Surge working...bad news for defeatocrats

[MonsterMark]

Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers

MIL-IRAQ-US SOLDIERS

Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiersBAGHDAD, March 14 (KUNA) --

The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre.Only 17 members of the US military in Iraq have been killed since February 14 till March 13, compared to 42 from January 13 to February 13; the rate was on the decline during the first month of the security crackdown, compared to a month before.Two of the 17 soldiers died at US Baghdad camps of non-combat causes.

The remarkable decrease in killings among the US troops came at a time when more of these troops were deployed in the Iraqi capital, especially in districts previously regarded as extremely hazardous for them such as Al-Sadr City, Al-Azamiyah, and Al-Doura.Meanwhile, US attacks on insurgent strongholds north of Baghdad curbed attacks against helicopters. Before the new security plan, many such craft were downed leaving 20 soldiers dead.

The US army in Iraq had earlier said that sectarian fighting and violence in Baghdad had dropped sharply, by about 80 percent, since the launch of the plan.The statistics excluded US troops killed in other governorates such as Al-Anbar, Diyala, and Salahiddin.As to the latest human losses, the US army announced Wednesday that two American soldiers had been killed, one in southern Baghdad and the other northeast of the capital.(

 

[fossten]

You know the libs have to be grinding their teeth in fury and hoping against hope that the surge doesn't work.

"Please God, let more soldiers die so we can bring them all home!"

:shifty:

 

[TheDude]

You know the libs have to be grinding their teeth in fury and hoping against hope that the surge doesn't work.

"Please God, let more soldiers die so we can bring them all home!"

:shifty:

Your reasoning makes no sense... more soldiers have died since the surge; the surge has lessoned the casulty rate, not stopped it.

 

[MonsterMark]

Point is, the casualty rate is down but you don't hear a peep out of the MSM about it, do you?

Truth is, the MSM picks and chooses what it wants to cover to further their agenda. They are not news reporters, they are bias reporters, pure and simple.

I enjoy pointing out for everyone to see the bias that some guys on this board I guess choose not to see.

Now if the troops casualty rate went up with the surge, it would be front page news, wouldn't it?

Bush would have a 60% approval rating if the media ever chose to print the truth.

 

[TheDude]

Point is, the casualty rate is down but you don't hear a peep out of the MSM about it, do you?

Truth is, the MSM picks and chooses what it wants to cover to further their agenda. They are not news reporters, they are bias reporters, pure and simple.

I enjoy pointing out for everyone to see the bias that some guys on this board I guess choose not to see.

Now if the troops casualty rate went up with the surge, it would be front page news, wouldn't it?
Bush would have a 60% approval rating if the media ever chose to print the truth.

Yes, it probably would.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

If this is in fact true, that would be GREAT news! But it begs the question, WHY didn't BuSh "surge" 2 years ago when it would've been more effective?? WHY such a "baby surge" instead of a "man-sized-surge" like 100,000 more troops?? Better late than never I guess.

BUT, then when you look at the facts in perspective, the fatality rate is still higher than the average a year ago, and the stated stats could be considered "statistical noise". So far the early indications are positive, and I hope it continues, but I think it's still a little early to claim "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED", again.

 

[Joeychgo]

U.S. military officials were more cautious. They noted that while overall violence is down, there'd been "a very slight uptick" in insurgent activity in recent days.

American officers had predicted that violence would drop as the plan went into effect, but have cautioned that the drop could be temporary and that attacks might move from Baghdad to outlying areas as the plan was implemented.

The drop in sectarian attacks is widely attributed to the Mahdi Army leadership's abrupt disappearance from its headquarters in the vast Shiite slum of Sadr City and other posts throughout the eastern, predominantly Shiite side of the capital. Just two months ago, the militia roamed freely in the capital, manning checkpoints and abducting Sunnis en masse.

Instead of encountering a fierce fighting force, joint U.S.-Iraqi patrols have found little or no resistance as they extend the security plan to Sadr City, home to nearly 3 million mostly impoverished Shiites.

Kansas City Star


As Johnny said, this would be great news if it turns out to be true. Ive been saying we needed another 100,000 troops since this thing got started. And I agree with Johnny even more on this point. Why go in with 20k? Why not 100k? To me, that would have sent a hell of a message.

 

[DLS8K]

Point is, the casualty rate is down but you don't hear a peep out of the MSM about it, do you?

Truth is, the MSM picks and chooses what it wants to cover to further their agenda. They are not news reporters, they are bias reporters, pure and simple.

I enjoy pointing out for everyone to see the bias that some guys on this board I guess choose not to see.

Now if the troops casualty rate went up with the surge, it would be front page news, wouldn't it?

Bush would have a 60% approval rating if the media ever chose to print the truth.

Firstly, that is what news is all about.....picking and choosing their stories. If you really wanted to know what is going on in the world, you won't watch the Nightly News. Secondly, if you like your news to have a conservative flavor, than seek out that kind of news......nobody is making you or anybody else listen to the messages MSM projects. I don't like to hear anything from Newsmax.com so I don't pay attention to it. It's really as simple as that.

Secondly, Bush's policy and stubborn attitude speak largely to his dismal approval rating.

 

[Calabrio]

Secondly, if you like your news to have a conservative flavor, than seek out that kind of news......nobody is making you or anybody else listen to the messages MSM projects. I don't like to hear anything from Newsmax.com so I don't pay attention to it. It's really as simple as that.

Let's then recognize, you feel that the mainstream media is as fair and balanced as Newsmax is.

Complaints about the objectivity of the MSM would not be an issue IF they were willing to be honest about their slant. If they just said that they were presenting their liberal world view.

They don't.

They continue to perpetuate the lie and deceive the public, repeating the mantra that they are neutral and objective. If they just said "Hey, we lean way left, we hate Republicans, and here's our news..." I'd have no problem with them or their perspective.

Secondly, Bush's policy and stubborn attitude speak largely to his dismal approval rating.

There are many reasons Bush's approval ratings are reported as they are. His "stubborn attitude" isn't the problem.

 

[Joeychgo]

They continue to perpetuate the lie and deceive the public, repeating the mantra that they are neutral and objective. If they just said "Hey, we lean way left, we hate Republicans, and here's our news..." I'd have no problem with them or their perspective.

Kinda like most politicians....

There are many reasons Bush's approval ratings are reported as they are. His "stubborn attitude" isn't the problem.

Sure it is. With GW, its always been 'His Way' --- "Stay the course" That was a great slogan for the democrats, it gave them congress back.

IMO, GW has been the worst president for this country since Truman.

 

[DLS8K]

Let's then recognize, you feel that the mainstream media is as fair and balanced as Newsmax is.

Complaints about the objectivity of the MSM would not be an issue IF they were willing to be honest about their slant. If they just said that they were presenting their liberal world view.

They don't.

They continue to perpetuate the lie and deceive the public, repeating the mantra that they are neutral and objective. If they just said "Hey, we lean way left, we hate Republicans, and here's our news..." I'd have no problem with them or their perspective.




There are many reasons Bush's approval ratings are reported as they are. His "stubborn attitude" isn't the problem.

Find me one news outlet that is fair and balanced.....and you won't because it depends on the person you ask as to what "fair and balanced" is.

 

[Joeychgo]

Find me one news outlet that is fair and balanced.....and you won't because it depends on the person you ask as to what "fair and balanced" is.

Very true.

 

[Calabrio]

Kinda like most politicians....

That doesn't even make any sense. Perhaps you didn't notice the (R) or (D) next to the names of Congress people. The only politicians who engage in that similar farce would be the so-called "independents."

Sure it is. With GW, its always been 'His Way' --- "Stay the course" That was a great slogan for the democrats, it gave them congress back.

With an eager lap dog media, you're certainly right. They were able to misrepresent and redefine what that simple statement meant. As any honest person displaying at least moderate intelligence understands, stay the course didn't mean "Leave things as they are," it meant "Don't cut and run."

IMO, GW has been the worst president for this country since Truman.

Since Truman is often considered among the best Presidents in American history, I don't know what to make of you comment. Of course, after Truman left office, his popularity was low, but history has returned to his legacy and views him much differently now.

By the way, Lyndon Johnson was, quite frankly, the worse President this century. Absolutely nothing redeeming about him, his administration, or his record.

You think Bush has been bad for the country. What do you base this claim on? Iraq alone? Provide some specifics. It's a foolish statement.

 

[Calabrio]

Find me one news outlet that is fair and balanced.....and you won't because it depends on the person you ask as to what "fair and balanced" is.

So what you're saying is that the MSM is unfair and biased. That's fine, but they should then be honest about where they are reporting from. The reporters should abandon that 20th century myth that reporters are neutral and objective. If I want liberal news, sources should be openly liberal- like SLATE. And if I wanted conservative news, I should be able to go to something similar like Newsmax.

But ABC/NBC/CBS/MSNBC/CNN don't do that. They tell everyone they are balanced, then they present a very politicized, agenda driven newscast. As thought the goal were to trick the public.

How many people still think Walter Kronkite was an honest and fair journalist? He was an agenda driven creep who lied to the public in the guise of the journalism, and had a profound influence on the support for the Vietnam war, based on his radical distortions and lies.

For the record, Fox News Channel does the best job of any network in providing a fair and balanced report on the news. The NEWS division is excellent. And even the opinion personalities are mixed between conservative and liberal. Unless you think Alan Colmes, Geraldo Rivera, and Greta Van Sustran are conservative. And every guest is countered by a dissenting guest.

But since the regular news is so RADICALLY leftist, Fox news seems so starkly different, the mere fact they'd feature high profile conservatives anywhere on their network is very unorthodox.

 

[Joeychgo]

With an eager lap dog media, you're certainly right. They were able to misrepresent and redefine what that simple statement meant. As any honest person displaying at least moderate intelligence understands, stay the course didn't mean "Leave things as they are," it meant "Don't cut and run."

Sure it meant that.

Since Truman is often considered among the best Presidents in American history, I don't know what to make of you comment. Of course, after Truman left office, his popularity was low, but history has returned to his legacy and views him much differently now.

By who? The Japenese? North Koreans? Oh, low popularity is an understatement. When he left office in 1953, Truman was one of the most unpopular chief executives in history. Although I will say this. The man did appear to be honest to the bone and willing to accept responsibility, so he scores well in the leadership catagory.

By the way, Lyndon Johnson was, quite frankly, the worse President this century. Absolutely nothing redeeming about him, his administration, or his record.

I imagine there are a few African Americans that appreciated the whole Civil Rights thing. Of course, I will agree that LBJ was anything but a great president, but thats because of Vietnam mainly. Wait.... the United States' involvement in Vietnam began during the Truman administration. Eh, but LBJ still managed it terribly.

You think Bush has been bad for the country. What do you base this claim on? Iraq alone? Provide some specifics. It's a foolish statement.

Lets see. We just had the highest official convicted by a federal court since --- Nixon... Imagine that. How's the immigration issue doing? National Health Care? Social Security? Anything else of domestic importance? 6 years of a rubber stamp congress and he couldnt do anything to speak of besides a war that hasnt gone all that well after the initial invasion.

 

[shagdrum]

The Civil Rights Act was passed by Congress. LBJ supported it, but he had to turn to republicans to get it through. More republicans than democrats voted for the act (Al Gore Sr. voted against it). LBJ's legacy is getting us into the Vietnam War (and it is his legacy, not any other president) and his failed "Great Society" policies, which saw a huge increase in social program and entitlement spending (to over fifty percent of the budget) with absolutely nothing to show for it.

FYI, as a political science major, most everything I have read on Truman alludes to him being considered one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century.

 

[shagdrum]

. We just had the highest official convicted by a federal court since --- Nixon... Imagine that. How's the immigration issue doing? National Health Care? Social Security? Anything else of domestic importance? 6 years of a rubber stamp congress and he couldnt do anything to speak of besides a war that hasnt gone all that well after the initial invasion.

Scooter Libby: Irrelevant to this discussion; a purely political prosecution of a procedural crime that in the end had no ties to the Bush administration (this has been beat to death in another thread, I think)

Imigration: Bush has done a terrible job on this, but no worse then any other president; liberal or conservative

National Health Care: What about it? We don't have it and Bush isn't trying to force it on us; this alone puts him above Clinton. The problem is that we already have too much government involvement in the health care system; driving up the price. We also have leaches like John Edwards (trial lawers) looking to bleed doctors dry. If I remember correctly, Bush tried to put a cap on damages through malpractice suits, which would have helped a great deal. As far as Health Care goes, Bush has the right idea...

Social Security: Bush tried to do something, but democrats and the media stood in the way and intimidated the republicans in congress (who lack a political backbone) causing gridlock. No one other then Bush has offered any viable solution to this problem. I say, leave it to the "baby boom" generation to fix. If they don't, cut 'em off. But that would be me looking out for myself (lol).

Six years of Bush and we have a war in Iraq that isn't perfect, so Bush's political enemies spin it as an absolute failure and run interference to any solution or change in strategy Bush tries to enact. What these six years have show is Bush is trying to win the conflict and protect the country (as is his charge as President and commander in chief), and his political enemies are so filled with hate for him (in large part due to the fallout from the 2000 election) that they oppose any and everything he does (domestic and foreign), even if that means they are working against the interests of this country.

 

[fossten]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calabrio
They continue to perpetuate the lie and deceive the public, repeating the mantra that they are neutral and objective. If they just said "Hey, we lean way left, we hate Republicans, and here's our news..." I'd have no problem with them or their perspective.

Kinda like most politicians....

I agree with you Joey, most politicians deceive the public, pretend to be neutral and objective, lean left, and hate Republicans.

 

[fossten]

Firstly, that is what news is all about.....picking and choosing their stories. If you really wanted to know what is going on in the world, you won't watch the Nightly News. Secondly, if you like your news to have a conservative flavor, than seek out that kind of news......nobody is making you or anybody else listen to the messages MSM projects. I don't like to hear anything from Newsmax.com so I don't pay attention to it. It's really as simple as that.

Secondly, Bush's policy and stubborn attitude speak largely to his dismal approval rating.

Can you give me an example of how newsmax.com is not fair and balanced? I've already shown you four liberal columnists who regularly post articles there. You can't show me four conservative columnists or reporters on ANY major news network.

 

[DLS8K]

Can you give me an example of how newsmax.com is not fair and balanced? I've already shown you four liberal columnists who regularly post articles there. You can't show me four conservative columnists or reporters on ANY major news network.

In my opinion, the majority of postings have a conservative flavor. That's all you need to make your points though.....opinion. So I figured I would take that approach with you.