Rate of suicide bombs rises in Iraq.
By on Dec 29th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Rate of suicide bombs rises in Iraq.
Figures supplied at Gen. David Petraeus’s year-end briefing to journalists “showed a slight rise in suicide car and vest bombs since October.” Petraeus also emphasized that recent security gains in Iraq are “reversible.” “Although the security situation has improved this year, U.S. commanders have been careful not to declare victory after years in which their statements were often seen as overly optimistic,” Reuters adds.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Hannity
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Liz Cheney
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
The shit will hit the fan Jan 1st when the Iraqi realise they were tricked that the US would leave if death rates went down ........... But instead Maliki renewed the UN mandate all by himself without a demcratic process by the Iraqi parliment
in March Maliki will bring into forve the American long term presence in Iraq along with the new Oil laws
Then the shit gonna kick off BIG TIME
December 29th, 2007 at 11:11 amThe next battle will be the U.S.-Iraq treaty that will govern the long-term presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, including possible permanent bases. The United States and Iraq are supposed to conclude that accord by July, 2008. That accord will be subject to parliamentary approval, says Maliki--but who knows? He might try to impose that one, too.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:12 amYa but teh Freedom is on the march !
Freedom isnt free either
The neocons have ways of explaing all this to us dumb liberals.
They know whats best for Americans.
Besides, at only 15 billion a month, The Iraq War is dirt cheap.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:13 amMaliki the new Musharraf
December 29th, 2007 at 11:13 amMaliki the new Musharraf
Comment by Peter Pointer — December 29, 2007 @ 11:13 am
All he needs is nukes and a rug
December 29th, 2007 at 11:15 am"U.S. commanders have been careful not to declare victory after years in which their statements were often seen as overly optimistic"
That doesn't seem to have stopped several US senators, nearly every right-wing pundit, and every TP troll.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:19 amOnce again, the facts speak for themselves. We don't need any sycophantic propagandized interpretation of the facts, thanks dear General Betray-er.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:24 amDigDug: It doesn't stop the liars which is what they're all beginning to look like. Lying at all cost to defend their reprehensible decisions.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:24 amFortunately, the american people have become a much wiser group of humanity. We realize that what we're hearing is empty drivel for the most part (except for Edwards, Paul & Kucinich) which is shameful when these people are asking us to "trust them".
As the adage goes: Once burned, shame on you; twice burned, shame on me.
America has been shamed by Bush and will not be fooled again.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:26 am.....and Edwards' political capital is rising in my book every day!
December 29th, 2007 at 11:26 amOverheard at the latest "PFTNAC" meeting:
December 29th, 2007 at 11:27 amAll together now: "the surge is working" "the surge is working" "the surge is working" "the surge is working"
overlap: I'm sure Hitler and Goebels (along with Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush who provided financing) also believed that they knew what was best for the people, didn't they? That and hearing the voice of God telling them to do it, that is.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:28 am#11 The only "surge" that's working is the one erupting from the stomachs of americans right up into their throats and spewing forth like Vesuvius! Americans are nauseated by BushSpeak and vomit each time he appears in the flesh. Remember Exorcist??
December 29th, 2007 at 11:29 amMaliki the new Musharraf
Comment by Peter Pointer
Good observation.
Musharraf is turning into another Saddam Hussein...
Deja vu all over again.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:29 amProjectile Vomitus: The American Syndrome
December 29th, 2007 at 11:29 am#13 - oh I know...I was just trying to find the faux silver lining in the latest bad news, like the "treason trolls" do.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:32 amtheir statements were often seen as overly optimistic - Reuters
That's seems like an overly optimistic take on what their statements ended up being. Mission Accomplished. 1740 days ago or something like that.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:36 am13 Americans are nauseated by BushSpeak and vomit each time he appears in the flesh
I know the feeling well every time I saw Blair on TV i felt phisically sick, I still do But since leaving office I have only seen him twice
I look forward to seeing him up at the ICC when the UK leave Iraq the enquiries will begin, and Bush at the Hague
December 29th, 2007 at 11:38 amArming the Sunni Awakening councils to the teeth will prove to be the undoing of this strategic folly called OccupyIraqUntilTheirOilIsGone.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:38 amFrank, you are not real. Geee...the fake silver lining, unrelated of course.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:49 amBush's policies regarding invasion and permanent occupation of Iraq have created enough mujhadeen to blow up the entire country of Iraq several times over. Heckuva job chympident!
December 29th, 2007 at 11:57 amConyers does NOT care about Wexler’s Petition to start Cheney impeachment hearings!
Read the transcript from Democracy Now.
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2007/12/22/from-democracy-now-interview-with-conyers-he-doesnt-care-about-wexlers-petition/
He will NOT allow impeachment hearings to take place.
Conyers knows that Pelosi will undercut the efforts of impeachment rather than helping to build a bi-partisan coalition to impeach.
Conyers knows that Pelosi will again be Speaker of the House next year and she will take him off the Judiciary Committee if he goes against her wishes. It’s a “lose-lose†for him and impeachment.
Let’s help him and the rest of the members of the House of Representatives by removing an obstructionist Speaker. It can be done and must be done to start the impeachment process.
http://www.petitiononline.com/everyman/petition.html
December 29th, 2007 at 12:04 pmAnd at the same time we’re releasing Gitmo prisoners… a coincidence?
Comment by Frank M — December 29, 2007 @ 11:44 am
Wouldn't that just be another example of Bushco incompetence and treason? Of course it would. Enlist, Frank, so you can be suicided.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:14 pmDavid Hicks has been increasing the bombing since October? The Australian guy just released today....in Australia?
December 29th, 2007 at 12:22 pmIDIOT.
And David Hicks served out his sentence, by the way. We didn't release him early, or under pressure. IDIOT.
December 29th, 2007 at 12:23 pmYet, a top military commander recently said that, thanks to Bush's surge, 75% of al Qaida in Iraq (not to be confused with the real al Qaida) has been "crushed". More like "dispersed", as in "to the four winds".
December 29th, 2007 at 12:24 pmAnd David Hicks served out his sentence, by the way. We didn’t release him early, or under pressure. IDIOT.
Um, Hicks served nine months of a seven year sentence, and part of his early release agreement was to keep his mouth shut for a year...
December 29th, 2007 at 12:41 pmThey can't declare victory - if they did, they'd have to send the troops home, leaving the bases, and the oil fields in the hands of Iraqis.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:13 pmWe and the rest of the world know this was a power/land/oil grab perpetrated by the US, under the cover of lies, fabrications and subterfuge. It's only the rightwing nuts who can't see the truth.
we’re releasing dangerous terrorists because of your constant whinging over the rights of the Gitmo prisoners and demands for shutting it down
Comment by Frank M
The only time the Bush administration releases anyone from Gitmo is when they've determined that they don't have enough evidence to try them for anything.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:23 pmwe’re releasing dangerous terrorists because of your constant whinging over the rights of the Gitmo prisoners and demands for shutting it down
Comment by Frank M
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16227791/
"The Bush administration wants to be able to say that these are dangerous terrorists who are going to be confined upon their release ... although there is no evidence against many of them," he said."
Also from the same article:
Detainees are held at Guantanamo Bay because a military panel classifies them as an "enemy combatant," which refers not only to armed fighters but to anyone who aids enemy forces. Every year, each gets a hearing to determine whether he remains a security threat to the United States or has intelligence value.
Hmm... no mention of pressure from liberals yet...
Using those hearings as guidance, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England decides whether to keep the detainee at Guantanamo, release him, or send him to another country for detention.
This year, through Nov. 20, he had ruled on 149 prisoners. He decided that 106 should be held, 43 should be transferred to custody of other countries and none should be released outright.
Azmy, the New Jersey lawyer, said the distinction between release and transfer is largely a fiction because recipient countries are under no obligation to imprison the returnees. The United States doesn't even ask them to.
Doesn't even ask them to... interesting.
And still no mention of pressure from the "far-left".
The fact of the matter Frank is that it's all happenning according to due process. A process that your beloved leader oversees and approves of.
So, now, tell me how any of this is our fault?
And try to provide some evidence this time.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:40 pmEnlist, Frank, so you can be suicided.
Comment by Lefty Patriot
Francine can't enlist. As he said, it's not in his own best interest to put himself in a place where he may get hurt. He's fine with sending everyone else's sons and daughters into that slaughter house, just not him. He's back to Francine. He lost his balls again by proving that he is a total chickensh|t.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:50 pmUm, Hicks served nine months of a seven year sentence, and part of his early release agreement was to keep his mouth shut for a year…
Comment by RUCerious
The only reason why Bush let Hicks go is because he is trying to kiss up to the new Australian PM. With Howard gone, he has lost his poodle and he is trying to make the new PM into his newest poodle. I doubt it will work, though.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:52 pmAnd try to provide some evidence this time.
Comment by DigDug
Haaaa haaaaaaaa! You are asking Francine to provide evidence. Good luck on that one.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:54 pm#24: Yeah when everything fails, blame Bush.
Comment by Frank M
You know Francine, progressives are different than right wingers in that they will blame Bush for things that he is responsible for. Whereas the right wingers blame everyone but Bush for things that Bush and Company have done. The progressives believe in accountability. The right wingers believe in giving a "get out of jail free" card to any of their ilk who is caught doing something wrong.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:56 pmoops, you are right RUC...I confused serving 5 years in Gitmo without a trial as part of his sentence...I was wrong. But he didn't blow up anything in Iraq in October.
December 29th, 2007 at 2:03 pmSorry to be off topic but I just saw a video clip of Benazir Bhutto interviewed by David Frost about 7 weeks ago, in it she nearly offhandedly mentions those who would want her killed - members of the ISI, and the "man who murdered Osama bin Laden."
As Mike Molloy pointed out, CNN and MSNBC producers would scour the files for anything related to her in order to fill their air time, but no one pulled this recent video interview.
December 29th, 2007 at 2:16 pmBy watching this, I guess the chances are 1:100000 Musharraf has been the mastermind of the attack vs Bhutto
December 29th, 2007 at 2:55 pmBy watching this, I guess the chances are 1:100000 Musharraf has been the mastermind of the attack vs Bhutto
Comment by ccokz
How so?
December 29th, 2007 at 3:02 pmDon't forget about the objectively pro-fascist trolls. They haven't given in either.
December 29th, 2007 at 3:43 pmYeah when everything fails, blame Bush…
Comment by Frank M — December 29, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
If it weren't for that foolhardy, swaggering cowboy, we wouldn't be where we are today -- so who should be blamed?
December 29th, 2007 at 4:40 pmOF COURSE, Bush is ultimately responsible -- this is his quagmire, and we're all in it with him, the stubborn, stupid jackass.
Comment by Marie
December 29th, 2007 at 4:42 pmhere is that video:
Benazir Bhutto: Bin Laden Murdered
What victory in Iraq? Over what? This is so pathetic.
December 29th, 2007 at 4:44 pmComment by Gatsby
December 29th, 2007 at 4:51 pmA form of eugenics may be the victory plan from the powers that be = multi national corporations.
#44 had enough
Our own government cannot be trusted, and the dearth of investigative journalists who cannot even dig out the relative interview films leave this kind of information hanging out on the web where it will probably just fade away.
December 29th, 2007 at 5:08 pmWhy has no one in the msm even mentioned this comment?
Weren't CNN and MSNBC looking to fill their 24/7 broadcasts with Bhutto tapes?
If you have never read this then please read it
911 and pakistan
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essaysaeed
December 29th, 2007 at 5:17 pmComment by Manslagt — December 29, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
Pro AQ? You mean like our "Glorious Leader" who attacked an innocent third party when there was still a chance of wiping AQ out? You mean like our "great friend" Musharraf who hasn't been able/willing to contest their resurgence in a country he rules? You mean like our other "great friend", Saudi Arabia (Home of most of the 9/11 criminals), who are unable/unwilling to cut the flood of arms, money, and fighters to AQ and countless other terrorist organizations?
Perhaps I've missed something, but, are not "liberal" blogs the only media voices who call out the enablers of AQ? Is ANYONE, allied with the Right, currently criticizing Bushco for abandoning the fight against AQ?
If there is a pro AQ vein, at TP, I fail to see it. On the contrary, most of us call loudly, and often, for a reallocation of resources away from Iraq. Fighting AQ, and other terrorist organizations, is impossible while our military is being pinned down by a handful of fanatics in Iraq.
December 29th, 2007 at 6:34 pm