Right now we’re fighting the terrorists with the U.S. military, so the U.S. forces pulling out at this time would be a disruption for security. I am happy we’ll have a joint defense program with the Americans, an agreement between Iraq and the U.S. long-term…

Congress are you listening? Hello? Hello? Is this thing on????

WP publishes interview with Anbar Sheikh

This is a man who has seen the damage that Al Qaeda has done to his country and was fed up with it. He is one of the main reasons that Anbar has been doing so much better in recent months. He believed in it so much, that he was killed for it.

I wish Iraq has a million more of him. In fact, I wish our Congress had a few more like him.

It has been recognized, by many conservatives and Republicans, that many of these “anti-war” Democrats are actually just anti-Bush.
Explanation: LINK

For the Democrat leaders, it is not about being opposed to military interventionism. It is about unprincipled opportunism, and exploiting situations for political gain.

Rush Limbaugh had a section at his website, with quotes from Democrats, who were earlier advocating sending more troops to Iraq.
When we were at the College Republicans national convention this summer, David Horowitz gave a fiery pro-war speech, in which he pointed out these same issues, about the Democrats, and their partisan hypocrisy… He noted that regime change in Iraq, and an increase in troop levels, were orginally their ideas.

David Limbaugh writes:

…The Democrats’ response, true to form, was directed more at President Bush personally even than attacking his policies. Instead of applauding him for publicly acknowledging mistakes on Iraq, they seized on his admission as another opportunity to condemn his mistakes. Always in negative campaign mode, their urgent business of ruining President Bush must take precedence over winning the war.

The Democrats’ lack of seriousness about the war can be seen in the randomness of their musical-chairs criticisms. As soon as the president does what they have demanded, such as in sending more troops or issuing ultimatums to al-Maliki, they pretend they never advocated such things and move on to the next convenient criticism.

Neoconservative columnist Linda Chavez wrote an excellent column about this issue, in which she noted:

Democrats were early to recognize the threat of sectarian violence in Iraq and have consistently been skeptical of democracy taking hold in Iraq in an atmosphere of uncontrolled violence. For much of the war, prominent Democrats were in the forefront of arguing we needed more troops in Iraq, and the president was the one resisting, claiming that his generals assured him they had the resources they needed.

So why have the Democrats suddenly changed their tune?

It looks like they’re just playing politics. If the president is opposed to sending more troops, the Democrats are for it. When the president finally admits he’s made a mistake and more troops are needed, the Democrats reverse course.

The Editor of Blogs for Bush, Mark Noonan, writes that the Democrats in Congress belong to:

…a party which subordinates everything to winning elections. Nancy and the Gang will throw the anti-war left under the bus in a heartbeat if it looks like it will cost them seats – and they’ll have their lapdogs in the MSM to help them.

This is a good summary of why those who were initially very strongly in favor of the Iraq war (some before President Bush was), such as House International Relations Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (D-CA) and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden (D-DE), were attacking President Bush and the Republicans, over the war, around election time, and have continued to do so (even after he has implemented the very policies that they originally advocated).

Keep Up the Good Job Troops!!! – Lorica

The sad part is Lorica that the most of this nation will not see these daily results of progress. They (the MSM) will only report the losses of our own.

And the poison works slowly on those who are decieved.

Al-Qaida in Iraq takes heavy losses

BAGHDAD, Sept. 13 (UPI) — Al-Qaida militants in Iraq have taken heavy losses in two joint U.S.-Iraqi raids north of Baghdad, the U.S. military reported Thursday.

In one operation involving more than 1,000 U.S. troops and Iraq Special Forces in the Hemreen mountain area and Diyala river valley, three al-Qaida fighters were killed and 80 others were arrested, the Army statement said.

The report said four of the arrested men are considered senior leaders in the terror group, Kuwait's KUNA news agency reported. U.S. air support was used to conclude the raid, after which a major weapons cache was found, the statement said.

Elsewhere in Salah Al-Din province, U.S. forces arrested 12 al-Qaida suspects and destroyed an entire house packed with explosives and weaponry, the report said.

Well I guess the good guys got some more of the bad guys, and it looks like we have plenty of new informants to capture the rest of these guys. Keep Up the Good Job Troops!!! – Lorica

NC Cop: Europe liked US over there in Europe when first the Kaiser then Adolph then Stalin, but not with Putin. Go figure? Same in Asia with Mao. Now in the Mid East with Madman Iran. Again go figure?

Link

My favorite part?? Right here:

and also, according to diplomats from other countries, gave the distinct impression that they would privately welcome, while publicly protesting, an American bombing campaign against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

So once again, we must do the work that the world wants done. Why? Because nobody else is willing to do it. We see that our “allies” are more worried about protecting their “interests” rather than preventing a possible nuclear war in the Middle East.
Unbelievable. So when we do strike Iran, all of these countries will crawl out of the woodwork to throw the U.S. to the lions, while secretly being happy that it was done, because they know it was the right thing to do.