Surge Succeeds

Brand X wrote:

The only good news is the deaths of our troops has taken a significant downturn.

I can't find any information showing this is actually true. Not that I don't believe you, but it doesn't match my sources.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brand X wrote:

The only good news is the deaths of our troops has taken a significant downturn.

I can't find any information showing this is actually true. Not that I don't believe you, but it doesn't match my sources.

Cycloptichorn

Here's a bit of it. July,27 2007

Excerpt:

"After three consecutive months in which more than 100 U.S. troops died, Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno told reporters that the fatality figures appeared to be going down. However, he said he needed more time to see if the trend had staying power.

Before Odierno spoke, about 60 U.S. troops had been reported killed this month in Iraq. "

Source

They are indeed down:


Source

You're correct....and I was comparing deaths to the two previous months.

If it is a trend, that's the key.

Quote:

However, I do find it interesting that certain writers within the establishment media have now begun to see "progress" in Iraq.

What I find sad is your ability to just write the writers off as "PRO BUSH" as soon as their opinions change from those YOU support.

That's the thing - O'Hanlon has been 'pro-Iraq war' since day 1. If you had bothered to read the Greenwald link, you would see this.

Nothing has changed for him...

Cycloptichorn

on edit: And, as Blatham has pointed out, the two people in question aren't the 'editors' of the NYT or on the editorial board. It was a guest editorial.

I know that details get in the way of your criticizing Liberals, but that doesn't mean you get to ignore them, man....

You're correct....and I was comparing deaths to the two previous months.

If it is a trend, that's the key.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

However, I do find it interesting that certain writers within the establishment media have now begun to see "progress" in Iraq.

What I find sad is your ability to just write the writers off as "PRO BUSH" as soon as their opinions change from those YOU support.

That's the thing - O'Hanlon has been 'pro-Iraq war' since day 1. If you had bothered to read the Greenwald link, you would see this.

Nothing has changed for him...

Cycloptichorn

on edit: And, as Blatham has pointed out, the two people in question aren't the 'editors' of the NYT or on the editorial board. It was a guest editorial.

I know that details get in the way of your criticizing Liberals, but that doesn't mean you get to ignore them, man....

Don't be an ass.

The editorial board reviewed the piece and decided to published it.

When was the LAST TIME the NY TIMES Editorial board publish ANYTHING "Pro Bush"? Never that when.

It turns out that this assessment by O'Hanlon today is in some key ways strikingly at odds with...

...(the following, a week old, is from) the Brookings Institution's own Iraq Index, a meticulous and regularly updated compilation of stats designed to paint as realistic a portrait as possible of the situation on the ground.

And guess who oversees the Brookings Iraq Index?

Yup -- it's overseen by Michael O'Hanlon.


Here's the conclusion of Brookings' latest assessment, from July 26, quoted in full:

Quote:

JULY 23, 2007- With what promised to be a pivotal summer now more than half over, the situation in Iraq remains tenuous at best. Even with all surge forces in place and operational, the modest progress made in the security sphere thus far has not had the hoped-for subsequent influence on the political and economic sectors. Adding to the pressure is the steadily increasing demands stateside for a change in strategy. Indeed, the "political clocks" in Washington and Baghdad are perhaps farther apart today than they have ever been.

From a security standpoint, having the full allotment of surge troops in theater has allowed for intensified coalition operations in and around Baghdad aimed at rooting out militants from their sanctuaries. Initial reports indicate that these have led to a decrease in the levels of violence in these areas. However, violence nationwide has failed to improve measurably over the past 2-plus months, with a resilient enemy increasingly turning its focus to softer targets outside the scope of the surge. And while the number of internally displaced persons has declined, it has done so not as a result of security improvements but because there are fewer places for Iraqis to run with a number of provinces unable to accept any more refugees. In assessing the overall sentiment of the Iraqi people recently, U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker summed it up in one word: fear.

Politically, there has yet to be significant progress in the legislation of any of the critical benchmark laws. This has been made exceedingly more difficult with recent boycotts of the government by both the Shiite officials loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr and the largest Sunni bloc, the National Accord Front. Though both have now agreed to return their members to parliament after weeks of abstention, neither has resumed participation at the cabinet level, leaving 13 of the 38 Iraqi cabinet positions vacant. With Kurdish lawmakers denouncing the most recently proposed oil revenue sharing law and the National Accord Front threatening to resume its boycott, it is difficult to see how any measurable political progress will take place before the all-important September update from Ambassador Crocker and commanding General David Petraeus.

Economically, "stagnation" continues to be the key word. The precarious security situation has continued to stymie any significant improvement of such macro indicators as unemployment, GDP and inflation. Fuel production fluctuates from week-to-week with insurgent attacks on infrastructure and suspected widespread corruption causing the average Iraqi to endure interminable lines to obtain scant amounts gasoline and propane. In addition, the availability of electricity has deteriorated over the past couple of months with Ambassador Crocker recently stating that the average person in Baghdad can count on only one or two hours of electricity per day.

So in the low-profile precincts of Brookings' own Iraq Index, O'Hanlon is quietly concluding that the "surge" has basically failed to live up to expectations. His Iraq Index assesses the situation in language that's basically identical to that which you hear from Democrats calling for withdrawal in Washington.

Yet writing in the far more public forum of The Times Op ed page today, O'Hanlon says the debate in D.C. is "surreal" because "the administration's critics...seem unaware of the significant changes taking place." And he concludes that for now, "things look much better than before."

woiyo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

However, I do find it interesting that certain writers within the establishment media have now begun to see "progress" in Iraq.

What I find sad is your ability to just write the writers off as "PRO BUSH" as soon as their opinions change from those YOU support.

That's the thing - O'Hanlon has been 'pro-Iraq war' since day 1. If you had bothered to read the Greenwald link, you would see this.

Nothing has changed for him...

Cycloptichorn

on edit: And, as Blatham has pointed out, the two people in question aren't the 'editors' of the NYT or on the editorial board. It was a guest editorial.

I know that details get in the way of your criticizing Liberals, but that doesn't mean you get to ignore them, man....

Don't be an ass.

The editorial board reviewed the piece and decided to published it.

The mistakes here are yours. Your description of these two gentlemen as 'media writers' suggests you didn't or don't know much, if anything, about them. And didn't try to find out.

Yes, the editorial board would have reviewed the piece and then made the decision to publish it. But does it then follow for you that anything which appears as a guest editorial in the Times is true, accurate or beyond criticism?

Earlier here you claimed...

Quote:

When was the LAST TIME the NY TIMES Editorial board publish ANYTHING "Pro Bush"? Never that when.

Again, it becomes apparent that care or accuracy in the claims you make isn't of much importance to you.

- Just a week ago, on July 20, the Times carried a guest editorial from well-known Bush-hater Zalmay Khalizad, Bush's Ambassador to the UN.

- On June 26, another from Morris David, Air Force officer and lawyer wherein you'll find the description of Guantanamo as "a model prison, where people are treated better than in Belgian prisons."

- On June 7, another guest editorial by P. Rodman and William Shawcross (who was awared the New Stateman's 'Man of the Year' for his high profile defense of the Iraq war.) I quote, "...consequences of defeat in Iraq would be as disastrous (for neighbors) as the 1975 Communist victory in Vietnam (for its neighbors).

- May 31, guest editorial by Sam Brownback

- may22, guest editorial by Max Boot

- May 6, guest editorial by Fredrick Kagan (a primary author/strategist of the surge) titled "Plan B? Let's give Plan A some time first."

blatham wrote:

woiyo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

However, I do find it interesting that certain writers within the establishment media have now begun to see "progress" in Iraq.

What I find sad is your ability to just write the writers off as "PRO BUSH" as soon as their opinions change from those YOU support.

That's the thing - O'Hanlon has been 'pro-Iraq war' since day 1. If you had bothered to read the Greenwald link, you would see this.

Nothing has changed for him...

Cycloptichorn

on edit: And, as Blatham has pointed out, the two people in question aren't the 'editors' of the NYT or on the editorial board. It was a guest editorial.

I know that details get in the way of your criticizing Liberals, but that doesn't mean you get to ignore them, man....

Don't be an ass.

The editorial board reviewed the piece and decided to published it.

The mistakes here are yours. Your description of these two gentlemen as 'media writers' suggests you didn't or don't know much, if anything, about them. And didn't try to find out.

Yes, the editorial board would have reviewed the piece and then made the decision to publish it. But does it then follow for you that anything which appears as a guest editorial in the Times is true, accurate or beyond criticism?

Earlier here you claimed...

Quote:

When was the LAST TIME the NY TIMES Editorial board publish ANYTHING "Pro Bush"? Never that when.

Again, it becomes apparent that care or accuracy in the claims you make isn't of much importance to you.

- Just a week ago, on July 20, the Times carried a guest editorial from well-known Bush-hater Zalmay Khalizad, Bush's Ambassador to the UN.

- On June 26, another from Morris David, Air Force officer and lawyer wherein you'll find the description of Guantanamo as "a model prison, where people are treated better than in Belgian prisons."

- On June 7, another guest editorial by P. Rodman and William Shawcross (who was awared the New Stateman's 'Man of the Year' for his high profile defense of the Iraq war.) I quote, "...consequences of defeat in Iraq would be as disastrous (for neighbors) as the 1975 Communist victory in Vietnam (for its neighbors).

- May 31, guest editorial by Sam Brownback

- may22, guest editorial by Max Boot

- May 6, guest editorial by Fredrick Kagan (a primary author/strategist of the surge) titled "Plan B? Let's give Plan A some time first."

The point (you effing blowhard) is I find is disgusting how liberals will never look at a opinion that supports anything Pro Bush with objectivness.

I personally could give a SHITE about the surge working or not working since we should not be there in the first place.

Therefore, take you snippy little comments and tell them to any other of your media geek friends.

However, I do find it interesting that certain writers within the establishment media have now begun to see "progress" in Iraq.

What I find sad is your ability to just write the writers off as "PRO BUSH" as soon as their opinions change from those YOU support.

I spent yesterday and today reading through virtually all of the writings and interviews of these two Brookings geniuses over the past four years concerning Iraq. There is no coherence or consistency to anything they say. It shifts constantly. They say whatever they need to say at the moment to justify the war for which they bear responsibility. It is exactly like reading through the writings of Bill Kristol, Tom Friedman and every other individual who flamboyantly supported this disaster and -- motivated solely by salvaging their own reputations -- are desperate to find some method to argue that they were right.

Even though I write frequently about how broken and corrupt our establishment media is, witnessing these two war lovers -- supporters of the invasion, advocates of the Surge, comrades of Fred Kagan -- mindlessly depicted all day yesterday by media mouthpieces as the opposite of what they are was really quite startling. After all, there is a record as long as it is clear demonstrating what they really are.

But in order to maximize the potency of their propagandistic Op-Ed, they proclaimed themselves to be "analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq" and -- just like that -- Americans hear all day about the magical and dramatic conversion of these deeply skeptical war opponents who were forced by the Grand Success they witnessed first-hand in Iraq, as much as they hate to do it, to admit oh-so-reluctantly that the Surge really is working! Well, if even these Howard-Dean-like War Opponents say it, it must be true. That was the leading "news" story all day yesterday.

Turns out Greenwald may not be the messiah after all...

The Facts Behind the Greenwald Sock-Puppetry