

How would you solve the trade deficit problem? Tariffs don’t work. How do you like this solution to the problem? (takes about 10 seconds to load)

It’s not corporations versus people. Business makes quality of life in America superior to the countries you recently visited in your globe trekking.

by KenTX on 09/12/2007 01:15:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Zenobia sez: Disgraceful KenTX (none / 0)

Zenobia. It's Greek--name of Zeus' first daughter. We Latinas have lots of interesting, uncommon names, like Xeniflóres and Bienvenida.

The rest of KenTX's comments show that he is unfamiliar with the distrust and outright hostility towards corporations by the writers of the US Constitution, especially Jefferson and Madison. By his comments, it appears that he doesn't carefully read news reports from a variety of sources, as well as opinions, otherwise he would be better informed about current events and history.

Slobodan Milošević was captured and put on trial in the Hague. The surrounding states had requested aid from the UN to stop the invasions. Serbia wasn't bombed back to the stone age--and the best pop/news station B92 is still on the air and streaming. In contrast, nobody reliable after 9/11 requested help in Iraq. Saddam Hussein hadn't attacked his direct neighbors then, nor was he a threat to us, yet Cheney and Rumsfeld had no qualms about carpet bombing their capital city and destroying much of the infrastructure of their country and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. All this to steal oil, and get revenge on one man who Bush weakly claims, "He tried to kill my daddy." Horrific, yet pathetic.

Kurdistan: Kurds and Iraqi Shiites hated us, especially GHW Bush for promising that he would help them get rid of Saddam after the first gulf war, then doing nothing to aid them when Saddam retaliated against them. Sure, it's better now, but that's mostly in spite of the US, not because of us.

Language: I travel a lot. It doesn't surprise me that most people I meet are multilingual, or at least somewhat bilingual. Most people in my family speak at least 2 languages; my uncle speaks 7, including Chinese. Too many people in the US have enough trouble with English. Our educational system would be greatly improved if the foreign language requirement in high school were brought back; used to be a requirement when I was in school in New Jersey. It's no surprise that Kurds understand English. It's the international language, but the home languages come first, then their neighbors' language. I wonder how many Kurds speak Farsi and Turkish, compared to the percent of Americans who speak Spanish and French.

I don't shop at Walmart. The Walton family are crooks who con communities with promises, then don't pay taxes, and make the state pay their employees' health benefits. They also mislabel foreign goods with US labels.

KenTX, you are wrong about [corporate] businesses making life superior in the US. Life is much better where corporations are more regulated. Small and medium-sized local businesses still provide most of the employment in the US, and keep much of the money in circulation locally. If you're a small business owner, good for you.

It's the people vs. corporations--really. Can't trust corporations to pay fair wages without regulation, can't trust them to provide benefits, can't trust them not to break contracts, can't trust them to create safe products and services, can't trust them not to lobby for corporate welfare while sending jobs overseas. 

Your life is good because Democrats and union members fought for a decent safe standard of living, against the corporations which fight [against even their own long-term interests] every step of the way to keep us down.

by zenie on 09/13/2007 11:03:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No more Mr Nice Guy! (none / 0)
"By his comments, it appears that he doesn't carefully read news reports from a variety of sources, as well as opinions, otherwise he would be better informed about current events and history."

Zenie, I'm very disappointed. I was trying to be as nice as I possibly could, and this is how you respond. Let's consider how well you carefully read news reports from a variety of sources, as well as opinions, and are well informed about current events and history.

Here is what you said about the Kurds:

"Kurds and Iraqi Shiites hated us, especially GHW Bush for promising that he would help them get rid of Saddam after the first gulf war, then doing nothing to aid them when Saddam retaliated against them. Sure, it's better now, but that's mostly in spite of the US, not because of us."

Here is a message from the people of Kurdistan to the people of America.

Here is what you said about Saddam Hussein:

"Saddam Hussein hadn't attacked his direct neighbors then, nor was he a threat to us."

Saddam attacked Kuwait and raped their women. Saddam attacked Iran and killed hundreds of thousands. Saddam attacked the Kurds and gassed them with chemical weapons. Saddam attacked the marsh dwellers and exterminated them like animals. Saddam attacked the Shiites and filled mass graves with thousands of innocents. Saddam paid the families of Islamic Jihadist siucide bombers.

And you're comparing him to Slobidan Milosevic? You better buy yourself a goddam clue on the subject of history and current events.

by KenTX on 09/13/2007 12:16:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Saddam didn't attack us or neighbors post-9/11 (none / 0)

Saddam Hussein attacked Iran and Kuwait years before 9/11. He never attacked us. Kurds and Shiites were double-crossed by Daddy Bush after the first gulf war, and many thousands were killed by Saddam's orders. It wasn't until over a decade later that their situation changed.

Repubs rant about the successful UN action against the Serbs while lying about Saddam's [non-]involvement in 9/11. They're the ones who obfuscate history. You're doing the same.

You may be trying to be polite, but try being more accurate, and not taking news items out of context.

by zenie on 09/13/2007 01:15:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
a few questions for you (none / 0)
“They're the ones who obfuscate history. You're doing the same.”
I’m the one obfuscating history? Let’s take another look at your assertions in this thread.

"Saddam Hussein hadn't attacked his direct neighbors then, nor was he a threat to us."
You’re trying to make a weak argument that the overthrow of Slobodan Milošević was more justified than the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Why did Democrats in Congress vote to use military action to invade Iraq and topple Saddam? Because they’re stupid? Because they’re gullible?

Was Slobodan Milošević ever a threat to the U.S.? Did Slobodan Milošević kill as many innocent people as Saddam Hussein? Did Slobodan Milošević kill as many people after invading neighboring countries as Saddam Hussein? Was Slobodan Milošević tried by his own countrymen, convicted of crimes against humanity, and hanged like Saddam Hussein? Was the world happier after the death of Slobodan Milošević than they were after the hanging of Saddam Hussein?

"Kurds and Iraqi Shiites hated us, especially GHW Bush for promising that he would help them get rid of Saddam after the first gulf war, then doing nothing to aid them when Saddam retaliated against them. Sure, it's better now, but that's mostly in spite of the US, not because of us."
Take a look at this new clip, (you haven’t seen this one yet) and then tell us that the Kurds don’t LOVE America and the freedom we’ve provided as a result of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

What about the Sunnis in the western provinces of Iraq? They used to be our sworn enemies, but it looks like they’re our new buddies because they’ve figured out that they need us, and we need them. The new objective is to help transform Sunnistan the same way we helped transform Kurdistan.
they really like us!
Is America leaving Iraq? Probably not for another 10-15 years, regardless of who is elected in 2008. The Democrats could force U.S. withdrawal TODAY by blocking supplemental appropriations bills. But they would never force surrendering Iraq to al Qaeda because it would be insane. You doubt me? Then why aren’t Democrats banding together to end the war?

by KenTX on 09/13/2007 07:54:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Um Ken (none / 0)

I know you really don't like to read and that must be why you like pictures and graphs so much.

But you do realize that that dude shaking numb nutzes hand was assassinated earlier today for talking to Bush. That's why it was so easy to find that picture I guess.

Oh yea, everything is under control and is going to get better any day now. 

I still think we should let the Shiites take care of al Qaeda in Iraq. The only real solution.

by z1p101 on 09/13/2007 10:27:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sheik Yerbooty (none / 0)
Yep, he was assassinated alright! Let's see who was responsible:

"No group claimed responsibility for the assassination, but it was widely assumed to have been carried out by al-Qaida, which already had killed four of Abu Risha's brothers and six other relatives for working with the U.S. military."

Well I'll be damned! Al Qaeda? Again? I thought you said there were only five al Qaeda operatives working in Iraq? They sure must be busy little bees!

If American forces leave tommorrow, as all good Democrats hope and pray, do you think al Qaeda will leave also? Or will they stay in Iraq to show the world that they defeated the Big Satan, and reclaim the Holy Land for Allah. You probably didn't think that far, didja?

If we can all agree that we should be killing al Qaeda, and we can all agree that Iraq is a big al Qaeda magnet, and we can all agree that Iraq is easier to move armor and material around than Afghanistan, then why do you liberals want to declare defeat and run away?

by KenTX on 09/14/2007 01:42:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh no Ken (none / 0)

"If American forces leave tommorrow, as all good Democrats hope and pray, do you think al Qaeda will leave also? Or will they stay in Iraq to show the world that they defeated the Big Satan, and reclaim the Holy Land for Allah. You probably didn't think that far, didja?"
 

I have thought about it farther than that. I once again urge you to read this. Liberaterians explain it all but you would not know anything about that because Rush does not explain it to you.

Due to the neo con mistake of invading Iraq, it is waaaay past time that we should have started to split the country of Iraq up so we can concentrate on al Qaeda in the Sunni territories along with their re-built stronghold on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border.

However Bush is not willing to do that because of his promises to his fathers business parters in Saudi Arabia and our Turkish allies. So, Bush will his best to drag this out until he leaves office just so he can say it was not my fault.

So obvious what is happening here. You are an intelligent person, how can you not see it?

by z1p101 on 09/14/2007 02:41:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Wait a minute (none / 0)

I just read this again.

"If we can all agree that we should be killing al Qaeda, and we can all agree that Iraq is a big al Qaeda magnet, and we can all agree that Iraq is easier to move armor and material around than Afghanistan, then why do you liberals want to declare defeat and run away?"

Are you suggesting that we should not focus on the al Qaeda base in Afghanistan which is recruiting and training terrorists just so we have an easier battle field to face them on in Iraq? Are you suggesting that we continue to give UBL a real time training ground in Iraq  for his easily replenishable recruits because it is easier to move tanks around? Are you suggesting that we should just sit there and wait for al Qaeda to take free shots at us because of some mountains?

I'm sorry, I gave you too much credit. You are dumber than dirt. 

by z1p101 on 09/14/2007 03:35:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
zenie, don't insult Libertarians (none / 0)

Ken is about as Libertarian as Bush is competent.

If you read the Libertarian blogs this is what they talk about.

1. Bush is an idiot.

2. We have a choice between tax and spend Democrats or borrow and spend even more neo cons Republicans.

3. This domestic spying program is highly unconstitutional.

4.America should not mot have invaded Iraq nor should we be waisting our lives or money there.

6. Did I mention that Bush is an idiot?

There are other things that I could mention but the only thing Ken and Libertarians have in common is the tax issue. However, Ken always fails to explain how we fight a 2 billion dollar a week war without paying for it. I guess we should just let our bridges collapse, close our schools, shut down the ATF, homeland security, immigration and other government agencies just so Bush can save face. 

by z1p101 on 09/12/2007 04:01:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Darfur? (none / 0)
How many troops do we have in Darfur?

I know, I know, you were just going for the dramatic point. Consider the question rhetorical, I simply couldn't resist.

It brought to mind a poster I had half a lifetime ago of a cartoony Richard Nixon holding peace/V for Victory figers above his head, caption reading He Kept Our Boys Out Of Northern Ireland!

Bush: He Kept Our Troops Out Of Darfur!

by MedfordTim on 09/11/2007 02:18:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Clarify (none / 0)
Northern Iraq is for the most part in the hands of its resident Kurds. If it wasn't, imagine how thinly spread the surge would be.

Whether a particular "finger" of the escalation was pointed directly at that particular event is irrelevant. The violence and number of deaths cannot be separated out for political convenience.

I was posing a question, Tim. Did that one horrific event obscure a statistical trend? That's not the same as claiming that some deaths don't count.

Until we get the hell out and let them work out their own destiny.

They are working out their destiny. Iraq is disintegrating in slow motion.

by Twba on 09/11/2007 08:29:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
conversationally... (none / 0)
Northern Iraq is for the most part in the hands of its resident Kurds. If it wasn't, imagine how thinly spread the surge would be.

True - and now that they are having their own battles with Turkey and Iran, this is an aspect of the overall situation that is being ignored.

That horrific event is part of the statistical trend - would it have been better for the statistics if they had been spread out over a week? It also begs the question: how many people dead in one attack before leaving them out of the statistics as an anomaly is acceptable? over 49? 99? what's the cutoff point?

They are working out their destiny. Iraq is disintegrating in slow motion.

Yup, sorta, although I'm not sure about how slow that motion is but they ARE getting help from the Bush administration, and if anyone knows how to disintigrate a nation, it's them. Their mission is being accomplished. Two birds with one stone, eh?

by MedfordTim on 09/11/2007 02:12:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Zippy Predictions (none / 0)
Throughout the summer, Zippy the Hippie kept making predictions like this about the September Showdown.

“All I keep saying is come September the Republicans are not going to take orders from the White House any more. They are going to force Bush to change to a strategy that looks like what the Dems have been asking for since last year giving them the “I told you so” line. And that idiot Bush is going to look like the failure he is.

The troop withdraw will start on Bush’s watch because nobody wants to clean up his mess or lose the election because of him. You keep looking for more but it’s not there.”

In fact, Zippy is on record making all manner of optimistic claims about Democrat prospects in September.

So, which side is divided and demoralized now? Did you hear Cenk’s three hour rant this morning? He didn't sound very happy.

by KenTX on 09/11/2007 03:54:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Heres a clue (none / 0)
You don't have to be a psychic all you have to do is read the polls.

by Bill Ding on 09/11/2007 10:53:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Fun With Graphs! (none / 0)
Ken claims that "the violence in Iraq is dropping dramatically" but the Iraqi citizen body count is up in August. Now how can that be?


deal with it #1 

deal with it #2
deal with it #3

by KenTX on 09/12/2007 01:55:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm tired (none / 0)

I'll get to all your crap tomorrow if I feel like it.

But if you are going to post your graphs make sure they are accurate.

Last Updated: 01/09/2007  10:01 <-- notice date

<h1>Monthly civilian death toll in Iraq rises</h1>

Civilian deaths from violence in Iraq rose in August, with 1,773 people killed, government data showed today, just days before the US Congress gets a slew of reports on President George W. Bush's war strategy.

The civilian death toll was up 7 per cent from 1,653 people killed in July, according to figures from various ministries.

by z1p101 on 09/12/2007 03:17:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Why Zippy is easy to defeat (none / 0)
"Last Updated: 01/09/2007  10:01 <-- notice date
"Monthly civilian death toll in Iraq rises"

What country do you live in? Do you realize that the time stamp on your article is Jan 09, 2007? It is not September 01, 2007.

"The civilian death toll was up 7 per cent from 1,653 people killed in July, according to figures from various ministries."
 
That is correct. The graph clearly shows a sharp increase in civilian death toll between July 2006 and January 2007. This was pre-surge violence. Get it?

"But if you are going to post your graphs make sure they are accurate."

My graphs come from a powerpoint presentation from General Petraeus. Your data comes from an article that is over eight months old.

by KenTX on 09/12/2007 04:34:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
OK (none / 0)

Got me, 1 too many beers tonight.

Oh well 

by z1p101 on 09/12/2007 04:38:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
OOPS (none / 0)

No third line down.

Nearly a quarter of the August total comprised 411 people killed in massive truck bombings against the minority Yazidi community in northern Iraq on August 14th.

That just happened. I just remembered Europeans tend to switch those date numbers for some reason.

Guess the Iraqi civilian death count per month is still up.

Sorry. 

 

by z1p101 on 09/12/2007 04:49:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Disgraceful Democrat | 32 comments (32 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: