A Surge of More Lies

A Surge of More Lies

www.consortiumnews.com

A new troubling myth has taken hold in Washington and it is critical that the record is set straight.
0----0

According to the mainstream media, Republicans, and unfortunately even some Democrats, the President's surge in Iraq has been a resounding success. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

This assertion is disingenuous, factually incorrect, and negatively impacts America's national security.

According to the mainstream media, Republicans, and unfortunately even some Democrats, the President's surge in Iraq has been a resounding success. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 16-1-2008 by Mindless]

[edit on 16-1-2008 by Mindless]

"The surge has failed."

Whats next on the docket?


www.consortiumnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

That press report proves to me the surge is working, and it is scaring the hell out of some people.

When the MSM reports America is doing poorly it is accepted as gospel, when the same MSM reports surge is working they must be wrong and it is a huge conspiracy. What a joke. Either never believe the MSM or believe they are reporting verifyable facts, you cannot have it both ways.

reply to post by Mindless


Wow! That's a pretty cool site. Hope you've made your donation. Their hate machine seems to need a little dough to keep afloat.

I notice the site is quite pro-Hillary as well. Isn't that conveeeeeenient!

Find another source will ya! You could always just join the hundreds of Illegal War, Bush is Satan, No WMD's, ect. threads.

www.consortiumnews.com...

Thought I'd give folks a chance to read the front page of this wonderfully crafted and balanced source you've sighted.

Becker

I fail to see where you address the article . But i understand its easier to attack the source :/

reply to post by Mindless


I'd address the article if I could justify the source. I am suprised you are of the belief that this particular source has the correct intel and the rest of the entire civilized planet has got it all wrong.

That's where I have a little trouble. I am certainly not attacking you. I'm happy to have an open discussion concerning the surge however, as stated above, the source is suspect so the article is insignificant.

Becker

reply to post by Mindless


The purpose of the surge was to set conditions where the Iraqi government could be successful. The violence is down, and there's no denying that fact. The ultimate solution is on the Iraqis, as it'll have to be a political solution rather than military. To fault Bush is somewhat disengenuous.

Have to agree that the "news source" for this thread is basically a tunnel-visioned, one-sided, Bush-hating website. Reading it, you get the feeling that al-qaeda could surrender unconditionally and it wouldn't be good enough for them. I'm also lumping them into the same category with all the other "Americans" that feel (not think) that losing a war would somehow be a good thing.

The surge is starting to have a positive effect. How else can you explain the fact that the war is no longer a campaign issue even for what were once rabidly anti-war democrats?

[edit on 1/16/2008 by centurion1211]

I'm sorry, but you cannot declare the troop surge to have been a resounding success until the troops can come back home.

Getting the violence down some... that hardly qualifies as "resounding"... thats more of a... ok, so you're doing slightly better... but you're still not successful.

The "some" of which you speak is 70-90% reduction in violence. That's significant, and is encouraging to those who haven't already accepted defeat.

reply to post by johnsky



Getting the violence down is just the first step. No one said that it would all be better overnight, or within a month. It's going to take some time if you want to do it right.

Thanks Mindless for the article, but it seems to only be inciting hatred across the political aisle.

johnsky,

I'm going to have to agree with you.

If the surge is working so well and we have declared mission success FIVE YEARS AGO, why are our troops not home?

Saddams gone, that was the original excuse for war. Now democracy is more or less working in Iraq.

What other excuses will the lovers of death come up with next? Oh I forgot, we need to protect those oil pipelines...

ARREST THE PRESIDENT!

Arrest the president, he's the criminal
No one's laughin this, I keep rappin this
He's the happiest, we're the nappiest
He's the vulture, study your culture
Broke the sculpture to insult ya
Underrated, we're all related
Assassinated, I just hate it
Mothers cryin, brothers dyin
Someone's lyin, I keep tryin
Doin it right, ready to fight
Shedin a light, steady in flight

(Tragedy)

I agree that the source is very dubious.

Of course it will take time to totally enable the people and the government of Iraq to gain a strong foothold so the troops can come home. Why would you think otherwise? Even from the very beginning, Bush said it would take years and even decades, so he was telling the truth from the beginning. Hell, we still have troops in Germany and Japan, so that should tell you how long we will have a presence.

reply to post by biggie smalls



As I said, the surge is working, but things aren't going to be fixed overnight.

Major combat operations were declared over five years ago. What's going on now is entirely different. We aren't fighting divisions/regiments of Iraqi soldiers, but an insurgency.

And protecting the oil pipelines is important. If they aren't, what else do the Iraqis have to sell to keep their country going? Sand?

Originally posted by biggie smalls
but it seems to only be inciting hatred across the political aisle.

What hatred?
The only hatred I see usually comes from the extreme anti-war crowd.

Originally posted by Mindless
I fail to see where you address the article . But i understand its easier to attack the source :/

to me this article was writen with a one sided agenda. never once in the article did the writer list one source on their info. most main stream media at least does that. though i dont trust many if any main stream media i surrly will not trust a site asking me for donations. what are these people gonna do when jan 2009 comes around? find someone else to hate i guess.

DoctorWhoFan,

I just want to clarify I am not against all war. Just the ones we are involved in now.

I do not classify myself as a pacifist either, in case you were wondering.

I agree that this issue polarizes people. Cindy Sheehan is not doing the best job keeping the anti-Iraq war group unified. She is creating a rift between people who for the most part agree on the 'issues.'

However, people like Bush and Cheney are doing their part in riling up the masses and creating a level of fear that suffocates and numbs the population.

Both sides have their problems, and I do not believe there is a simple solution to the challenges we face in our increasingly global world.



My main point is this:

We must solve our problems at home (US) before we can even begin to think about starting wars to 'help' others.

Iraq is royally screwed. Part of that is our fault.

However, by continuing our occupation of the Middle East we are causing more anger towards America (and the West in general).

Let's bring our troops home and let the people of Iraq figure out what is best for them.

We've done enough damage.

Whoever wrote that sounds like an idiot. He makes heavy use of rhetoric and ready-made talking points, but doesn't really logically explain anything at all. It's useless and really seems like an excuse to jump on the "Iraq is horrible! Down with Bush! Republicans bad!" bandwagon. He makes heavy use of the false dilemma, arguing against our involvement in Iraq but failing to realize that the dilemma is not whether going into Iraq was a good idea, but how and when to leave.

Give me a break, there are better essays on all sides of the issue that actually seek to prove a point.

If I decided to be against the war, I would still have to admit that the troop surge is indeed working. However, I would have to seriously ask why it took all this time for our infinitely funded military geniuses to figure out what to do. And gee, look at that, just in time for an election. It's awfully coincidental that all we have been talking about for years is the war in Iraq, now suddenly it is not even a campaign issue for either side.

If I supported the war I would tell you that the whole reason we went into Iraq in the first place was to gain strategic position for future military endeavors, and to secure the primary resource required to operate our war machine. Yes, we went to war for oil. Oil that we will need to fight China within a decade.