Posted on 10/02/2006 8:12:07 AM PDT by MNJohnnie
http://icasualties.org/oif/
http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Security_Forces
Listening to all the Media hysteria over Bob Woodward's latest attempt to be the new Kitty Kelly, one is struck by just how wrong the Drive By Media is on every aspect of the Iraq War.
Here is the raw data on Iraq. Seems Bob Woodward latest work is simply a regurgitation of every falsehood, half truth and exaggeration present by the Junk Media on Iraq since 2003.
In a vain attempt to falsely validate preconceived notions, Mr Woodward demonstrated how the Left has managed to be wrong on every aspect of the Iraq War. Mr Woodward's central thesis is that attacks are "as high as they have ever been". Perhaps that is true. Even if true those attacks are getting less and less effective. If conditions are worsening why were the Iraqis taking higher monthly casualties in 2004 and 2005 with a smaller force?
Simply put BW, like the rest of the American Political Left is full of it. They have had their minds made up about Iraq from even before the war started. In his latest work it is clear Mr Woodward simply went to find people who would say what he wanted to hear. It is also becoming apparent that when he did not hear what he wanted, Mr Woodward simply misquoting the source to put his Democrat Party Masters spin on the data. Apparently this current book is his act of atonement to the DC Establishment for writing a fairly balanced book on President Bush last time.
If you chart the data at the sources above, you see a base line of violence. While the violence ebbs and flows the base line is steady at 65 Coalition casualties a month. The Iraqis are averaging a steady 200 casualties a month. No sustained rise in baseline casualties to validate the "Iraq is heading for Civil War" Democrat Media Machine spin.
What is particularly significant about the Iraqi Security Forces casualties is they are averaging the same casualty levels with a much larger force. As of Aug 2006 there is a 300,000 Iraqi security force in the field with about 5,000 being added a month. By the end of the year the Iraqi Security Forces will be complete fielded. Right now out of 18 provinces in Iraq only 2 are considered "not ready" for transition to Iraqi control. Of course the two provinces are Anbar, the province along the Syrian border and Basrah the Shi'a stronghold along the border with Iran. Yet even in both those areas significant progress has been made just in September 2006 alone.
In Anbar the Iraqi tribes have entered into an agreement to work with the Iraqi Government to root out the foreign terrorist groups. In Basrah, the British and Iraqi forces just started operations to crack down on the Shi'a militias.
Iraq: British, Iraq troops begin Basra mission
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1709154/posts
Most Tribes in Anbar Agree to Unite Against Insurgents (The NY Times is deeply saddened)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1703582/posts
This data totally undercuts the spin presented by Bob Woodward, and other Democrat Party propagandists, that Iraq is "heading for Civil War" or is "spinning out of control".
What Woodward et all seem to fixate on is Iraqi Civilian casualties. What they forget is a terrorist or a militia member killed in intra tribal gang warfare is considered "an Iraqi civilian casualty". So when you hear a news story that says "40 bodies discovered around Baghdad" MOST of them are probably casualties from gang on gang violence. While that violence is an on growing crises we and the Iraqis will have to deal with, it is not a fundamental threat to the long term survival of the Iraqi Government.
Obviously the immediate counter the Leftist propagandists will claim is that ;We are not making fast enough progress" That is nonsense.
look at the data on Iraqi security forces. More and more of the job is being taken up by Iraqi forces. 2 of 18 Providence have been turned over to complete Iraqi control. Out of 18 Iraqi provinces all but 2 are at least partially under Iraqi control All the progress in the war is on our side. The enemy is making no progress. Time is on our side, not theirs.
Another factor on Iraq the Leftists fails to grasp is how the war in Iraq has fundamentally changed in the last 6 months. Because the external Terrorist threat has been significantly reduced, we are able to focus on other lesser threats. Witness what the British down south, and the US in the Baghdad region, are doing. They are working with the Iraqis to weed out the gangs and militia that sprung up in the wake of Saddam's fall.
Counter Insurgency is slow, painful work. But the progress is all on our side. The "Insurgents" has demonstrated no ability to politically or militarily evolve. Guerrilla war strategy consists of 3 phases.
1. Stage one: very small unit harassment actions.
2. Stage two: continuation of state one with an evolution to large units actions. Development of larger and large geographic areas fully under Guerrilla control.
3. Stage three: conventional warfare between large units.
The Terrorists are still stuck in stage one of Guerrilla Warfare. They can wreck stuff and kill people they cannot grow. They cannot take and hold ground or engage in anything beyond small scale hit and run attacks.
Their failure to develop a shadow political structure to act as a polar opposite to the Iraqi Government is their fatal flaw. They simply lack the structure or local support network needed to move beyond state one
The claims and assumptions stated as "fact" by Mr Woodward on Iraq are fraudulent. Considering he has got just about everything on Iraq completely wrong in his recent public statements, one has to wonder just what else he make up for this book?
http://www.jasoncann.org/radio.htm
http://radio.findanisp.com/radio-shows-on-air.php
Sorry for the early ping but at work today
Hey Johnnie
Yhello!
Johnnie whats going to happen to the GOP?
Hello Mark Levinfan
Hakuna Macaca!
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5910
October 2nd, 2006
Regardless of whether or not some sort of plot existed to hold onto evidence of potentially criminal internet misconduct by former Rep. Mark Foley, and spring it on the public as an October Surprise, the fallout of the case is going to be powerful.
But the outcome depends on which of two alternative narratives becomes the dominant one reaching and affecting voters. Given the firepower of the still dominant, if fading, antique media, the narrative favored by the Democrats has a good chance of remaining the main story.
But acceptance of the Democrats’ narrative depends on the media remaining true to their characterization by Rush Limbaugh as the “Drive By Media” – unleashing salvos of facts, half-truths, and lies, and then speeding away before anyone does more than form a hazy impression.
Could it be that the Democrats’ “witch hunt” demand of Republicans has spooked some of their own base? Could the medicine administered to Foley also be applied to certain Democrats in Congress? Or is the gay community expressing discomfort with the tenor of the charges?
For the moment, we don’t know. But the reversal in tone on the part of the virtual House Organ of the DNC is mighty curious. Curioser and curioser, as it were.
As in the case of the fake Texas Air National Guard Memorandum, the story is complicated. As then, a prominent broadcaster is attached to the story. Dan Rather’s career ended in the wake of his involvement in publicizing the fake memo. Brian Ross, of ABC is the person who took the story from an obscure blog to national attention.
The current story lacks the visual evidence of easily-compared versions of the TANG memo. But it has in its place a mystery blogger.
Which narrative will dominate? The answer will tell us a great deal about the relative power of the new media (talk radio, internet sites, and cable news) and old media, and will help determine where legislative control of the federal government rests for the next two years.
I saw the pings, but did not read them. So things got nasty? LOL! How so?
Hey all!
LOL! I hate when that happens? Did it require any Moderator intervention?
...given all the circumstances I can easily see that people who are power hungry could have come into possession of salacious correspondence which might affect the Republican leadership’s decision not to act against a member on the basis of all they had—simply “overly friendly” correspondence—and hold it to make it public five weeks prior to the election. If this scenario is true, we have a most amateurishly implausible route, via an anonymous blog, taken to launder the information chain, and hide the fact that it was they, not their opponents, who cared not at all for the welfare of the pages and interns on the Hill.
This is from the party that defended Clinton getting BJs from White House interns dismissed as a 'private matter'.
Political opportuinisim from Dems; a mysterious blogger with Soros connections; this same Foley information that the St. Petersburg Times had a year ago but kept quiet... I'm sure Rush will have much more dirt today.
Well nah not really other then some posts where Removed but things got Nasty.
I think our prayer warrior friends can help you out.
Can you post links to any of the "Nasty" parts of the threads? ;-)
OMG, prayers for Rangerwife's brave husband, the children and you! Please keep us updated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.