Someone toss em a few ears of corn to root on.

Bush made a surprise visit to Al-Anbar Province on Monday, as part of his propaganda drive to get Americans to think we should stay in Iraq because “progress” is being made.

The debate over al-Anbar province is driven by the Bushies’ desire to find any ‘good news’ to grasp at. Indeed, from 2003 forward, their criterion for objective reporting on Iraq was that it gave the ‘good news.’ When there obviously wasn’t any good news, they started ignoring Iraq, as at Fox [Republican TV] Cable News.

Now the ‘good news’ appears (I swear to God) to be that you can “walk” in Iraq. That’s the good news. The 8 billion people in the world walk every day, in most of the world’s locales. Now it is an achievement to walk. That’s good news of the highest order. Only, if you are American in Fallujah you might need a company of Marines with you so that you can . . . walk. (See below).

Is al-Anbar Province really paradise, as Bush suggested?

Al-Anbar residents killed 20 US troops in July.

http://www.juancole.com

What will John Stewart and all of the comedians do without Lil’ Bush to provide fodder for their shows?

Iraq 20 years ago was better then it was looking 20 days ago – you do not want an endless civil war over Iraq’s oil fields.

Almost 10 continuous hours of total nonsense posted by DISGVSTVS.

Talk about not having a life.

Truly Pitiful.

GO BUSH!!!!

Ah, so you are saying that it doesn’t mean Iraq is suddenly looking a wee bit less like Bush has set up a situation where the US is trapped in a lose-lose situation – either you lose by withdrawing and sparking a genocide, or you lose by staying and sparking your own economic collapse.

You know, less like a quagmire and more like something where you might actually stand a chance of winning because at last there are signs that the Iraqis are capable of standing up themselves.

My mistake, I thought you liked the chimp.

Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — September 3, 2007 @ 6:53 pm

however, he (Gates)added, “that it was the presence of the additional U.S. forces – the Marines that came in – that helped cement the gains they felt they had made but were at risk.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6894080,00.html

TP must have inadvertently left this out. ;)

Comment by upright left — September 4, 2007 @ 12:55 am

Wrong! You should have read through some of the comments!

The progtarded zombies (who refuse to have an independent thought in their head, choosing instead to subserviently parrot the BS the AP and TP feed them) are in need of severe education and disabusing. For one, ANYTHING the AP fabricates in its totally slanted opinion pieces disguised as news is not credible; this is because the AP, like TP, is rooting for a US loss and a win for terrorists. Secondly, all the progtards here who seriously believed the TP spin of “undercutting” Bush’s claim of success in Anbar SHOULD’VE READ THE LINKED ARTICLE. In it, Gates is quoted as saying “that it was the presence of the additional U.S. forces – the Marines that came in – that helped cement the gains they felt they had made but were at risk.” So, pathologically deceptive Toilet Paper hate-site is mortified again for doctoring the true conception of Gates’ meaning via their omission to mention this Gates quote! Without the US military, Iraqis in Anbar wouldn’t have had the morale to take on Al-Qaeda.

Comment by TPandprogsareeasytodisprove! — September 3, 2007 @ 7:04 pm

#19 … Nice catch. A blatantly dishonest and misleading posting by TP. They don’t expect anyone to read the actual article. Instead, they distort (and let’s face it, lie about) what the article actully says and then hope nobody notices….Nice job catching them in their dishonesty.

“We have seen the fruit of that effort become more apparent in the last few months,” Gates said. In their meeting with Bush here, the local Sunni sheiks were explicit, however, he added, “that it was the presence of the additional U.S. forces – the Marines that came in – that helped cement the gains they felt they had made but were at risk.”

Comment by Exley — September 3, 2007 @ 7:12 pm

Not at all true, TP, Gates said the exact opposite. As the plan has always been to have the Iraqis step up for themselves with the help of U.S. forces, Gates says (from the very same article that you quote):

“We have seen the fruit of that effort become more apparent in the last few months,” Gates said. In their meeting with Bush here, the local Sunni sheiks were explicit, however, he added, “that it was the presence of the additional U.S. forces – the Marines that came in – that helped cement the gains they felt they had made but were at risk.”

Nice try, TP.
.

Comment by AVGVSTVS — September 3, 2007 @ 7:22 pm

Comment by Wayne A. Schneider — September 3, 2007 @ 6:53 pm

however, he (Gates)added, “that it was the presence of the additional U.S. forces – the Marines that came in – that helped cement the gains they felt they had made but were at risk.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ worldlatest/ story/ 0,,-6894080,00.html

TP must have inadvertently left this out. ;)

Comment by upright left — September 4, 2007 @ 12:55 am

The US right now wants out. What Anbar shows is that the Iraqis can sort themselves out and that they do not need America in order for them to do it.

It means that you can start declaring victory and leaving.

This is good news. It doesn’t show that the occupation is working, it doesn’t make a case for the surge, and it doesn’t say anything one way or the other for the troops, but it is good news because…

It shows that the Iraqi’s in Anbar are starting to stand up. It means you have a potential ally, provided you give them credit where it is due, and it means that there is a chance for stability in Iraq provided America recognises it.

It is a change in the field of operations in America’s favour. Don’t stuff it up.

One among a countless stream of failures that the public is sick of… GOP incompetence knows no bounds, nor does your willingness to lie, look foolish, and have yourself constantly corrected as being an idiot. You can thank me later, BUD, for pointing out you were an ignorant liar, and knew no history.

A few middle class folks apparently forgot they were supposed to vote dem when Reagan, Bush, and Bush were elected. The reason for the current shift is that people want the war to end, not a fundamental shift to lib causes. Comment by upright left — September 4, 2007 @ 3:33 am

So you admit the shift, and call all of your fellow GOPers that claim there is no shift a LIAR? Works for me. As for WHY the shift, ah, simple minds can only find simple reasons. Sorry, BUD, but that’s one of MANY reasons.

I just told ya that, bud, try to keep up now. Comment by upright left — September 4, 2007 @ 3:33 am

Actually you contradicted yourself, I pointed it out, but you missed it, try to keep up now, downright stupid.

See above regarding elections. Comment by upright left — September 4, 2007 @ 3:33 am

See above regarding my corrections to your stupidity.

When I vote Republican, it’s because the Dems field candidates like Kerry-Heinz and all that entails. Comment by upright left — September 4, 2007 @ 3:33 am

Yeah, he’s so much worse than Cheerleader George!!! bhaaha, YOU’RE AN IDIOT!

I don’t project anything on African Americans. Comment by upright left — September 4, 2007 @ 3:33 am

But you did, I already established that.

I give them credit for taking responsibility and being moral people. Comment by upright left — September 4, 2007 @ 3:33 am

Which is why they vote Dem, unlike you, hypocrite.

I don’t expect them to continue to support a party that espouses policies that conflict with their moral values. That would be you libs, bud. ;) Comment by upright left — September 4, 2007 @ 3:33 am

You mean like caring for the poor, not using their young as cannon fodder, and working to make their communities stronger instead of only working to exploit their labor cheaply? I agree, that’s why they vote DEM, downright stupid!

Bah, Kerry and Bush both hail from Yale and the same frat.

Diageo/Hotline Poll conducted by Financial Dynamics. July 19-22, 2007. N=801 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.5.

Comment by Keith — September 4, 2007 @ 3:38 am

Because people want the war to end. ;)

Diageo/Hotline Poll conducted by Financial Dynamics. July 19-22, 2007. N=801 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.5.

“If the 2008 election for president were being held today, do you think you would vote for the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate?”

.
8/7-13/07
Democrat Republican
46% 34%

6/5-11/07
Democrat 47%
Republican 32%