THIS is what goes for the leader of a party??

[dude1394]

I continue to be absolutely amazed at how the democrat party can engage in complete fantasy and no one calls them on it. Here is last weeks Harry Reid line.
It is shocking that someone would support someone so clueless.

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles....80108621532510

Meanwhile, as if that vote wasn't enough, Democrats ripped Iraq's government — apparently oblivious to what's going on in Baghdad.

"Every place you go you hear about no progress being made in Iraq," Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday. "The government is stalemated today, as it was six months ago, as it was two years ago. It is not getting better; it is getting worse."

Virtually nothing in those three sentences is true — unless you replace "Iraq" with "Congress." Yet, Reid speaks for his party.

As Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer said, "The days are over when the money is sent no questions asked, when the money is sent without a price."

Yes, "price." That last word is telling, for the "price" the Democrats are exacting by playing politics comes out of our troops hides — not Washington's. Our troops in Iraq need the resources to finish this war. By not funding them to the level needed to win, Congress will certainly endanger lives — and make victory a bit harder.

If the Democrats want to keep playing politics as Iraq turns, fine. But what do they do next year if, as now looks likely, the U.S. wins?

[Mavdog]

reid is speaking to the political situation. has the iraqi legislature or government made visible progress in taking care of themselves?

no.

[kg_veteran]

Thanks for the link, dude. I've been really busy lately and haven't had a chance to follow the news in Iraq like I want. As such, I had no idea of all the progress we are making.

Shame on the MSM. I'd say shame on Harry Reid, but he has none.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

reid is speaking to the political situation. has the iraqi legislature or government made visible progress in taking care of themselves?

no.

He should mind his own house I would think. I expect the Iraqi government is more functional than his congress is right now.

You can defend this head in the sand political rhetoric but I don't see how. It's the most childesh of tactics. He might as well have his fingers in his ears saying "nyah-nyah".

That a person of that importance is so willing to give up the sacrifice made is quite unbelievable. He is right now absolutely more partisan than patriot. He is more than willing to hurt the US to get political votes, his rhetoric has been ridiculous for the last year, claiming defeat before the surge ever started.

He would claim defeat if the Iraqi's passed our constitution.

but the question stands mavie. THIS is what you support as the leader of your party? A man so devoid of character?

[rabbitproof]

I'm not sure what the numbers are and maybe this is too much of a business application, but shouldn't statistics be compared year-on-year? Aren't there seasonal trends in fighting with religious holidays and weather and all that?

[dude1394]

Not sure what statistics you are talking about rabbit. If it's ramadan and summertime accounting for decreased violence that's been pretty debunked by engram.

http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/

You can search for casualties and I think he makes a pretty irrefutable case.

[dude1394]

Well if the debates are any indication, the democrats must have declared that Dubya has defeated Al Queda despite them.

http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/11...what-elephant/

Whew, that was a close one. We suffered a big attack and were in mortal danger for a while, but we are safe now. Thank God, the war on terror is over. There are no Islamic extremists. Homeland security is not an issue. The only problem in Iraq is how to get out.

Wait, this is news to you? Then you didn't watch the Democratic debate Thursday. Or maybe you did watch, but since those unpleasant topics were completely or mostly ignored, you assumed the war was over and went to bed believing peace is at hand and Santa Claus is busy making toys at the North Pole.

It's not your fault. It's the Democratic presidential candidates who are sleepwalking through history.

As befitting a scrum with too many people and too little time, the debate touched on everything and illuminated nothing. Sen. Hillary Clinton made headlines by defending herself and for finally taking a position against driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, but the gaping hole was the absence of any serious reference to the war on terror. It's long been that way on the campaign trail, and now Dem debates reflect the dangerous drift.

A New York Times language tracker tells the tale. Neither "homeland security" nor "war on terror" were mentioned. Osama Bin Laden was a no-show and Al Qaeda got one mention. "Terrorism" got three, two of them by audience members asking questions, as did "extremists," with two of those in a single answer by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. On the other hand, "health" got 45 mentions and "education" 20.

Let's do the time warp again. The Democrats are running in the 9/10 zone. But they fail to see that that strategy doesn't work in the post 9/11 reality. Germany just figured it out. It is a shock to the system:

Germany is giving its security authorities more power after a group of Islamists were charged with violent plots and a government report said 900 members of Hezbollah were in the country. The sudden sense of danger is a shock, with one woman telling USA Today that Germany's refusal to fight in Iraq lulled the country into thinking Islamic terrorists would focus elsewhere; "we assumed that if we behaved well in the world, nothing would happen to us," the woman said.

[rabbitproof]

Well, violence does appear to spike in the summer.

http://bp0.blogger.com/_2-oDfgGpQKg/...Executions.jpg

But year-over-year, there appears to be a decline.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

Well, violence does appear to spike in the summer.

http://bp0.blogger.com/_2-oDfgGpQKg/...Executions.jpg

But year-over-year, there appears to be a decline.

I expect the november numbers will show even more of a pronounced decrease.

[rabbitproof]

That's not a large leap of faith since violence has gone down from October to November in 2005 and 2006 per that chart.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

That's not a large leap of faith since violence has gone down from October to November in 2005 and 2006 per that chart.

Not to hear harry reid and the democrats talk. It's a tremendous leap of faith. Clinton says it requires a willing suspension of reality.

[rabbitproof]

Just because things get better historically from October to November does not mean things are improving.

Sort of like how holiday shopping doesn't mean the economy is improving. That's why I was wondering about year-over-year gains or losses. I'm sure the Democrats are using a different barometer than the blogger, perhaps a different time period or metric.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

That's not a large leap of faith since violence has gone down from October to November in 2005 and 2006 per that chart.

yeah. On that chart, all 2007 months look lower than the same months in 2006, and July, Aug, and Sept 2007 look lower than the same months for 2005, with the biggest drop in Sept. That's the chart you posted. I don't see how you are suggesting that the decline is merely seasonal. What you posted shows that if there's some kinda cycle, it's greater than the size of your chart.

[Mavdog]

while there seems to be a positive trend, there are still high casualty numbers.

With nearly two months remaining, 2007 became the bloodiest year of the Iraq war for American troops - 853 dead. The U.S. military on Tuesday announced the deaths of five more soldiers and one sailor, pushing the toll past the previous worst - 850 in 2004.