I guess when I post something like this, I should get ready for a deluge of comments about how blindly partisan and out-of-touch I am.
Ever since the Sept. 10 testimony of Gen. David Petraeus, we've heard less and less from the mainstream media about the war in Iraq. The old adage "no news is good news" has never been truer.
That the media are no longer much interested in Iraq is a sure sign things are going well there. Instead, they're talking about the presidential campaign, or Burma, or global warming, or . . . whatever.
Why? Simply put, the news from Iraq has been quite positive, as Petraeus related in his report to Congress.
Understand that I've been completely withdrawn from current events for the past week or so, but it sure feels like we haven't been hearing much about Iraq lately. And the Democrats in the Senate just voted (very quietly) to fund the War for a while longer, while all of the major Democratic Presidential candidates (including Sen. Barack Obama) conveniently deciding to skip the vote.
So what do you think is going on over there, anyway? And why do you think we're hearing less about it? Or am I crazy for thinking that we are?
Huh? Iraq's front-page news on a daily basis. We're learning all about how gunslingers from Blackwater shoot into crowds of Iraqi civilians; we're learning that arming and supporting one Blackwater mercenary costs *six* times what it would cost to arm and support an Army soldier; we're learning that there is literally no legal recourse if some Blackwater gunman shoots you down because his triggerfinger was too itchy or he was too drunk; we're learning that Iraq wants to ban Blackwater but the US won't let them, and so on.
From the people who brought you "There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that are direct threat to the United States" in 2003, now comes their latest profuction entitled "Even though there is no reasonable justification to occupy this foreign land, that occupation is going much better now so please support this war..... hello? ....is anyone listening to us?"
IP - you might try alternative sources of information. I haven't trusted the MSM to report anything without bias since they bent over and took it from Colin Powell at the UN. Check this site every morning for up-to-date information from Iraq:
http://icasualties.org/oif/
I sincerely hope things are improving, and the casualties are not what they once were. Whether this is a blip over the long haul, or a result of the surge which (imo) is not sustainable is still not certain. But either way the American People are pretty done with this war and I am not sure what level of "good news" coming out of Iraq would change that. If ten of our soldiers died anywhere else in the world in one week it would be front-page news. In Iraq, it is hardly noticeable. This, my friend, is the problem with Iraq.
Maybe a little context would help.
Number of coalition troops killed in September, 2007: 63
Number of coalition troops killed in September, 2006: 49
Number of Republican spinners who hope that if they can get you to focus on the short term trend you'll ignore the long term trend: lots
But follow the money. The budget appropriation the White House asked for for 2008 is the biggest one yet by far. They know which way the trend's running.
While we're at it --
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 27-30, 2007
"All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?"
Worth it: 38%; Not worth it: 59%; Unsure: 3%
"Do you think the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties; OR, do you think the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there?"
Keep forces: 43%; Withdraw forces: 54%; Unsure, 3%
Look at that. The majority of Americans have no patriotism, undermine our troops' morale, are surrender monkeys, want to cut-and-run, are peacemongering liberals, etc. etc.
What is interesting about this budget request is that it shows, quite clearly, that the Iraq War is not in fact a disaster. Far from it, the amount of taxpayer dollars being transferred into the hands of the private sector is at an all-time high. Corporations are making BILLIONS off this war, and whatever collateral damage there is to contend with is all beside the point. The profits have never been higher and so far only Waxman has had the nerve to ask why we are using taxpayer dollars hiring private companies to do what the American Government is supposed to do and has done extremely well in the past.
So follow the money indeed. According to the money the Iraq War has been one of the most successful raidings of the treasury by the private sector in our country's history. What's a few dead soldiers here and there when there are billion dollar contracts to pass around?
You can call me cynical, but I'd humbly suggest you direct that smear toward the folks who are running this war and who have set up the privatization of our defense. A scenario which cannot be detangled without the loss of major profits at many leading corporations. In other words, a scenario which will never be detangled under a Republican President. Talk about cynical.
Anyone else watching The War on PBS these days? The contrast with Iraq could not be more stark.
You can call me cynical
'Cynical' :-)
Anon, with poll numbers like that, and a Dem majority in Congress, why hasn't this war been defunded?
RSW - because the Democrats in congress are political cowards who give lip service to ending the war, but aren't willing to risk their seats over it.
but they wouldn't be risking their seats if the polls are accurate - unless they think, as informed Congressmen, that there will be fallout of which those polled are unaware
could it be that the representative republic, as opposed to a full democracy, is working?
IP, you asked what we think is going on over there [Iraq]. I think this article is a fair representation of that:
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9804
All in all, I think it is a pretty fair assessment.
Because they are politicians who plan more for their reelection than for the benefit of the country. Public servants? I don't think so!
Pro American "RALLY FOR VICTORY" every Saturday in October at North Prospect and I - 74 Champaign Il. from 11:00 to 2:00.
Show your support for the government of the United States. Surrender is not an option! The reality of the day.
Stand up for your country, not for the opposition. The stakes are tooooo high.
Afghanistan has been off the front page for ages, and it's now in its most violent year since the 2001 invasion. The Afghan government is even offering high-level positions in government to the Taliban. Why aren't we hearing about that?
Your right on and I even noticed yesterday that the Washington Post was forced to run this story yesterday......
Troop Loss the Lowest since August of 2006........
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2007/10/02/iraqi_deaths_fell_by_50_last_month/
Why are the hard-won gains in Afghanistan now being reversed, with the Taliban resurgent?
Could it have something to do with this:
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority. . . I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 (i.e. a mere SIX MONTHS after 9/11).
Oh, yeah, that's right. Bush pulled lots of troops out of Afghanistan, where they were hunting down Osama Bin Ladin, so that they could hurry up and get ready to execute his senseless plan attack a country which had nothing to do with 9/11, had not attacked us, did not have and was not building weapons of mass destruction, was abiding by UN weapon inspection protocol, and so on.
All for a mere trillion dollars, at least, when the smoke finally clears. Quite a steal. Which is why the American people have turned so decisively against this war and so decisively against the White House snake-oil salesmen that stampeded us into it.
As I've said before, the question isn't whether or not this has killed the GOP for 2008, but whether it's killed the GOP for a generation.
Just when you think stuff is getting better you realize that in reality they arn't http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/03/iraq.main/index.html
Bush never pulled a lot of troops out of Afghanistan to fight the Iraq war because there weren't a lot of troops in Afghanistan from the beginning. Afghanistan is more of a special operations war than Iraq is.
Yes, the Polish ambassador to Iraq was attacked. However, one bombing of a notable political appointee in Iraq does not constitute doom and gloom. Bombs go off every day, in fact better than 70% of them are disarmed or explode without casualties.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/world/asia/12afghan.html
Afghanistan was more of a special operations mission as you stated, but Bush definitely did pull a large number of our special forces out of Afghanistan for the invasion of Iraq.
Man, are you ever blindly partisan and out-of-touch