By CHRIS TOMLINSON Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- The U.S. military said Thursday that suicide bombings fell in November to their lowest level in seven months after joint U.S.-Iraqi operations west of the capital.
Nevertheless, Lynch warned that al-Qaida in Iraq will likely step up attacks in the next two weeks to try to disrupt parliamentary elections Dec. 15.
GOI: It's a small victory but it's a victory, however, I think it is unfortunately an anomaly.
It other news:
Elsewhere, the U.S. command said four American service members had been killed, three of them due to hostile action and the fourth in a traffic accident west of the capital. All deaths occurred Wednesday. The latest deaths raised the U.S. fatality toll for November to at least 85.
---End of Transmission---
7 comments:
James:
Thanks for reporting the reduction in IED's for November. It is good news, and I concur that the terrorists will be on a deadly campaign to kill Iraqis to disuade them from voting. I want to know what you think after you read what Senator Lieberman wrote in the WSJ editorial. The URL is:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611
He sees other good things as well. Whataya think?
UL, not all IEDs [Improvised Explosive Devises] are suicide bombs. Other IEDs are detenated remotely.
I read Lieberman's editorial. Curious timing; it seems to have been written to maximize his support of Bush's no-new-news speech and to lob a grenade at the let's-leave-faster Democrats. BUT, I think Lieberman's points are important. Still, I think it gingerly avoids the valid points of Murtha and other Dems that we aren't getting anywhere staying in Iraq, subjecting ourselves to being targetted by these terrorists.
Bush and his crowd have wallowed in the mud; they've got the "slows" -- as Lincoln said of McClellin. I would be more comfortable with the Bush-Lieberman doctrine if people other than the Bushies -- with their record of Abu Graib and, now, buying Iraqi press coverage -- weren't in charge! All our allies are leaving; we have incredibly lost the moral high ground. Our soldiers must not be sacrificed for Bush's blithering stumble-bumbling!
But, yes, it would be nice to leave when there is a gov't in Iraq that can hold together and act courageously on behalf of all the people of the country.
--tom/zenunbound
The slows? Perhaps. But how do you judge? On whose timetable, or what set of expectations? CNN and Wolf Blitzer? NYTimes and Washington Post? Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi and Dick "Turban?" Cindy Sheehan and Moveon.org? George Clooney and Al Franken? The Genious of Insanity, Democratic Underground, or Jesus General?
I contend that when you have a willing media, a party adverse to the Bush and the war and a angst ridden Hollywood left, the three form a formidable three-pronged PR campaign. Moreover, you have a gullible public who willingly absorbs their fallacious rhetoric, some of what you see on this blogsite.
One may wonder as to the effectiveness of this campaign though. Today in the Wash. Post, poll taken of Democrats say the 43% support a Saddam led Iraq, whereas 34% do not. As opposed to 10% of Repubs support Saddam and 78% against. Therefore, less than half of those polled support a
Saddam led Iraq, which baffles the UL considerably. Makes me wonder what happened to the American mind.
UL,
By "the slows," I mean that we didn't have a clear goal and exit strategy. Getting the Iraqi army and police up to speed is excruciating. Years ago, we had the opportunity to send Iraqis to Italy or France for training, but we blew that chance.
Also, Bush doesn't lead with moral fortitude. THINK where we might be had Bush been more like Lincoln or Churchill or Woodrow Wilson. The US effort would unequivically be the moral high ground, and our allies would have rallied -- instead of us being the torturers and Iraqi press bribers that we are today.
As to your Saddam polling question: I think you know what the problem there is. People are saying that, with bumbling Bush as our leader, we should never lost all those lives and spent all that money removing Saddam and getting ourselves stuck in this Big Muddy Muddy. Don't worry, UL: Nobody likes Saddam. And George Cloony isn't dictating to the Left from his mansion in Beverly Hills.
Lead like Lincoln, Churchill or Wilson? You must have some mythic understanding here. Take Lincoln, he was excoriated by the press. He was a man alone who had to deal with riots when he sought conscriptions through a draft, his Gettysburg address was thought to be a bomb...there were those who were glad when he was assassinated! Come on man! Read and learn history, for your sake at least. The left's "Matrix" has you. Take the damn red pill stop letting the Matrix tell you what you ought to be thinking, saying, tasting...living!
You are singin' the left's song and you're doing their dance, just like a good little lefty soldier (by the way, when lefties dance they lean and move in one direction...left). Read Lieberman's piece in the WSJ. Tell me what's wrong with it.
This drumbeat you march to is the logic of envy. The left's not in power with this presidency; 9/11 opened the door for historic greatness in leadership; what has been building during the Clinton administration regarding the elimination of Saddam has come to pass; there is a chance for a democracy in the Middle East other than in Israel; a brutal dictator has been deposed and his maniac sons wacked; all this historic stuff including valor on and off the battlefield and the left is entirely and completely pissed because of envy. Yes, envy. They had a chance, if Gore would have won Florida, to have solidified the Democratic party as a party of greatness. However, Bush "stole" the election and kept the Democrats from this entitled greatness. In proportion to this huge letdown and disappointment, liberals are turning their visceral hatred toward Bush. They will NOT see the good that has happened. They only report the bad, like James does in his ansgt ridden post above. They find any picayune flaw or blip and blow it up into cataclysmic proportions. There envy knows no bounds; there criticism flows like rivers of lava spewing from volcanoes of hate.
I have made up my mind long ago that to sit back and allow such malicious behavior to go unchecked, or any ignorant imitations to be disbursed would be neglegence on my part. The inflammatory rhetoric disguised in a pseudo-intellectual format is a great example of how the prince of darkness appears as an angel of light. The actions of the left in communicating this bile is just as diabolical.
There...now you know what drives the UL.
UL, you poor ignoramus!
I am reading Team of Rivals [re Lincoln and his cabinet] as we speak! [Well, not as we speak, and not that we're speaking.]
Lincoln was wise and profound. Yes, his Gettysberg address was only famous after his death, but the Lincoln-Douglass debates, his letters to newspapers while president, his many missives and proclamations, his addresses to congress were widely read and praised. His genius, kindness, honesty and high ethical standards were well known and well regarded -- particularly by folks in Washington who met him and saw him up close.
Bush, in contrast, is a meandering dufus. Other than sycophants like Rice and Hughes or vultures like Cheney and Rumsfeld, people who meet him are repulsed.
UL, I already praised and told you what's wrong with Lieberman's piece.
UL, it may be that you cannot understand. There IS NOT a conspiracy of hatred toward Bush. There DOESN'T NEED TO BE A CONSPIRACY! Bush is repellant! Bush is goofy and uncaring and lazy and a killer of American soldiers! Basically, he is grand mal incompetent! It is THESE QUALITIES that make us liberals come unhinged.
Bush won the elections in 2000 and 2004. Relax. Take your Zoloft.
I'm glad to see that you are interested in history Tom, especially regarding Lincoln. I was with you until your comments came against Bush.
As to your observations of Bush-hating as a conspiracy, I never said it was a conspiracy. I think it's quite natural for self-absorbed, vicious, power hungry politicos and their political lapdancers (the media) to harbor hatred against GWB. It's a product of envy, I said. Your comments prove just that, thank you!
As to 2000 and 2004, that was quite satisfying. If the dems keep it up, it'll be even more satisfying in 2006 and 2008. As to my taking Zoloft, tsk, tsk, Tom you kidder! Caffeine is the drug of choice. Makes me more...lively! See ya 'round, pal!
Post a Comment