Dems pay scant attention to successes in Iraq

[Psycho4Bud]

Iraq isn't the big story this month. Gas prices are.

In May, the Associated Press reported, U.S. military deaths plunged to the lowest monthly level in four years and civilian casualties were down sharply, too. Gasoline also hit $4 per gallon. And you don't see as many "No war for oil" bumper stickers as you used to.

The success of the Bush surge - with Iraqi forces having led offensives in three major cities and taking on Shiite militias - has been greeted in America with a collective shrug. "My perhaps overly cynical view is that it's probably too much to hope for - a lot of good-news stories coming out of Iraq," U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker said during a recent conference call. But also, with the al-Maliki government clearing once dangerous areas and violence dropping, "Iraq no longer occupies the status as the overarching, all-encompassing crisis that requires full national attention."

Reporters based in Iraq have seen improvements. NBC News' Richard Engel told the New York Observer about a recent trip to Najaf, "I was walking around the city doing interviews, without any kind of security or backup at all. That felt great. I hadn't done that in years. A Chinese restaurant, takeout, just opened up down the street from our bureau. There were no businesses opening in '06 and '07. People are getting out more. You see more people on the streets going to markets. When I go to do interviews, I can stay longer."

And yet, there is a "marked drop-off in the appetite for stories from Iraq," ABC news' Terry McCarthy told the Observer. "That's partly due to the election, partly because of the fatigue, and partly because things have started to go right here. The spectacular car bombs, the massive attacks, you just don't see them anymore. A drip, drip story that's getting a little better day by day doesn't make a headline."

CNN's Michael Ware calls it "audience fatigue." Other journalists, who have risked their lives covering the war, complain that Americans aren't paying attention to their stories on Iraq.

If reporters think their work is unappreciated, imagine how U.S. troops in Iraq feel. They're working miracles - to insufficient applause.

Four years ago, before the U.S. troop death toll hit 1,000 in Sept. 2004, the war was the moral issue.

When liberal Democrats were trying to take over Congress in 2006, they used the war to clobber President Bush and told America that if they were in power, the war would end. Well, they took control of Congress, and the war continues. So now there are fewer political points to be won banging the war.

As of Thursday, 4,098 U.S. troops had died in the Iraq war. Yet Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's No. 1 issue is the U.S. economy. When the senator talks about the war, he often does so in terms of the $12 billion spent each month in Iraq. Clearly, Team Obama figures it's not the toll of American blood, but the price tag, that enrages voters in this short-attention-span nation.

It seems the better the war goes, the less interest some partisans show in Iraq. Their attention wanders if they can't play the blame game and chant, "Bush lied." Ah, and this time, the critics were wrong when they argued that the surge could not work. Obama was wrong, and, face it, opposing the surge was the politically easy thing to do.

Conversely, John McCain supported the surge - and he did so in opposition to well-wishers and pundits who argued that his support for the war would doom his campaign.

So Team Obama is reduced to nitpicking at McCain. When McCain told NBC's "Today" show that it's "not too important" when U.S. troops are brought home - "We will be able to withdraw, but the key to it is that we don't want any more Americans in harm's way" - Obama surrogates pounced.
Dems pay scant attention to successes in Iraq

Yeah, the Dems were hoping for a loss that didn't come.

In the media, Obama repeatedly predicted that the surge would fail. The day the president announced the new policy, Obama told Larry King he "did not see anything" in the president's surge that would "make a significant dent in the sectarian violence." The same day, he said on MSNBC,


I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. So I am going to actively oppose the president's proposal.... I think he is wrong, and I think the American people believe he's wrong.

Four days later, Obama told Face the Nation, "We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality--we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground."
Voting for Commander in Chief

LMAO! I guess Obama didn't know what the hell he was talking about.....great candidate for President; Commander in Chief.

Have a good one!:s4:

Psycho4Bud Reviewed by Psycho4Bud on 06-15-2008. Dems pay scant attention to successes in Iraq Iraq isn't the big story this month. Gas prices are. In May, the Associated Press reported, U.S. military deaths plunged to the lowest monthly level in four years and civilian casualties were down sharply, too. Gasoline also hit $4 per gallon. And you don't see as many "No war for oil" bumper stickers as you used to. The success of the Bush surge - with Iraqi forces having led offensives in three major cities and taking on Shiite militias - has been greeted in America with a collective Rating: 5

[Mmmgold]

I wonder how much of this improvement is to help the Repugnits out? Seems to me that they would try/say anything to keep the White House 4 more years. Very convenient, gee, I wonder if BL will be caught just before the election....any bets? lmao

[Dutch Pimp]

Yeah, the Dems were hoping for a loss that didn't come.

...well...400-1000 Taliban skipped out the back door yesterday...:stoned:

[Mississippi Steve]

I wonder how much of this improvement is to help the Repugnits out? Seems to me that they would try/say anything to keep the White House 4 more years. Very convenient, gee, I wonder if BL will be caught just before the election....any bets? lmao

Actually, I think I would be more concerned about the dems in congres shooting down Bush on making food, water and ice available to disaster areas...specifically the gulf coast after a major natural disaster like another Katrina, and they also shot down opening up some of the tens of thousands of capped off oil wells in the gulf oil patch to help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and bring the price of fuel down.

I guess none of the dems that voted against this stuff actually *live* down here, otherwise as Katrina survivers, they would have a different view. FWIW, Yes, I took the direct hit from Katrina, and clocked 110mph winds at my home, 80 miles north of the coast.

[painretreat]

I don't think any party hoped for a loss! That's like saying you expect all our soldiers to die over there. I've had family there, etc! I had hoped, at the very least, it would be over quick, but saw Viet Nam written all over it! I look at it in terms of loss of life and that is frankly why I started watching George Steph. show, to get a handle of the loss. He posts it and the names of soldiers in the show (I know some others do it also). If they posted how much money on a weekly, monthly basis, it would be more of a focus. You'd think the loss of life in Katrina, due to the diverting of funds from levies to war would have shed a lot more light on it, as that is a cost that would not have been, had the levies been fixed as they were scheduled!

B.O. doesn't get it, if he is focused on economy only-even if that is what American's are focused on. Housing and Transportation! I don't think war is not a money issue to the public anymore, after a few billion, what's a few more. We are pissed over oil! It is there and we aren't getting a break! At least some are! Once we get use to seeing the money floating out the window, you get apathetic about it!

Looking at George Steph. I just noticed that someone I went to High School with lost a relative in Iraq this week! The other thing I notice, the loss's are getting older in age, meaning our armed services are really stretched thin and fewer recruits. If McCain gets in, I expect a draft! Look-out Canada, here we come again!

I do feel Obama is not looking at a big enough picture, due to his youth and inexperience-not sure! I know younger people with a better understanding of the situation; in Iraq and our economy!

Somehow, the world will sit on it Axs's and keep on spinning!

Frankly, I want out of war due to the loss of life and I see it as a civil war over religion over there! That is my opinion. However, we stirred up the pot, just as in Viet Nam and how much harm did it do there to turn and run?

Like the article states, the Republicans run Congress and had a lot to do with how we got there. Not just one congressman or Senator's vote!

Miss. Steve was not posted yet when I put my post in and now that I read it, I see: At least someone is looking at Katrina and the relationship it has with Iraq! I live in CA, and what happened there is equally as bad as 911 and worse in that it would not have happened if we never went to Iraq. The loss and con't loss there is a toll of Iraq!

[delusionsofNORMALity]

in a war of ideological imperialism, chinese take-out just ain't news. though the american people are viscerally aware that we are morally obligated to play the hand out to some conclusion, our personal needs as a nation will always take precedence. the false hope of a better tomorrow and the opportunity of something for nothing are more real to us than the sufferings of an ill-conceived war.

of course, it's all just for show. our status as a nation is less important than the status of those who claim to represent us. our rights and freedoms are illusory gumdrops, grudgingly handed out in lieu of any real control over our own destinies. spoon-fed what we are told is important to us, we will elect the same tired bureaucrats for the same tired reasons and reap the same tired status quo - just as we have done a thousand times before.

[BigWeed]

Me I want the war over I dont care about Iraq. I want the money being spent over there to be used here at home. I dont care if Iran goes in there and takes over because the politicians over there cant get there act together. People here at home are hurting and just think of the people that went through Katrina like Miss.Steve and whats going to happen to the people up in Iowa going through the same thing. Iraq is the least of my concerns I dont care if you think buy bringing our troops home is losing. Bring them home and bring that money home and put it to some good use.:rasta::rastasmoke:imp:

[delusionsofNORMALity]

Me I want the war over I don't care about Iraq....

me, i, i, i - the total lack of empathy and personal responsibility amazes me. while pleading the case for our obligations at home, we deny our duty to those we have already affected by our nation's actions and ignore the part we have played in the mess this world has become. the blame lies with each and every one of us and denying our part in it all merely demonstrates our self-centered attitudes and arrogant disregard for our own culpability.

[painretreat]

Whew, I sure wouldn't want u to tell me off, don't think I'd understand it! You make extremely valid points that I constantly ponder: My need for self or the 'big picture' in the scheme of things. Is I an ant, a bear or an ostrich (that is the one that sticks its' head in the sand? I confuse my big birds). Does my opinion or my vote count as much as I like to think it does!

America's place in the world and how we are viewed are pretty evident by some of the postings by international members. I'd say we ain't so popular, but then we knew that with Iraq. Esp when they started calling a stupid potato a freedom fry!

[delusionsofNORMALity]

America's place in the world and how we are viewed are pretty evident by some of the postings by international members. I'd say we ain't so popular....

we've never been popular, so don't worry your little head about it. we've been respected, we've been feared, we've been abused and we've been used; but we've never been liked. no one likes the big dog, they just get out of its way and avail themselves of its protection and occasional benevolence. to believe that the other nations of the world would be any less belligerent if they were in our position is underestimating the avarice of those in power. we hear the voices of a few and consider that to be the voice of the people, but those voices are led just as we are. corruption is not limited to our shores, we merely cry more vehemently against it and our voices are heard around the world. if we weren't so trapped by petty partisan squabbling, we might actually be able to at least recognize the enemies instead of constantly reelecting them.