Thursday, November 15, 2007

Got Wood?

This blog entry is in response to the commenter on the post below regarding the good news out of Iraq, the press's non-coverage of it, and the seditious Democrats and their non-support (unless of course you count what the House Democrats pushed through yesterday "support"). Brilliant war strategy, tell the enemy when you'll be gone. That'll do it. But I digress.

First of all, the commenter very clearly didn't read or didn't comprehend the article linked, because he asked, "What success?" Actually, he nicely proves my point. Democrats *ignore* the great successes our troops have every day, and focus on the negative. When is the last time you heard a Democrat mention the word "victory?" I mean other than saying we'll never achieve it? When is the last time you heard a Democrat single out some great accomplishment by our troops, and praise them for it? No, you'll hear the platitude "I support the troops, but..." Liars, all of them.

For those who are interested, not those who, as the commenter, simply will not accept any indication of American greatness and success in Iraq, here is another link describing the progress our fine military is making in Iraq. This kind of news just grates on those who would prefer to see George W. Bush brought down than see America emerge victorious. As the article says, no one is declaring victory just yet. War is an ugly business and there will always be setbacks. But the trend is in our favor.

U.S. military fatalities are down sharply, from 101 in June to 39 in October. Iraqi civilian deaths also were down sharply, from 1,791 in August to 750 in October, according to the Associated Press. Mortar rocket attacks by insurgents in October were the lowest since February 2006, as were the number of "indirect fire" attacks on coalition forces.

Iraqi officials say they plan to reduce checkpoints, ease curfews and reopen some roads in and around Baghdad because of the improving security situation. Sunni Arab tribal leaders in western Anbar province, now allied with the U.S. military, say al Qaeda is "almost defeated" in their once-chaotic region.

A lot of this is covered by the Rich Lowry piece referenced in yesterday's post. If you haven't read it yet, I highly recommend it.

Need more? Here is an interview with a soldier actually *there*, Captain Aaron Kaufman of Bravo Company in Iraq. They don't sugarcoat the problems that we have there, but we are *clearly* making progress, and as Rush says, good news for America is bad news for the Democrats. They are so invested in our defeat that they can't really make a credible about-face, so they just plunge on, making brilliant statements like, “The fact is, we can no longer sustain the military deployment in Iraq,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA “Staying there in the manner that we are there is no longer an option.” ("...because, dammit, we might win, and THEN where would the Democrats be?")

I've said it before and I'll say it again...our military is going to continue to beat the bad guys, as long as we have President Bush and enough conservatives in Congress who actually want to WIN. I truly believe that will translate into Republican gains in Nov. 2008. That is secondary, however. The main thing is national security...but apparently we can't have one without the other.

JASmius adds: Wow, Woody finally managed to find us. Guess that goes to show the value of hiding in plain sight.

Don't get too bent, Jen. The "debate" on Iraq - to the degree that the term "debate" is defined as a civil, intelligent exchange of legitimate opposing viewpoints - ended with the congressional resolution authorizing Operation Iraqi Freedom five years ago. Everything from the Democrat side of the war against the War since then has been a sustained growl.

The FACTS are that we won the war against Saddam in three weeks; weren't quite prepared for the pre-planned "insurgency" strategy that followed, but defeated it by the end of 2005; then al Qaeda shifted tactics, blew up that sacred mosque in January 2006, and got us caught in a sectarian crossfire that almost - but not quite - became a civil war. The traditional American cultural impatience with long wars remaining what it is, a majority of the public bailed on the War, and the GOP, in the 2006 mid-terms. The Democrats (and their terrorist allies) thought they had won.

But rather than cave, President Bush switched generals and strategies, went with David Petraeus and the "Surge," and by July, as has been chronicled here, the tide had turned so decisively in our favor that even the New York Times could no longer deny it. Which is why the other side of the aisle, and their media allies, have grown so silent, and become such a roaring embodiment of the adage, "No news is good news."

Those are the facts. But the facts don't matter to our "friends" on the other side, because they don't fit their runaway-fantasist template of defeat, and because, as Woody's comment made all too clear, for them, Iraq, just like every other issue, is all about Bush. That's why they call it "Bush Derangement Syndrome". And how much moreso now, when by their timetable we should already be out of Iraq AND Afghanistan, Bush and Cheney should already have been impeached, removed from office, and led away in chains, and Crazy Nancy should already be keeping the Big Chair warm for the Empress-in-waiting.

You know the saying, Jen: when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail - even the Dems' own fingers.